This is the part Dptdexys is talking about. Assaults are handled in a abstracted/simplified way. One shouldn't think of the units as having static positions in an assualt even if the miniatures are static. This way there is no need to keep score of who was in range of who/what. It makes it easier/faster. Basically you're either in or out (within 15 cm and Line of fire of an enemy or not).

Thanks Borka

Hmmm,i know the Rules for Assaults and the dseign notes and i understand them...

hmmm...maybe some pictures help...

Ok...

the Forces of Destruction dares to assault the Emperors bravest Canonfodder.


after a lot of normal hits (praise the Emperor) against the Minions of Chaos, the situatiion looks like this


Commissar Mc'Kills Powerfist of Veangence had hit too.... Can i know allocate the hit into the Face of Mr. Evil Lord of Doom?

If No..ok...in this case i dont know why we posted so much...it was just my bad english and i have to

If yes...next round:




yes and no..

Yes, i thought it is only for assaults. But thats not the point. The point is, that it counts for assaults too...not only shooting.
And when it count for assaults too, there must be a special restriction for the allication of MW-Weapons. Because there is a rule which say (for shooting AND Assaults)..
...

Yes in your example Mr. Evil Lord of Doom will get the Powerfist in his face.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Oh... BlackLegion...maybe we can talk about it in our small german Forum?

http://epic-wargaming.de/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=1253#p1253

Yes, it can be hit by the CC MW attack.


As others have said the mechanics for assaults in epic are abstracted. In an assault 'in a position to be hit' is not in relation to the particular stand with the MW but is worked out on the level of the formation as a whole.

The only restriction to hit allocation is range - each unit must be within 15 cms of an opposing unit.
So, for CC MW to apply, the unit must be in B-B with a target unit. However the MW hit may be allocated to the nearest enemy unit that survives the normal round of combat.

For example consider 2x Terminators engage the end of a scout line (TM=termie, s=scout)

TM
. s1 . . s2 . . s3 . . s4
TM

Here, the Termies get 2x normal CC attacks and 2x MW CC attacks. Assuming that all attacks score hits, the normal hits are allocated to s1 and s2, and if these scouts die, the MW hits are allocated to s3 and s4 (assuming that s4 is within 15cm of one of the termies)

Ginger:

Correct, that are the rules für allocation in assaults.

thats not a spezial rule for MW in assaults.. if i have 4 normal hits or 4 MW hits...ist doesnt't matter for allocation (jes, i know first normal hits, after them MW-hits.

and thats for me the ponit.

Why is in the Rules for Macro Weapons written, when the allocation rules for MW-Weapons in assault are the same as the for normal Weapons.

Presumably it's just repetition, as the position is effectively 'in BtB with anything from the formation'.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Ah well, silly brain.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Maybe....

I know the the old gamers see it, but if a beginner will read this passage



i think he will not shout "Yes, this imply that i can allocate all units which are direct involved in assault, because its written in the spezial rule that (in assaults) Hits from macro-weapons can only be applied to units that are in a position to be hit by a macro- weapon, yeah...

I asked some friends and my wife (no, they never played Epic)...i explained them first the normal allocation Rules. After that i told them the passage and all said, that they would allocate the MW-hit in Range of the macro weapon...not the "direct involved", because iit is not written "directly involved" in the spezial Rule for macro weapons.

Instead is this written:


In my eyes this passage is very confusing and should be removed, respectively shifted to

Ok. I think you are asking about something that was debated at length a long time ago. The way the rules were originally written, you should allocate the MW hits *at the same time* as the normal hits. The problem being that this often results in the MW hits being 'lost' because the normal hit has already killed off the target unit.

There are a number of examples like this where the Epic community have debated the original rules with the designers and agreed to change them - in this case using a 2nd round of hit allocation and resolution for MW hits. These changes are in the online rules published in 2008, and in the "Tournament Pack".

However, at that time the Epic community were anxious to make the minimum changes necessary to the rules to ensure that they were approved and adopted by GW. So the second change that you refer to may well have been overlooked by mistake, or even deliberately ignored.

Now that GW is no longer supporting E:A, we might just possibly consider such revisions, though even now GW has the IP and copyrights to the words and as such is highly unlikely.

Thanks for your Anwser..

Thats i wanted to know.