|
|
Post by jpi69 on Jun 2, 2024 16:47:11 GMT
Hi,
As I understand, on a tie between 3Bw firing at 3Bw that shots back, both recoil, right ?
Cheers,
JP
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 2, 2024 16:54:36 GMT
Hi, As I understand, on a tie between 3Bw firing at 3Bw that shots back, both recoil, right ? Cheers, JP Nope, it’s no effect on ties - one of them needs to be Solid to lead to a recoil effect on the Fast element P |
|
|
|
Post by jpi69 on Jun 2, 2024 17:09:00 GMT
OK, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpi69 on Jun 2, 2024 19:27:11 GMT
In fact, I wonder why the sentence:
"Fast" foot Recoiled by "Solid" foot in close combat with it or shooting at it, otherwise no effect.
has not been simplified by this one:
"Fast" foot Recoiled by "Solid" foot, otherwise no effect.
🧐
Cheers,
JP
|
|
|
|
Post by pteros on Jun 3, 2024 1:03:50 GMT
In fact, I wonder why the sentence: "Fast" foot Recoiled by "Solid" foot in close combat with it or shooting at it, otherwise no effect. has not been simplified by this one: "Fast" foot Recoiled by "Solid" foot, otherwise no effect. 🧐 Cheers, JP Because 3Bw aren’t recoiled by, say, 4Sp on a tie, because the 4Sp aren’t shooting at them, whereas your wording implies they would be. |
|
|
|
Post by jpi69 on Jun 4, 2024 20:09:26 GMT
Thanks for the reply, however the sentence "An element shooting without being shot at disregards an unfavorable outcome" prevents the recoil of shooting 3Bw on a tie against Sp, even with my wording.
Thus, I wonder why Phil Barker used a "complex" wording... I have probably missed something...
Cheers,
JP
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Jun 4, 2024 23:06:05 GMT
Thanks for the reply, however the sentence "An element shooting without being shot at disregards an unfavorable outcome" prevents the recoil of shooting 3Bw on a tie against Sp, even with my wording. Thus, I wonder why Phil Barker used a "complex" wording... I have probably missed something... Cheers, JP To stop other people asking if the result also applies to shooting (distant combat) or just close combat. It also means the answer is all in one place, instead of two - your initial suggestion would have to be read in conjunction with the sentence above. I would also point out that the entire rule book uses pretty complex wording so its not out of place.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 8, 2024 6:04:10 GMT
Thanks for the reply, however the sentence "An element shooting without being shot at disregards an unfavorable outcome" prevents the recoil of shooting 3Bw on a tie against Sp, even with my wording. Thus, I wonder why Phil Barker used a "complex" wording... I have probably missed something... Cheers, JP It is the whole joy of the book. Like the Rosetta stone one day someone will be able to fully translate it. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 8, 2024 7:37:32 GMT
Thanks for the reply, however the sentence "An element shooting without being shot at disregards an unfavorable outcome" prevents the recoil of shooting 3Bw on a tie against Sp, even with my wording. Thus, I wonder why Phil Barker used a "complex" wording... I have probably missed something... Cheers, JP > Like the Rosetta stone one day someone will be able to fully translate it. ….but not in my lifetime……🙃 |
|
