Hi to everybody on this forum! Good that it’s here, with so much information. :-)
I have a bit of an obvious question, but I thought I’d just check to be sure.
Suppose in combat, the attacker has one destroyer and one fighter, and the defender has one cruiser and one sub. The fighter hits, the destroyer misses, and for the defense, both the cruiser and the sub hit.
Question: can the attacker now claim that the cruiser hit the destroyer and therefore, the fighter is safe because the sub can’t hit it?
I basically think the attacker can not make such a claim, but just to make sure, I thought I’d ask.
Welcome, KaLeu!
You must assign as many hits as are possible, so both of the attacking units are hit.
Thank you! For the welcome and for the answer.
wouldn’t it you do one at a time, so there would be no confusion on which goes to which?
I’m not sure that I understand the question, Cuyahoga.
That was actually behind my question, because it was what we used to do, and it causes precisely this problem.
What could happen in my example, would be:
1. Attacking fighter hits
2. Defender moves sub behind casualty line (it can be hit by the fighter because the destoyer is there)
3. Attacking destroyer misses
4. Defending cruiser hits
5. Attacker chooses casualty, and removes the sub
6. Defending sub hits, but……
7. Attacker says: your sub can’t hit my fighter
8. Defender says: no, my cruiser hit your fighter and my sub hit your destroyer
9. Attacker: :evil: Defender: :x Others: :-o :| :roll:
Your problem is that your sequence of events is incorrect. It should be:
1. Attacking fighter hits
2. Attacking destroyer misses
3. Defender moves sub behind casualty line (it can be hit by the fighter because the destoyer is there)
4. Defending cruiser hits
5. Defending sub hits
6. Attacker chooses casualties, and removes both units
7. Attacker: :-( Defender: :-) Others: 8-)
Casualties are not chosen until all dice in the step are rolled.
You are right, of course. It is a thing we used to do because it made counting hits easier, but it’s not correct. Thanks again.
