Assault Move et Foxhole [réglé]

[Robin Reeve]

Si plein de gens avaient des problèmes, ils auraient fait remonter leurs remarques.
Je recommande de visiter Gamesquad et Discord pour voir ce qui a été débattu.
Sur la modification du mouvement en lien avec les entrenchments, il y a eu des interrogations après sa publication.
Mais ça s'est bien calmé.

[Phil D]

Réponse rapide de Perry à ma double question - pas de surprise concernant les réponses.

Hi,

The newish (Journal 16) rule on combining MF expenditure when exiting/entering a Foxhole using Assault Movement seems to have a strange side effect. Quoting (from electronic rulebook v3.15) B27.4:

"Note, however, that the cost to enter/exit a foxhole/pillbox during the RtPh or when using Assault Movement to enter/exit a foxhole may be combined with the entrance cost of the next hex—
thereby escaping Interdiction in the foxhole/pillbox Location (27.41) and Defensive First Fire attacks [EXC: Snap-Shot/Residual-FP/OBA (if pinned/broken by such the unit remains in the foxhole hex above the foxhole); FFMO can apply normally] in the foxhole Location above the foxhole."

1/ Does the "enter/exit" mean that a Squad could, using Assault Movement, exit a Foxhole, enter a new hex (with normal cost 1MF), and enter a Foxhole there, for a combined cost of 3MF? (I assume yes)

Yes.

2/ The "thereby escaping... DFF attacks... in the foxhole Location above the foxhole" phrasing seems a bit ambiguous, in the case where the _entry_ cost is combined with movement from another hex. Is the intended meaning that DFF is only avoided while out of the foxhole, but it remains possible once inside?

Yes. We issued errata in J17 to clarify this.

[IronMax2022]

Ok merci pour le retour