Shooting at pursuers #pursuit

[flankyou]

I'm just double checking here - if pursuers come in to "incidental contact" with a unit that can shoot, do any shooting stands get to shoot at the pursuers?

[Lex]

in cases like this, refer to RAW

- shooters are allowed to S&S as an option when charged
- is incidental contact deemed to be a charge?



 

[flankyou]

True - I guess what I'm really asking is did I miss something about shooting pursuers that may have been in a different section or something.

For example, our whole group had been playing that hits carried over from previous rounds counted toward the next combat rounds' resolution - until I read the blurb that says they don't on one of the summary pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it only exists there.. I've read the rules back and forth a few times and I'm still learning new things..

[Lex]

.. I've read the rules back and forth a few times and I'm still learning new things..

... we all do (even me, after almost 20 years.....)

the layout of rules, semi-rules, exceptions, examples and fluff is NOT the most transparant........

[honestmistake]

the layout of rules, semi-rules, exceptions, examples and fluff is NOT the most transparant........
[/quote]

Probably the single most accurate thing ever posted on these boards Not actually played with the revolutions updates yet but I am hoping they are a bit clearer.

[Lex]

We tried to revamp that layout (around 2005), never got around to finalizing that. Figured we needed 5 or 6 typefaces to denote the different bits

[Aldhick]

JJ, you are right that this situation is not addressed in the rules in particular. Follow what Lex said. Good point for eventual Q&A, though.

[Grimnir]

How exactly did you play it with counting the hits carried over from the previous round of combat?
Was it like this?
round 1: score 5 hits (against 3hit unit) - remove 1 stands, 2 wounds remain. 5 to combat resolution.
round 2: score 2 hits (against the same unit) - remove 1 stand, 1 wound remains, 4 to combat resolution.
Doing it like that, wouldn't you count the 2 hits (which got carried over from the first round) twice?

[Lex]

How exactly did you play it with counting the hits carried over from the previous round of combat?
Was it like this?
round 1: score 5 hits (against 3hit unit) - remove 1 stands, 2 wounds remain. 5 to combat resolution.
round 2: score 2 hits (against the same unit) - remove 1 stand, 1 wound remains, 4 to combat resolution.
Doing it like that, wouldn't you count the 2 hits (which got carried over from the first round) twice?

Wounds-totaled for casualty removal
Wounds-caused for combat resolution

[Grimnir]

How exactly did you play it with counting the hits carried over from the previous round of combat?
Was it like this?
round 1: score 5 hits (against 3hit unit) - remove 1 stands, 2 wounds remain. 5 to combat resolution.
round 2: score 2 hits (against the same unit) - remove 1 stand, 1 wound remains, 4 to combat resolution.
Doing it like that, wouldn't you count the 2 hits (which got carried over from the first round) twice?

Wounds-totaled for casualty removal
Wounds-caused for combat resolution

I am not sure I understand what you mean. I asked a yes/no question. Obviously, what you mentioned are two different things.

[Lex]

Not a native english speaker, but IMO that deserved a good generic answer..... as this expands eg. in hits carried over from S&S too.....

so,
round 1:
assumption correct! CR = 5 (totaling ALL the hits caused in this round)

round 2:
wounds-totaled = 4 (2-prec + 2 actual) --> lose a stand, carry 1
wounds-caused = 2 --> CR = 2

[Grimnir]

Not a native english speaker, but IMO that deserved a good generic answer..... as this expands eg. in hits carried over from S&S too.....

so,
round 1:
assumption correct! CR = 5 (totaling ALL the hits caused in this round)

round 2:
wounds-totaled = 4 (2-prec + 2 actual) --> lose a stand, carry 1
wounds-caused = 2 --> CR = 2

Yes, this is how it should be.
I got confused because I was asking how the group around "flankyou" played it differently (which you were not answering.)