Freefolk COMBINED ASSAULT Order
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Freefolk COMBINED ASSAULT Order

  1. #1

    Default Freefolk COMBINED ASSAULT Order

    ORDER: COMBINED ASSAULT

    I have a unit of Raiders with a Raid Leader attachment next to a unit of Spearwives, both facing a unit of Stark swordsmen. The Raiders are in their front arc and the Spearwives are on their flank. I activate the Raiders and use the Combined Assault Order for the Raid Leader to activate the Spearwives. I charge with the Raiders (successfully) in the front and charge the flank with the Spearwives (successfully).

    Here’s my question: Are both charges executed BEFORE combat takes place? In other words, when the Raiders attack, do they get the bonus for Gang-Up (+1 to Hit) because the Spearwives are already engaged, and does the Stark unit defend at a -1 (because they are flanked) when rolling defense?

    In other words, does this “double activation” happen immediately (as it says on the card)? The only other option is that the Raiders charge in and attack and THEN the Spearwives charge in and attack, but this seems to kill the only real benefit of the Freefolk army, e.g. that they get to coordinate their attacks.

    It would seem to me that the charge action is separate from the attack action, so all charges for an activation would be resolved before any attacks, but I may be wrong.

    A similar question applies to the COUNTER CHARGE Tactics card. Does that charge occur BEFORE attacks are resolved or after.

  2. #2

    Default

    Each activation resolves separately. Unless there is specific language on a card that states it interrupts an action (e.g., Lannister Halbediers Set for Charge), you will activate the Raiders, make your charge, and then activate the Spearwives.

    You're still driving the benefit of two activations before your opponent can react, so can still do significant damage.
    "I did warn you not to trust me." -Littlefinger

  3. #3

    Default

    About that order, a question came up in the Free Folk forums about the Raid Leader:

    1. Unit A activates, and use the order "Combined Assault", targeting unit B.

    2. Unit A attempts to charge enemy unit X. The attempt fails.

    3. Unit B then activates as per the order. It obviously cannot attack any other unit than X, but since unit A did not "attack" at all due to a failed charge, the text prevents unit B from attacking unit X also.

    I wonder if this was the intention behind the wording. Perhaps the word "targeted" should have been used instead of "attacked"?

    The reason i wonder about this is that there's a huge risk implied in the order, and it is really not obvious. The written "drawback" you pay for it is that you'll have to attack the same unit, and the attachment cost...but there's this hidden occurrence which can cost you really dearly (in addition to the price of failing the first charge). Curiously, the order cannot backfire with a ranged attack by unit A...so it'd be safer to use that order with Spearwives an Trappers.

    While i do not wish to dig too deep here, does the rule does prevent unit B from taking the "Charge" action targeting unit X? (the attack part of it is at the end of the sequence for the action).
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 06-25-2019 at 04:12 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    There is nothing in the effect that would create an exception to the wording. If you do not attack the targeted unit, for whatever reason, you can't attack them with the second unit.

  5. #5

    Default

    I agree entirely, the current wording is clear even though its implications can be rather extreme when the initial unit fails a charge (enough to make me wonder...)

    "Target 1 friendly unactivated unit within Long Range. It immediately activates after this unit. Any attacks it makes can only target enemies this unit attacked this turn"

    So this is very clear for the Attack action, it can't be done.

    But the charge action is not "just" an attack. Nothing in the wording prevents "targeting" the unit in question either so it could still be a valid target for the charge action...

    A valid target for a charge is:

    - Within Line of Sight
    - Must have space for the tray to fit
    - Within maximum distance of the charge. (One could claim that the bolded line in this section is relevant here but i believe it was written only to prevent charge from being called outside of reach)

    Then you proceed with the steps...until "resolve attack" is canceled due to the order rule?

    What i dislike about the current wording is that the Free Folk player might discover this liability during the course of the game by chance...often too late. What if the rule had been "Any action it makes can only target enemies this unit targeted with an action this turn"? The results would have been exactly the same as the current wording with the exception of the charge situation above, no hidden traps.

    If the trap was intended, then i'd have preferred "Any action it makes can only target enemies this unit attacked this turn"

    Anyways, just food for thought.
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 06-25-2019 at 11:23 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    As stated above, nothing circumvents the stipulations listed on the card: If you did not attack a unit then the second unit has nothing it can target.
    Designer and Senior Developer
    A Song of Ice and Fire, Dark Age, Rum & Bones, World of SMOG: Rise of Moloch, Wrath of Kings, Xenoshyft

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->