October 18, 2019, 02:25:51 PM

Author Topic: 2010 FAQ + Resilient Ordnance  (Read 1224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xca|iber

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • *Transcribing Intensifies*
2010 FAQ + Resilient Ordnance
« on: August 11, 2015, 02:13:11 AM »
Alright, so I've been poring over the 2010 FAQ recently and I want to make sure that we've been playing resilient ordnance correctly (as Eldar/SM matchups happen relatively frequently - it gets complicated fast  :'()

Here's my confusion. The example given under the "MULTIPLE ATTACKS" heading seems to contradict the example under the "OPPOSING RESILIENT ORDNANCE" heading for the following:

Quote
...the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers have rolled saves and can no longer move or attack.

This confuses me because in the previous example (2 Thunderhawks vs. 2 Swiftdeaths), the Thunderhawk #1 removes a Swiftdeath, passes its save, then removes the second Swiftdeath, allowing the Thunderhawk #2 to move on without needing to roll a save. But in the Eldar vs Tau example, it says the Darkstars cannot each attack a second time because they have already rolled saves - hence the confusion.

So I'm wondering if this is an oversight left over from a previous FAQ edition or intended rules... or if I'm just completely off-base here.
++Ask Not, Fear Not++
-------------------------
BFG:XR - The Battlefleet Gothic Expanded Revised Rules Project

Offline Xca|iber

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • *Transcribing Intensifies*
Re: 2010 FAQ + Resilient Ordnance
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2015, 09:14:48 PM »
Okay so having read through the original Eldar "resilient" rules (and the Thunderhawk rules from Armada), it seems like multiple attacks is not the intent of the rules. That said, I think I've now got a handle on why the first example looks like it contradicts this.

In the first example, TH1 removes S1 and passes its save, remaining where it is. The text of the example says that the SM player may then "have TH1 remove S2"... which seems to say that TH1 is making a second attack. From what I can tell though, what really happens is the SM player, who chooses the order of attacks, has S2 attack TH1, which removes them both. This is subtly different and comes about as a result of both groups being fighters AND the fact that the attacker chooses the order of interaction for both sides when the contact occurs. So this way, the two examples no longer contradict.

Sorry for being kinda long and rambling, I just wanna make sure I've got my head on straight. Does this look right?
++Ask Not, Fear Not++
-------------------------
BFG:XR - The Battlefleet Gothic Expanded Revised Rules Project

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 340
    • Loc: UK
Re: 2010 FAQ + Resilient Ordnance
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2015, 03:46:23 PM »
I believe the second example is correct, but it's been a while since I played. Will check when I can let you know!
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.