"Force on force sequencing questions" Topic

So, I'm going to give Force on Force another try. In the past the more complicated reactions/interruptions sequence has killed our minds and our willingness to play. But I figure we should give it one last shot and it's been long enough for the guys to have forgotten the pain of previous efforts.

1) my understanding is that an initiative side unit throws only one TQ dice to compare to however many reacting units TQ dice?

2) the rule book says to start resolving reactions where the non initiative side lost the check starting with nearest first. The quick rules intro says it's highest dice first? Which is it? (I have to confess that the nearest first appears somewhat odd)

3) presumably reactions for units that cannot see the unit at the point of activation but into whose LOS the enemy will move, do not roll reaction until the other reactions have occurred and the unit moves into LOS?

4) if the unit does not move into LOS (ie it dies before it gets to the street corner ) does it still count as a reaction like it would do for someone who did not get chance to shoot?

5) is there any sort of extended play example of convoluted situations out there?

1) no! you roll as many TQ dices as the interrupting units, and check them individually.

2) I know it's ambiguous – the text didn't helps – you first resolve the actions the active player win, after that the ones the interrupting units won, from the nearest to farthest.

3) Correct

4) No

5) Yes and no. With Force on Force 1st Edition (the non-Osprey one) it existed one, on the Osprey version, a similar one, was put online of AmbushAlley site, but sadly got AWOL during of their recent problems.

As AmbushAlley is working on a new version, compatible with older versions, but a more streamlined system that flowchart is of no good (well some of it).

Hope this helps

There is no right way discernible from the rules. Even the rules designer does varied things.

I would offer the following helpful guidance (which is not RAW but close) . . . .

Acting player states his actions, reacting player states his reactions, Overwatch states their fires. ACTION-REACTION-OVERWATCH.

Then you have to resolve all the fighting. Do that in the reverse order, Resolve Overwatch (roll TQ to see who fires first or at all), then resolve reactions (roll TQ to see who fires first or at all), then resolve the original action (rolling TQ). OVERWATCH-REACTION-ACTION

Easy peazy.

I've not played this game, but if you need a flowchart to understand how to play, then the rules are probably not for me.

JAS

I was thinking about getting these rules for some modern wargaming but don't think I will bother after reading this!

It is more complicated writing it out than it plays. And, for me, has chaotic flavor the of modern fighting that I like. My recommendation is to play a small game rather than a large one with many units of different types that we gamers usually try.

Ambush Alley Forum is very helpful, too.

I play it and think of it this way – reactions as mini-initiative toll offs.

1. Initiative player announces what an activated unit will do
2. Non-initiative player then says what units will react and how – I think of these as attempts to interrupt the initiative unit
3. Interruption attempts are then resolved in a logical order with a TQ test
4. When initiative player wins, continues with stated action with or without having a round of fire with reacting unit
5. When non-initiative player wins, he gets to interrupt with announced reaction

This is not 100% by the book but probably gets the same result as the book 19 times out of 20 and seems intuitive to me. After this concept, the rest seems to fall into place.

What Ambush Alley Forum??? It has been unavailable for the last 6 months!!! Love the rules but they need constant support.

Love the rules but they need constant support.

They do?

The best way to learn these rules is to play them with someone who knows how (or has figured out how) they work. The words as written down don't make a huge amount of sense, but the mechanisms are actually very simple.

That is often the case with rules which have unusual activation sequences.

Thanks for the replies.

I am a little clearer but still have some questions.

A non initiative unit who fails (<4) a reaction test to fire, do they still fire?

An initiative unit who is moving and being interrupted by fire who wins the reaction test, does he get to move before fire? One sentence leads me to believe he does, another suggests not.

An initiative unit activates to move and fire. The target of that fire reacts by firing. Once all reactions are done does the initiative unit fire again or is that it?

Second Combat Patrol. Am starting to use it for moderns

Joe