SK Rules/Play question (prob applies to ASL too)

[mrking42]

Greetings,

Playing thru S1 for the first time and have a question about when enemy units can “see” each other.

If there is a DEFENDER MMC in yL7 and an ATTACKER MMC in yN5 and the yN5 unit moves (during MPh) to yM6, can the DEF. MMC “see” the MMC in yM6 (and take DFF on it)?

Thanks,
TK

[mrking42]

I think I’ve reached a satisfactory answer by watching some vids and reading an example of play (ASLSK and S1 specific).

The two units CAN see one another even though they both are in buildings and one is moving from out of LOS and into it (no LOS obstruction between the two building).

My trip up is that I imagine the ATTACKER unit entering the building out of sight of the DEFENDER and ask “how would the DEFENDER unit know?”.

-TK

[Neal]

Greetings,

Playing thru S1 for the first time and have a question about when enemy units can “see” each other.

If there is a DEFENDER MMC in yL7 and an ATTACKER MMC in yN5 and the yN5 unit moves (during MPh) to yM6, can the DEF. MMC “see” the MMC in yM6 (and take DFF on it)?

Yes. There's a certain amount of abstraction involved, but the MMC in yL7 can see the unit moving into yM6 even though it was previously out of LOS in yN5. The assumption is there's movement IN hex yM6 (MF expenditure) thus they can be fire on. Anywhere a unit expends MF in a hex and an enemy unit has LOS to said hex, it can be fire on.

[mrking42]

Greetings,

Playing thru S1 for the first time and have a question about when enemy units can “see” each other.

If there is a DEFENDER MMC in yL7 and an ATTACKER MMC in yN5 and the yN5 unit moves (during MPh) to yM6, can the DEF. MMC “see” the MMC in yM6 (and take DFF on it)?

Yes. There's a certain amount of abstraction involved, but the MMC in yL7 can see the unit moving into yM6 even though it was previously out of LOS in yN5. The assumption is there's movement IN hex yM6 (MF expenditure) thus they can be fire on. Anywhere a unit expends MF in a hex and an enemy unit has LOS to said hex, it can be fire on.

Thanks for the confirmation/clarification. Things make a lot of sense given that context.

Cheers,