Again, it's all wording. From the look of it, you "move without needing to break" so there is no "successful" break, and therefore no damage.

@xyberbratt. With respect to called shots I think you will find you and not I are mistaken (emphasis mine)...

Page 24:

"No target of a multiple ranged combat attack may benefit from the called-shot modifier if one of the targets is in base contact with the attacker."

WRT to Quads. Damage from breakaway for 'Mechs is now under speed type. A Quad has a different speed type. Hence no damage.

Possibly, but this makes it useless to base say a tank with one infantry and being in a support piece, when your opponent has two targets. He simply targets both pieces, and then only applies damage to your incoming piece. Sounds more like a forgotten loophole than a rule that should be used. Again, I expect to see a large FAQ on this whole thing.

You're right in terms of it neutering base/break. Not sure it's a loophole so much as it seems to have been deliberately written in.

If you have input give it to your nearest BM. The FAQ is getting longer by the minute .....

Oh basing a tank? Just move your tank such that whatever infantry blocks LOS. Called shots cannot be indirect.

It would still be worth it if you're inside the tanks minimum range because then then tank couldn't target the baser and so any units it did target would get the called shot modifier.

jakal,

Right, but this is for those tanks, per se, that have short min's, and can target someone they are based with. They wouldn't not do it. So the idea of basing a tank to make sure you get that Called Shot modifier is useless, against a short min tank.

"I based your Schmiit." "I dual target my Schmitt against your {base unit} and {distant unit}, so you don't get the modifier" "So, why is the modifier here?"

And Kotch, I agree, the FAQ isn't going to be shorter with these new rules. Sure, we'll probably lose about 10 pages, but we're also going to gain 20 with the new things.

this is a line from the SEC conserning AnP.

"Score damage equal to this unit’s damage value to each infantry against which the attack succeeds."

looks to me it works like it always has.

It's my impression that if a unit is within the minimum, it isn't eligible to be targeted, and so the above situation could not occur. It's as if the guys are under the turret, so the tank-gunner can't even see them -- thus they cannot be targeted.

It is possible, with a 2" minimum on a tank, an infantry unit basing the front 135 degrees of the tank will still have its center dot at least 2" away from the tank's center dot, thereby making the situation possible.

He's pointing out the apparent difference that if you target 3 units, each based by 4 infantry units, then you deal 1 to each of your primary targets, plus 3 to each infantry in base contact with each target.

The old method had you doing 3 to each target, plus 3 to each infantry.

I'm not sure if that has changed, since the way I'm reading it, it's about the same. Again, an FAQ is necessary with these rules.

Yes, a 2" min makes the situation possible, in the right circumstances, however a 0" min makes it possible in every situation. And if your far target is a Mech, the line of fire to it is never blocked by infantry. Or what if you're a SC tank, based by infantry, and there is a Mech on the other side of the B3, within your range. You have a DF Scout ATV behind the Mech, within the ATV's range. According to the alliance card and these rules, that SC tank can now fire out of base contact, dual targeting the infantry in base with it as well as the Mech, and the Mech gets ZERO modifiers to it's defense. I don't have to use Streaks, I don't have to go indirect, I can apply full damage to just the Mech, and it doesn't get the Called Shot modifier.

Not a change but an ommision (or I simply did not see it which is possible): No rules for dropships.

I wonder if we will get a downloadable separate for those rules again.

Question: blocking terrain does block a charge attemp or only increase the target difficulty by two? I am a little confused regarding the LOS wording for charge...