As I read and understand the rules for range determination on page 22 of the rule book.

A Stand with 4 regular infantry and no specialation firing at a tank in a adjancent hex would had a to hit number of 5 or 6.

My resoning for this that

"If the distance to target is less tan or equal to the attackers range value the attack is considered to be at normal range"

since the vehicle attack range of normal infantry is 1. it trumps the close range value....

SO am I right or wrong in my thinking and why?

Thank you

Schramm said:

Your reasoning seems to be that a later rule supercedes/trumps an earlier rule. However, iIt continues, "if the distance to the target unit is less than or equal to double the attacking unit's range value, the attack is considered to be at long range." By your reaoning, since this rule comes after the 2nd rule, this rule would supercede/trump it, since 1 is also less than double. Since everything can't possible be at long range, I believe you need to reverse your reasoning: if the first rule doesn't qualify, then you go to the next rule (it doesn't supercede/trump the previous rule). Adjacent is always adjacent.

This would lead to no target ever being at Close Range. Hopefulle wrong. Perhaps a target adjacent is simply at alle three ranges as all three rules apply ;-)

I understood the range rule a little bit different.

Lets have two simple examples.

1. A squad attacks another squad. The Range is 4.

Close Range: all adjacent hexes (distance of 1)

Normal Range: all hexes within a distance of 2 to 4

Long Range: all hexes within a distance of 5 to 8

2. A squad attacks a vehicle. The Range is 1.

Close Range: all adjacent hexes (distance of 1)

Normal Range: none because those hexes are already covered by the close range rule

Long Range: all hexes within a distance of 2

woernchen said:

And that is ho it works in my opinion.

woernchen - You are perfectly right.

Notice that range incremente due to height advantage, can change these numbers and thus create a normal range of 2 vs vehicles :-)

Noted and I see the error in my thinking.

Thanks for the replies