In my last battle report for 2012 - http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=24424 - a very messy situation arose when bike unit after bike unit ploughed into one another to contest an objective. I'm interested to learn if the community agree that the melee was resolved correctly. Trying to explain this succinctly may be problematic to say the least!
Please see the pic below which illustrates the battle.
(1) Jet Bikes move in to capture the objective in a crater.
(2) Imp.Bikes attack Jet Bikes (1).
(3) Vyper Jet bike counter attacks Imp.Bikes (2)
(4) Imp.Bikes counter attack Vypers (3)
(5) Vyper Jet bike counter attacks Imp.Bikes (4)
The way this was resolved was as follows:-
Jet bikes (1) v Imp. Bikes (2) is a standard battle 2D+3 for both sides.
Vyper bikes (3) is a secondary attacker on v Imp Bikes (2), therefore 3D+3 v 2D+3
Imp Bikes (4) is a secondary attacker on Vyper Bikes (3), therefore 3D+3 v 2D+3
Vyper bikes (5) is a secondary attacker on v Imp Bikes (4), therefore 3D+3 v 2D+3
Is this correct?
Also, just to further complicate matters, let's assume that the Jet Bikes (1) defeat Imp Bikes (2). Vyper bikes (3) were a secondary attacker on Imp.Bikes (2). Is this still the case even though they did not actually fight the Imp Bikes (2)? What I'm really getting at here is when Imp Bikes (4) attack the Vypers (3), do they still get their secondary attacker bonus even though Vypers (3) have not fought at all?
Cheers!
| Attachments: |
|
2012-12-28 13.55.11.jpg [ 187.42 KiB | Viewed 2168 times ] |
