| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23002 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | AgeingHippy [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
Hi All Yesterday an interesting situation came up. The terrain consisted of 4 buildings touching each other, forming a straight wall. Defender has infantry in and behind the buildings. Attacker assaults the formation in the buildings but does not enter the buildings. Attacker kills the single unit in the buildings. Assault resolution results in a draw. No units in the buildings. Attacker carries out second charge but is not able to enter the buildings so has no LOS on the defender. Defender chooses not to counter-charge, resulting in no units in the assault having LOS. What situation do we have here? Is the assault stalled? (Note, although there is no LOS, there are units within 15cm of enemy units in the opposing formation.) Can anyone clarify what should happen here? - Should the assault progress to resolution (2d6 etc) OR - Has the assault stalled and the attacker is broken because there are no attacking units remaining that were directly involved in the second stage of the assault? (Note. The attacker does have units remaining that were directly involved (range and LOS) in the first round). Does directly involved require LOS or is it simply 15cm? Thanks |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
IIRC in this situation you immediately roll resolution then counter charge again if another draw. |
|
| Author: | AgeingHippy [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
What if, after the countercharge there were no units within 15cm from each other? Or, after the countercharge there are units within 15cm (but no LOS) but none of the original attackers are within 15cm. Stalled here? |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
You don't reevaluate what units are directly involved (rolled a CC/FF die) round to round. If an attacker had 4 units in range and LoS in round one, manages to kill a lot of stuff, draws the combat and none of them are in range or LoS at the end of round two you still roll off. The defender also gets support fire on those units as well, even though they didn't get to roll a CC/FF die in round two (they are still directly involved from round one). The assault only counts as stalled when those four attacking units (and any attacking units that claim "directly involved" in subsequent rounds) are destroyed. |
|
| Author: | AgeingHippy [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
Cheers Dave |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
Think of it this way... an assault can only stall due to the defender killing people. Units ending up out of range/LoS for any other reason cannot cause a stall. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
Dave wrote: You don't reevaluate what units are directly involved (rolled a CC/FF die) round to round. Dave, you have to reevaluate which units are involved/directly involved each round after all countercharges are complete. In the most extreme example, it's possible for a second-round countercharge to base contact a new formation, which would draw that formation into the assault. Obviously, you can't say a unit in CC is not directly involved. As another example, consider a more typical attack with a support formation. In the first round, the attacker only has 2 defenders in range after countercharges. They are the only ones "directly involved." Between the assaulting formation and the support, both defenders are killed. After a tie and countercharges, 4 more defenders end up in range of the attacking formation and the support formation. You would not think those 4 defenders remain immune to support fire in all subsequent rounds because they weren't directly involved in the first round, would you? |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
To clarify, I meant you don't remove the "directly involved" label from round to round. You can apply it to new units (like your examples) but "once directly involved, always directly involved" until dead or the assault is resolved. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
Neal, perhaps re-evaluating the units "directly involved" in the second and subsequent rounds ought to be on the FAQ list, along with the explanation on when to apply a BM to supports for a lost assault. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
An extensive charge/countercharge/barge FAQ review is planned. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: stalled assaults, LOS, directly engaged, support. |
I'm sure part of the problem stems from some of the errata missing from the PDFs. That will be rectified too, hoping for June at this point. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|