Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Assault question

 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
The point is that I can place a single weak unit on the far side of terrain that blocks your countercharge and LoS eg buildings and vehicles. This creates the exact scenario that I thought we were trying to avoid; the defenders cannot countercharge into LoS of the attackers, the nearby supports get to fight unopposed leaving the defenders on a hiding to nothing - seems rather beardy to me :tut :gah


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:12 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
LoS has always been required to be directly involved for me.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:27 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
I'll see about drafting some language Monday.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
I'm not sure you're getting me Ginger. If you can't see me after charges, the assault doesn't happen - that's fine. And only units that are directly involved can be fired upon by support. To reiterate, our point of divergence is, I don't see why the defender would get to stop the assault happening by their own countercharge. The rules say this check for 'does the assault happen' is after charge move, and not after countercharge.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 995
Kyrt wrote:
I'm not sure you're getting me Ginger. If you can't see me after charges, the assault doesn't happen - that's fine. And only units that are directly involved can be fired upon by support. To reiterate, our point of divergence is, I don't see why the defender would get to stop the assault happening by their own countercharge.


So, what you're getting at is:

An attacker, making a legitimate assault and having LoS on the defender at the conclusion of his assault move, incorrectly having his assault 'aborted' by the countercharge which, through movement, removes LoS or range conditions because the check for valid assault or not takes place before the counter charge.

Also, as a result of the timing of the check, the attacker not getting in to range or LoS as a result of his own assault move doesn't get to even trigger counter charges as the check is made at the end of the attackers move and there no assault is made, so nothing to be responded to.

Close?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
section from the rule book
Quote:
1.12.4 Counter Charges
Defending units that are not already in base contact with an enemy unit are allowed to counter charge. Units with a speed of 30cm or more may make a counter charge move of 10cm. Units with a speed of 25cm or less may make a counter charge move of 5cm.Counter charges happen after the engaging formation has finished moving and any overwatch shots have been taken, but before the combat is resolved. All the normal charge move rules apply, and defending formations must still be in a legal formation after the counter charge moves have been made (ie, all units must be within 5cm of another unit from their formation). Embarked units may dismount.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Hi Kyrt, we do seem to be at cross-purposes :)
Your concern seems to be the question why the assault should stop because the Defender has moved (countercharged) away from the original attackers. It is the defender's choice after all, so he can choose to stay put. Right? If he chooses to move away, the units end up with no-one directly engaged (attackers inside 15cm from defenders) hence there is no support fire.
At that point RAW, the assault goes straight to the resolution and is effectively a dice-off based on pre-combat factors.

My point is that the attacker can engineer a situation where there is effectively no combat between the original attackers and defenders, and worse, one that can still leave the defenders inside 15cm of the attackers, allowing the attackers to draw on support fire and putting the defenders at an even greater disadvantage. IMHO both situations are rather 'gamey' because the defender gets no chance to fight and that is not reasonable or fair. As such this situation needs to be corrected.

Requiring the chargers to end up in LoS after their charge is the start (removing one gamey situation) but can still end up with the defenders countercharging away from the attackers towards a closer enemy, and potentially out of LoS of the attackers.
Requiring the units to be in LoS after countercharges to be 'directly engaged' seems reasonable and consistent, but does not necessarily fix my other issue. However, it gives the defenders the choice of fighting the attackers or moving towards nearer enemy and potentially outside 'directly engaged' from the attackers. If this occurs they go straight to the resolution. IMO this is fairer because the attacker has set up the situation and this gives the defenders the option to fight or accept the pre-combat odds - which may not be much, but is better than nothing ;)

Does that answer your thoughts Kyrt?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Pretty much, if I am following. I shall amend my earlier summary to be clear about support, to simplify what I think you are saying would be the most ideal situation:

1. Attacker moves. If no units within range and LoS then assault does not take place.
2. Defender counter charges. If no units within range and LoS then go to roll off.
3. Fight assault. If all directly engaged attacking units are killed defender wins. If all directly engaged defending units are killed then go to roll off.
4. Fight support. If all directly engaged attacking units are killed defender wins. Otherwise go to roll off.
5. If roll off is a tie, both sides counter charge. If no units directly engaged, go to roll off.
6. Fight assault again, repeat etc.

This is how I see it. As far as I am concerned the only part that requires a contentious interpretation of the RAW is the LoS bit, which could well be an omission. I've always played it so that LoS is required, it not being enough to be within 15 either for the assault to occur or to get support.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Great, thanks for sorting out our misunderstandings.
I agree with your summary in general - one minor point, the attackers only win automatically if they kill all the defenders, not just those 'directly engaged'.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Ginger wrote:
Great, thanks for sorting out our misunderstandings.
I agree with your summary in general - one minor point, the attackers only win automatically if they kill all the defenders, not just those 'directly engaged'.

Thought I must have copy pasted but now I can't see anything I wrote about attacker automatically winning. Which bit? Killing all defending directly engaged units would be roll off as I've written, though there is still support from defender first so should probably edit.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Sorry, it was late. I would prefer that your Point 3 reflected the rules; Defenders win if all directly engaged attackers killed, Attackers win if all defenders killed, Otherwise . . .
And I have a feeling that the same three options should be present in Point 4., no?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:33 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
OK, I went through this thread again along with 1.12 and Neal's FAQ threads, I also e-mailed Neal, and PMed dptdexys and Onyx. Here's what I collated and where I think we're at for FAQ additions. I think I covered everything but I'd like some more eyes on the language and some discussion before it's worked into the TP.

Quote:
1.12.3 Make Charge Move
Q: After it makes a charge move does the engaging formation need to have at least one unit with a line of fire to a unit in the target formation in order for the assault to take place?
A: Yes. While it is not specifically stated in the rules it is implied ("close enough that individual infantry are able to engage in the fight and make use of their small arms") and required to resolve firefight attacks.


Neal was the only dissenting voice for this one, to summarize his thoughts: RAW is the only fair choice, literal wording is the only definite common ground.

Quote:
1.12.4 Counter Charges
Q: After counter charges are made does the engaging formation need to have at least one unit with a line of fire to a unit in the target formation in order for the assault to take place?
A: In the first round yes, as "all the normal charge move rules apply". In subsequent rounds no, as the assault is already taking place and its result must be determined.


In his PM to me Onyx said that it should go to resolution at this point. What are your thoughts here Onyx? If we're adding the LoS requirement to 1.12.3 I think it also gets added to 1.12.4 via the "all the normal charge move rules apply" bit. I think Ginger's post explains some potential for gaminess if LoS is not required after counter-charges too.

Also, dptdexys thought an argument could be made for the assault stalling in a subsequent round after a defender counter-charged out of LoS. Can you expand on that more dptdexys?

Finally, because counter-charges can happen in subsequent rounds I felt the "yes/no" answer here was required. Separating it into two Q&As could lead to one getting missed or arguments.

Quote:
1.12.5 Resolve Attacks
Q: What happens when an assault goes into a second round and no units are within 15cm of each other after both sides counter-charge?
A: Work out the result again.

Q: Can a hit be allocated to a directly engaged unit that does not have a line of fire to an enemy unit?
A: No, these hits are allocated in the same manner as shooting hits: they require a line of fire.

Q: Does an attacking unit need to have a line of fire to a unit in the target formation in order to be considered "directly engaged"?
A: Yes, in order to be an "attacking unit" the unit needs to have made an attack: attacks require a line of fire.


The first one already exists, I just think it's in the wrong section. I'm going to move it to 1.12.4.

The second one I'm on the fence for adding. It's a pretty quick find, but it's one of those referral rules of EA that I've grown to hate.

The third one didn't get must discussion here. I'm posting it here to get that going now. RAW don't require LoS here, which means the defender has to kill stuff that it can't see/affect in order to stall the assault. These seems like the same sort of situation for the Q&A we're adding to 1.12.3.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Dave wrote:

Also, dptdexys thought an argument could be made for the assault stalling in a subsequent round after a defender counter-charged out of LoS. Can you expand on that more dptdexys?



Personally I think once an engagement has started it should carry on until conclussion, even if it is just going straight to combat resolution.
I could see some players arguing for RAW following 2nd round (or later) counter charges 1.12.4 "all the normal charge move rules apply" wanting an engagement to stop ,especially if it was to their advantage.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:16 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
Do you think the language in that Q&A covers this, or is more needed (another Q&A, more explanation, something else)?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Dave wrote:
Do you think the language in that Q&A covers this, or is more needed (another Q&A, more explanation, something else)?


It covers it for me but some are better at reading between the lines.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net