Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Assault question
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29522		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  atension [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault question
Checked the assault and FAQ sections for this but it didn't specifically address the situation I had in the last game.

Tactical squad moved to with in sight of a garrisoned warband of Orks around the side of a forest. SM player retained with a warhound and assaulted the warband of Orks. The Orks were garrisoned in a forest that was rather large so even though the warhound was within 15cm, the two units were separated by more than 10 cm of forest which obstructed line of sight. The orks and the warhound couldn't see each other so no FF fire could happen, but the adjacent tactical formation had line of sight and was in range to support and not take any fire.

the rules say that as long as one unit of the assaulting formation is with in 15cm of the targeted unit then you can assault. It says nothing anywhere that I could see about needing to have line of sight. Though this seems quite cheesy.

Quite ironically the Orks took no damage due to bad luck on the SM hit rolls and ended up winning combat.
Author:  Dave [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Yep, just have to get within 15cm. If nothing has LoS, go to resoltution. At which point the defender wins because there are no attackers that are "directly engaged". Fourth paragraph:
http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/tourna ... ve-attacks
Author:  carlos [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
There's no mention of LoS on the rules for being "directly engaged".
"Directly engaged means being within 15cm of a defending unit after charge and counter-charge moves have been completed."
OTOH, the marines couldn't shoot at the orksies because they didn't shoot the warhound.
"What does directly involved mean here?
In order to support with their firefight a unit must have a line of fire to at least one enemy unit that attacked with its close combat or firefight during the assault."

So the warhound comes in, nobody can shoot but the attack doesn't stall as the warhound is still within 15cm of a defender. The marines can't support as the orksies couldn't attack the Warhound so weren't "directly involved".

Roll for resolution.
Author:  atension [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Ahh I didn't know that's what it meant by "Directly Involved".
Author:  atension [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Dave wrote:
Yep, just have to get within 15cm. If nothing has LoS, go to resoltution. At which point the defender wins because there are no attackers that are "directly engaged". Fourth paragraph:
http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/tourna ... ve-attacks


Wait, going to resolution means you'd both roll not that the defenders would automatically win?
Author:  Geep [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
The defender's automatically win because no attackers from the assaulting formation are left 'directly engaged' in the assault (as Dave says- 4th paragraph of 1.12.5). The Warhound wasn't directly engaged to start with, and at the end of the combat if he's still not directly engaged then he loses.
Author:  atension [ Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Thanks guys that's what I thought.
Author:  SpeakerToMachines [ Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Geep wrote:
The defender's automatically win because no attackers from the assaulting formation are left 'directly engaged' in the assault (as Dave says- 4th paragraph of 1.12.5). The Warhound wasn't directly engaged to start with, and at the end of the combat if he's still not directly engaged then he loses.


Um, beg to differ. The Warhound is "Directly engaged" in the sense of paragraph 1.12.5: "Directly engaged" means being within 15cm of a defending unit after charge and counter-charge moves have been completed.

It's only in the sense of paragraph 1.12.6 that neither Warhound nor orksies are "directly involved": In this case "directly involved" means belonging to the attacking or defending formation(s) and in a position to attack.

So, no supporting fire, but the engagement goes to roll-off (1.12.7) normally.
Author:  carlos [ Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
What STM said which incidentally is what I said. It's black and white in the rules.
Author:  Geep [ Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
I would argue that 'Directly engaged' and 'Directly involved' are intended to be the same for this purpose. It wouldn't be the only time the rules have had questionable wording, and it strikes me as pretty wrong that you can effectively engage and break (and kill through resolution) something you can't even see. The fact that you'd auto-break from trying this trick seems a fair deterrent to me. Taking it to extremes, your interpretation means two units can kill each other despite being separated by a 14cm wide, 30cm high, table-wide, impassable and solid piece of terrain. I can't agree with something that allows that.
Author:  carlos [ Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
IDK, there's an argument here about assaults being more than close range firefights but just pressure and proximity.
Author:  Onyx [ Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
I believe Dave and Geep are correct here.

How Engagements are described in the rules:
Quote:
Assaults are not necessarily face to face or toe to toe, simply close enough that individual infantry are able to engage in the fight and make use of their small arms, grenades and other short ranged weapons.


The important part of the rules is from 1.12.5:
Quote:
If all of the attacking units directly engaged in the assault are killed then the assault has stalled and the defender wins (go straight to 1.12.8 ). "Directly engaged" means being within 15cm of a defending unit after charge and counter-charge moves have been completed. If even one of the original attackers that were within 15cms of the enemy survives, then the attack has not stalled.

In order to qualify as an "original attacker" (and actually roll dice), the attacker has to have Line of sight:
Quote:
but are within 15cm and have a line of fire to the enemy can use their firefight value

Supporting formations also require Line of Sight:
Quote:
Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault.

Basically, every part of the engagement rules mentions line of sight/fire at some point. Los is required by any surviving attackers to allow supporting fire. If the attacker was never in position to actually attack the defenders (due to no Line of Sight) then the Engagement stalls before any dice are rolled.

There is no mention of an Engagement representing pressure or proximity. It is simply Line of Sight/Fire and 15cm.

I'll come up with an FAQ to clarify the situation.
Author:  atension [ Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Hey Onyx, just checking if this made it into the FAQ. Apparently a similar situation caused a stir at cancon.
Author:  Dave [ Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Was there a thread on that situation?

No new FAQ as far as I can tell. If we were to add one it would have to take into account the last FAQ for 1.12.5. Specifically, why doesn't the defender automatically win here:

Quote:
What happens when an assault goes into a second round and no units are within 15cm of each other after both sides counter-charge?

Work out the result again.
Author:  atension [ Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
http://epicau.com/wp/to-fight-or-not-to-fight/
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/