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

Assault question
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=19312		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Hojyn [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:40 am ]
Post subject:  Assault question
Section 1.12.5 of the rules says:

Quote:
If all of the units in the defending formation have been killed and at least one attacker survives, then the attacker
wins and the assault is over (go straight to 1.12.8). 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).


Does it mean that, should the defender destroy all attacking units directly engaged, there is no assault resolution (step 1.12.7)? I.e., no hacked down units, even if there are surviving attacking units outside the 15 cm range?
Author:  Mephiston [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Yep, no support fire either.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Yep, the rule is intended to stop "token" assaults, whereby one or two units engage an enemy formation to activate massive supporting fire.
Author:  Hojyn [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
I understand, but in this case why is the attacker exempt from "hack down" casualties? As far as I know, this is the only situation when a losing formation does not suffer extra casualties, no matter how badly they lost the assault.

Shouldn't the rule say "go straight to 1.12.7" instead of 1.12.8?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
There's no assault roll-off because the attacker using the risky token assault must be broken. And if there's no roll-off, then there can't be any hackdowns.
Author:  Hojyn [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Evil and Chaos wrote:
There's no assault roll-off because the attacker using the risky token assault must be broken. And if there's no roll-off, then there can't be any hackdowns.


I don't want to be nitpicky (even though I'm just being that :) ), but losing formations are usually broken after resolution. When you initiate an assault, you risk more than just being broken, you risk being entirely destroyed by hack down hits.

In this situation, the attacker initiating a token assault with say, only 1 stand directly engaged, does so with little risk other than being broken (not a good thing, but preferable to being completely wiped out).

Compare this to, say, a formation engaging a squadron of 4 spread out Sentinels, destroying only 1 but destroying the other 3 in resolution.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
I guess auto-breaking was thought to be harsh enough, without adding hackdowns as well.
Author:  Hojyn [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I guess auto-breaking was thought to be harsh enough, without adding hackdowns as well.


Yes, and I just understood why : no resolution means that there's no possibility for the attacker to win the assault, even with lucky dice rolls.

Guess I should have thought this through before posting. :P Thanks for your patient replies.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Hojyn wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I guess auto-breaking was thought to be harsh enough, without adding hackdowns as well.


Yes, and I just understood why : no resolution means that there's no possibility for the attacker to win the assault, even with lucky dice rolls.

Guess I should have thought this through before posting. :P Thanks for your patient replies.


No probs. :-)
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Assault question
Hojyn wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I guess auto-breaking was thought to be harsh enough, without adding hackdowns as well.
Guess I should have thought this through before posting. :P Thanks for your patient replies.

Just remember that all those support formations of the attacker who would have been able to support still get a Blast marker when their side loses...
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/