Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

Assault question

 Post subject: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
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?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Yep, no support fire either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Yep, the rule is intended to stop "token" assaults, whereby one or two units engage an enemy formation to activate massive supporting fire.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
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?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
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.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I guess auto-breaking was thought to be harsh enough, without adding hackdowns as well.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
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. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault question
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
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...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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