Re: Close Assaullt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> ... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can
not
> see all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned
> destination of the close assault move), but ARE aware of enemy
> presence in those woods?
> 
> --> Yes.  We play that you have to have a reasonable chance of
*getting*
> there to initiate a close assault - in other words that you can't
declare a
> close assault at someone across the board if you can't get there in
two
> combat moves just to force a confidence check, but other than that,
you
> don't have to see the target position.  There has to be an enemy
there,
> though.

Okay, that's what I thought.

> ... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can
not
> see all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned
> destination of the close assault move), but are NOT aware of enemy
> presence in those woods?
> 
> -->No.  You have to be close assaulting an *enemy* in a defended
position -
> the rules say so.  If you don't know he's there, then you can't
assault
> him.	I think the *only* time I might allow this to be different would
be
> if you were using the sniper hidden movement rules, and you close
assaulted
> a sniper's hidden counter, hoping that you were getting the right
spot.
> But that's an unusual circumstance and needs more thought.

mmm. I think that's prone to abuse, as a single squad could easily cover
all three potential sniper positions. Then again, IS that all that
irrealistic? The sniper should have buggered off long before that,
otherwise it's his own stupidity.

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE6zOKPJXH58oo6ncURAix4AJ0cXG584WNfxHd6JR1emgJhiNX1KQCfQVwW
IQtLYKzTgJ9rZslXFBiyDkI=
=9di1