RE: SG II: Close combat revisited

The vision of 6 guys in 8 foot 2 Tonne armour thundering after this
lone,
wretched and gibbering runaway has just got to bring a grin to your
face!

Seriosly though,

My take on this would be....the Overun is a concious decision. Honestly
you
would have to examine the circumstances and make a case by case
decision.
Options include:

1.	The second squad is a new and totally different target;
previosuly
unseen. The PA would be required to hold in position until next
activation.
Personally I would give the PA squad the option of holding the taken
position or withdrawing in light of the new enemy... 

2.	The second squad was a visible enemy unit before the PA squad
conducted the close assault and simply "gets in the way" and is
contacted if
the PA squad follows up in a straight line from the 'charge'. The new
target
however should be given a Reaction Fire action if it hasn't already
activiated this turn.

3.	The second squad was a visible enemy unit before the PA squad
close
assaulted and can't be close assualted without a new activation. The PA
are
required to hold in place.

The best resolution is to rationalise the events from the table level
commanders view. The old, "If that were me I'd....." works really well
in
all our club games.

My 2cents...

Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cleats Balentine [mailto:kevinbalentine@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2000 3:53 AM
> To: GZG Forum
> Subject: SG II: Close combat revisited
> 
> 
> We've gone over the overrun issue and a few others,
> but my group ran into another interesting close combat
> situation over the weekend.
> 
> The defender had two squads, one in position in a
> bombed out house, the other moving up behind them. On
> table, the second squad was about four inches behind
> the first.
> 
> A squad of power armor close assaults the first squad.
> After losing five members of the six-man squad, the
> last rifleman flees, moving behind the second squad.
> 
> The power armor wants to do an overrun and continue
> its pursuit of the enemy, but to do that they would
> have to either go through the second squad or close
> assault the second squad.
> 
> How have other groups addressed this issue?
> 
> Personally, I think the close assault squad should be
> allowed to continue its overrun even if it allows them
> to close assault another squad, but only if that
> intervening squad is directly in its path to the
> fleeing foe.
> 
> A second option I would consider less appealing would
> be to allow the close assault squad to ignore the
> intervening foe because the close assault round
> sequence is "outside" the regular turn sequence.
> 
> What do you think?
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>