Re: Close assault interpretation questions

On Mon, 12 March 2001, Frits Kuijlman wrote:

> Last weekend we had a great time Stargrunting. I picked some scenarios
from the
> internet. 

Out of curiousity, which scenarios?

> Problem 1. Attacker charges first time but doesn't get there, and
defender
> holds and fires. Attacker then charges some more and defender fails
test and
> runs away. However, attacker didn't throw a high enough die roll to
reach
> defended position.

Okay, I don't have the rules in front of me, but does the defender have
to test a second time for the same charge? I'm not saying they don't,
just that I don't have the rules in front of me.

> Does he still occupy the position, or does he stop at the end of his
movement?
> The rules don't say anything about this, as it just says occupy the
position
> if defender runs away.

That's a good question. I don't think I've had this happen in a game. I
would interpret it as the defenders stopping where they ended their
combat move. 

This is why I'm questioning the defenders making a second test. I
thought it was: attackers test to charge; defenders test to stand;
attackers combat move; if attackers don't make it into combat range,
then: defenders attack; attackers test to continue; attackers combat
move.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't remember the defenders
testing twice. If they do, then I'd have the attackers end their
movement where they ended their second combat move.
 
> Does this second combat move start at the point
> he was when the defender failed his test, or does it start at the
target
> position? The rules state it is an additional combat-move action, so
we
> interpreted as meaning the second case. Is this correct?

I've always interpreted it to mean that it started at the target
position. So, I believe you are correct.

> Problem 3. If the follow-through move is enough the catch up to the
fleeing
> defenders, what happens? If have seen some references on the web to
close
> assaulting right across the table. However, the rules state that if
you
> can reach the fleeing defenders another close combat takes place, not
a close
> assault. We took this to mean that hand-to-hand combat is initiated.
Or does
> this mean that defenders first have to make another confidence test?

The rules in this area are hazy. The way it's interpreted on the list is
that after the defenders run away from a close assault, the attackers
may initiate the whole close assault sequence again. Which means that
the defenders have to test to stay and fight again.

If the defenders fail, they run away. 

Now, it's at this point that the list members and the rules depart. The
rules imply that this whole defender runs away/attacker follows sequence
can be played out all the way across the table. Most of us think that's
a bit silly. We (meaning my group, but others on the list have said the
same thing) limit this to two attempts.

So:
- the attacker announces a close assault. The defender fails their roll
or voluntarily runs away. The attacker moves into their position.
- the attacker announces a follow up close assault. The defender fails
their roll or voluntarily runs away a second time. The attacker moves
into the position just vacated by the defender.
- that's it, close assault is over.

That's not a strict interpretation of the rules, and a rules lawyer will
fight you on it (all the way across the table top, in fact) but it's a
reasonable limit. It's how we play, anyway.

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com