RE: Close assault interpretation questions

My responses marked by [Bri].
Since Alan plays more than me, give his comments more weight. I am just
providing an additional view.

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---

-----Original Message-----
Frits Kuijlman [Fritz]
agoodall@canada.com [Alan G]
bkb@Beol.net [Bri]

[Fritz] 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.

[Alan G] 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.

[Bri] Good question. When I first read this, I thought that you meant
the
continuation of the assault was in another activation. But now I know
you
mean in the same activation. I agree with Alan. No second test for the
defenders. They made thier test and are standing. If the Close Assault
(CA)
failes to get there with the 2nd roll, they stay put; if on thier next
activation, they then CA agian, treat it as a seperate CA with both
sides
making tests.

[Fritz] Problem 2. At the moment the attacker starts his charge, the
defender has to
test. If he fails, he runs away. With the optional follow-through move
the
attacker can then either occupy the position or follow up by doing a
test
and another combat move.

[Alan G] 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.

[Bri] Agreed. No second test.

[Fritz] 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?

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

[Bri] I respectfully disagree with Alan here. The attacking player is
given
a choice: Occupy the objective or overrun. If he chooses to occupy, he
moves
to the objective (even if his dice movement fell short). If he chooses
to
overrun, he does a combat move from the possition his movement ended
(if, as
in the case you stated, his first movement failed to reach the
objective, he
may make another combat move (toward the objective) before doing the
overrun
combat move). Thus, if he does not think he can reach the defenders in a
combat move, it would be better to occupy the objective and attack next
activation.

[Fritz] 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?

[Alan G] 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.

[Bri] Aye. A good house rule.