Re: Close assault interpretation questions

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:29:23 -0500, "Brian Bell" <bkb@beol.net> wrote:

>[Bri] I respectfully disagree with Alan here.

I re-read the passage tonight, with the rules in front of me. It seems
obvious
from the writing that Jon was thinking of a situation where the
defenders ran
and the attackers could have engaged them in hand-to-hand combat. 

The problem comes when the unit couldn't make it to engage them in the
first
place. That is, they do the two combat moves and fall short.

After thinking about this, and actually having the rules in front of me,
I
concur with Brian. Start the overrun from the point where they stopped
moving.

>[Bri] Aye. A good house rule.

It's also easy to remember. Close assault eats up two actions, so the
idea
that it's restricted to an initial assault and one follow-up has a
certain
amount of logic.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan, 
   "Jack B. Quick, Boy Inventor"