Re: Close assault interpretation questions

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

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

> Now, the only other tricky bit is how Follow-Through works.  If the
> defender fails his confidence test at the beginning of the assault and
> withdraws (or choses to voluntarily withdraw), or is completely
destroyed,
> the attacker automatically reaches the abandoned position.  At that
point,
> that close assault action has ended.	The attacker may now elect to
use the
> special Follow-Through move.	

And this is the confusing bit. First of all, on page 41:

"Should the defender withdraw (he may elect to do so voluntarily if
desired, irrespective of Confidence test results), the attacker
immediately occupies the vacated position and his activation ends. He
may,
if he wishes, pursue the retreating enemy on his NEST activation [see
optional rule on OVERRUNS and FOLLOW-THROUGH ATTACKS]."

This seems to indicate the follow through attack would happen in a
second
_activation_, not within the same one, if the result of the enemy
breaking
before contact. Also, the follow through/run over is not an optional
rule,
is it? It's within the main rules?

Now, on to the overrun bit:

"If a Close Assault ends with the Defending unit withdrawing (or
destroyed), the attacking player may chose to use a special option - the
FOLLOW-THROUGH move. _Instead_ of occupying the vacated enemy position,
he
may overrun it and attempt to continue moving his victorius units. ..."

Since at the time of the test the attacker has NOT yet moved, and the
rule
her clearly states INSTEAD of, this would mean, if read literally, that
the overrun is made from the original position of the attacker. And
since
it states lateron that it is a single movement action, that means that
instead of the max. 2 combat moves to reach the original target, he now
has only one to reach the target and overrun.

Clearly this is silly, and not how the rules were intended. Should the
explanations earlier in this thread make it into an errata or FAQ to
clarify?

Cheers,

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

iD8DBQE6rdbGJXH58oo6ncURAhyoAJ9Mf89ReqFliVhueU2wuojBvyRXNgCdHbnZ
9e7K+7ZdDX9rfzhP+abdCvM=
=KTGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----