SG Close Assaults revisited...

Hi folks,

ok, we jump into the fray again...

I'm getting the list in the digest version, so I'm responding to several
posts on this subject at once... hence the length.  

>From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl>
>Subject: RE: [SG] Close assault interpretation questions

>This is something we discussed last weekend, as well. It struck me
there
>is nothing within the rules, that we could find, to stop a player to
>declaring a close assault from half a table away, to break an already
>shaken defender. 
>
>Now, the umpire should clobber this munchkin senseless, of course...
But I
>couldn't find anything that said the target HAS to be reachable?

I don't think the rules do state that specifically, despite Owen's
interpretation.  However, I think Owen is absolutely right in what he's
getting at.  Declaring a close assault when you obviously have no chance
of
reaching the target should not be allowed.  We don't let it happen in
our
games.

> 
>> To overrun, you really need to reach the position to start with
(otherwise
>> it would be a failed assault however you look at it).
>
>Yes, but according to the rules as we read them, the overrun happens
>immediately after the test, i.e. before the attacker moved at all.
>Suddenly overrun became an underrun ;) Anyway, the suggestions I've
>yesterday clear up the problem, I think.

Hmmm.  I don't think so.

The relevant bit here is on the top of the right hand side of page 41 of
the rule book.	Someone else quoted it:

"Should the defender withdraw... the attacker immediately occupies the
vacated position..."   I read this as saying that if the defender
withdraws, the attacker *does not need to roll his combat movement at
all*
- the attacker just moves his models to the defenders' position - he
"immediately occupies" it. Given that the time frame of the game turn is
approximately five minutes, what I believe is meant by this is that the
defending unit gets freaked out and runs away, and the attacking unit
has
the time to be more careful about reaching the position they were
attacking, so they don't suffer the dangers of failing the combat
movement
roll and not running the correct distance.

The optional overrun and follow-through rules apply after the attacker
has
reached the defenders' position, and are an exception to the normal turn
sequence.  Though that paragraph says that the attacker may pursue the
retreating enemy on his next activation, the overrun and follow-through
rules clearly apply prior to the next activation and if used, are an
exception to the normal turn sequence.

>
>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?

Yes, it's within the main rules section, but JT is pretty clear about
them
being optional rules...

The wording of the overrun/follow-through section pretty strongly
suggests
that it takes place immediately after the Close Assault action ends (as
the
defender withdraws or is destroyed) - and it is a "special option" JT
says.

I think it happens right away, at the end of the close assault.  The
attacker does not have to wait for another activation to take place -
but
again, only if you are using the optional follow-through rule.

>"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.

Hang on though...  You're missing a word in your quoted bit.  It says
"If a
close assault ACTION ends with the..."	In this case, the Close Assault
action ends when the attacker arrives at the defenders' position -
either
by running there and winning in a round of combat forcing the defender
to
withdraw or wiping them out, or by the defender failing their confidence
test and withdrawing before the fight takes place.  At that point the
action has ended, the attacking unit is sitting on the defenders'
position,
and the Overrun/Follow-Through rules kick in.  The attackers are already
at
the defender's position, and what I believe he means by saying that
"Instead of occupying the recently vacated enemy position..." is not
just
that the models have been placed there (physically occupying the space
on
the gaming table) but that *in game* the attackers are not choosing to
settle into the now vacated position, but are ignoring it and continuing
their advance.	

>Cheers
>
>Beth
>

heh.  thanks for the vote of confidence Beth :)

I'm glad I'm not speaking gibberish...	I was writing my response quite
late at night and it could very well have been...

>er, I'm sorry but the rules state quite plainly that you have to be in
range
>for the combat role.." this movement distance.. MUST be sufficient to
allow
>at least some figures of the assaulting unit to come into contact....".
>Page 41, third paragraph of INITIATING CLOSE ASSAULT......eg for
regular
>foot max 12", Fast PA max 24", terrain restrictions notwithstanding....
>
>This is one of those rules discussions just CRYING out for incluson in
a
>FAQ?

Well Owen, I have to agree and disagree with you on this one...

Disagree:  the bit you are quoting finishes "...for the assault to take
place."  And goes on to say "If the score from the unit's combat move
action is sufficient to reach the defenders' position, the assault
continues as below - if the distance rolled is not enough, the
assaulting
unit may use its second action to repeat....etc".  

I think that the bit in your quote about the movent distance being
sufficient for the assault to take place is NOT saying that the distance
before moving must be within the maximum movement of the attacking unit
for
the assault to be DECLARED, it is just starting off the idea that ends
with
how the defender gets to have their final defensive fire.  In other
words,
when it says "...must be sufficient...for the assault to take place" it
does not mean for the assault to be DECLARED, but rather means for the
FIGHT to take place immediately after the first movement, and before the
defender gets their round of defensive fire.

It's the "sufficient" in both sentances...  You could rewrite this as:

"If the score from the attacking unit's first combat move action is
sufficient to reach the defenders' position then the fight takes place
without the defender having an opportunity for defensive fire.	If the
first move is not sufficient to reach the defenders, then the defenders
may
take their defensive fire action.  After defensive fire, the attacker
may
take a second combat move with their second action to try to reach the
defenders."

It *doesn't* say that the distance between the attacker and defender
must
be reasonable for the close assault to be declared in the first place...

Agree:	But it *should* say that.  I completely agree with the spirit of
your interpretation of that paragraph, and that's how we play it.  If
your
unit doesn't have a chance of making the distance, then you can't
declare a
close assault.	Otherwise you can have just silly situations like one
unit
right across the board declaring a close assault that you know you can't
make, just to force a morale test.  That *reeks* of cheesy gaming, and
we
won't allow it.

>From: Frits Kuijlman <frits@pds.twi.tudelft.nl>
>Subject: Re: [SG] Close assault interpretation questions
>
>Ok, after reading all the email and the rules again here is my take on
the
>assault.
>
>Close assault can only take place when enemy is at most 2 combat moves
away
>(opinion, but usefull limitation).

Yes, absolutely!

>Close assault can be at most 3 combat moves, including followup move.

Well, unless the defending unit retreats, is caught, retreats again, and
is
caught again, etc...

>
>The sequence:
>- - Attacker tests to see if he feels lucky. If failure, use second
action
for
>  something else, else continue close assault.
>- - Defender tests for holding his ground. If failure retreat, else
stay put.

Add in:

-- If defender retreats, attacker "immediately occupies the vacated
position and his activation ends" - so he does not have to roll
anything.
He just gets to move to the defended position.	You can't have a
situation
where the attacker makes his reaction test, the defender fails his
confidence test and withdraws, and then the attacker still fails to
reach
the objective...

>- - Attacker does first combat move.

...unless he gets the position automatically by the withdrawl of the
defender.

>- - If attacker doesn't reach defended position, defender can give
defensive
>  fire. If defender is suppressed he can only fire if he passes
reaction
test.
>- - If attacker takes casualties take test. If failure retreat, else
continue.
>- - If attacker didn't reach position with first move he can do another
combat
>  move.
>- - If attacker reaches position, close combat takes place, which will
eventually
>  result in one of the sides either being
destroyed/captured/retreating.
>- - If not, try again next turn.

The only time it won't result in one side being destroyed or captured is
if
they retreat and the attacker doesn't catch them (blows the roll on the
follow-up movement).  Then you wait for the next turn as you say, and
hope
like hell you get to activate before someone blasts you....

>The tricky thing is to figure out what happens when the defender
retreats.
>Some of the following is from the rules, and some is interpretation.
>The defender can retreat at 2 different moments:
>1. Defender retreats when attacker starts running. The attacker can now
do 2
>   things:
>    a. Do not followup. This means do at most 2 combat moves and stop
when
>	enemy position is reached or earlier if combat moves fall short.
>    b. Do followup. Do initial combat move to enemy position or rolled
distance
>	(whichever is shorter). Then test to see if squad feels really
lucky,
>	and do another combat move in pursuit if test is successfull.

Well, as I've said before, I don't think it works this way (your section
B.)  If the defender retreats immediately, then the attacker just moves
his
figures to the position now abandoned by the defender, and he can then
choose to use the follow-through or not, if the game is being played
using
the optional follow-through rules.  You don't have to do your first one
or
two combat moves to see if you make it to the defender's position.  You
DO
have to take a reaction test to see if you can follow-through, and then
can
make a combat movement if you pass the test.

>2. Defender retreats after hand-to-hand combat. Attacker can again do 2
things:
>   a. Do not followup. Stay put in position.
>   b. Do followup. Do a test, and if successfull do another combat move
>      (this is the only option where 3 combat moves are possible).
>If the followup move brings the attacker into contact with the
retreating
>defender, another hand-to-hand combat takes place. However, no more
followup
>moves are allowed.
>

Well, your limitation there on the "no more followup moves" would be a
house rule - that's to stop the "charge all the way across the table"
situation.  Again, I don't think that it is normally necessary due to
the
self-limiting nature of the cumulative morale losses in close-combat. 
If a
unit loses TWO rounds of combat, they are going to be pretty close to
broken.  If not, then the third should put them away for good...

We've never felt the need to limit this because we've never seen a close
assault go beyond two (or maybe three, on a very unusual occasion)
rounds.

But it makes sense as a house rule, that's for sure...

Ok, that's it for this opus...

Adrian

********************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca