Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"

 Post subject: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
An intruiging question came up during the recent GT in Maelstrom.

A formation of Ork stompas assaulted the flank of an Eldar jetbike formation (which already had three BMs). The front two jetbikes were within 10cms respectively of a formation of Scorchas and a Blitz brigade (with three BMs), which were countercharged and brought into the assault. Near the Blitz brigade was a second formation of jetbikes, which were thus brought into support their colleagues. After the first round of combat, the two lead jetbikes had died along with a scorcha and buggy. However the assault resolution tied resulting in a second round of combat.

With the death of the lead Jetbikes, most of the Scorchas and the entire Blitz brigade were now out of 15cms from the target jetbike formation, but still in range of the supporting Jetbikes. So, can the supporting Eldar jetbikes still support or not? The key here is whether the Ork units now out of range are still considered to be "involved in the assault" or not

There are two options
1) All units that were originally "involved in the assault" are considered to be "involved" until the assault is resolved, even if in subsequent rounds they cannot use their factors

2) Units "involved in the assault" are reassessed each round - so those now out of range are no longer involved even if they were "involved" in earlier rounds

In our case, we decided that option 2) was correct, thus units in the Blitz brigade were no longer "involved" which in turn meant that the 'supporting' Jetbikes could no longer support. Needless to say, things did not go so well for the Jetbikes - - -

However, the rules do not give any clues either way, and it would be good to sort this out officially.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599
Looks like you played it correctly to me, its reasonably clearly covered in the ammended assault text in the 2008 errata, in the case of a tie you make counter charges and then reasses who is directly involved in the assault.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I am not sure it is so clear cut. I agree that the rules and amendments are reasonably clear about formations and units involved in the 1st round of the assault, but they are much less clear about subsequent rounds.

The point is that the units in question were initially involved in the assault, so it could be argued that they remain "involved" until the assault is resolved - even though they can no longer participate.

This is similar to the definition of supporting formations that were in range to enemy units which died as part of the assault. The formation is still considered to be "supporting" even though it is now out of range of eligible targets, and if their side loses the assault it receives a BM even though it did not actually take part.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
Oooh...Can't wait to see where this one leads us! I'll have a read of the errata later and see if I can understand where we were meant to take it too.
(For reference I was the ork player above)
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
2 looks right to me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
From the rule book, highlighted the relevent part.

Quote:
1.12.4 Counter Charges
An assault represents a brutal short-range battle involving movement, shooting and close combat. Although the assaulting formation will have initiated the combat, the defending formation will have time to react to the enemy assault and make limited moves of their own. To represent this, units from the defending formation involved in the assault are allowed to make a special move called a counter charge.
Defending units that are not already in base contact with an enemy unit are allowed to counter charge. Units with a speed of 30cm or more may make a counter charge move of 10cm. Units with a speed of 25cm or less may make a counter charge move of 5cm. Counter charges happen after the engaging formation has finished moving and any overwatch shots have been taken, but before the combat is resolved. All the normal charge move rules apply, and defending formations must still be in a legal formation after the counter charge moves have been made (ie, all units must be within 5cm of another unit from their formation). Embarked units may dismount.
A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. It may move into base contact if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they
must head towards the nearest enemy.
Counter charging units are allowed to counter charge enemy units from any enemy formation, not just the one they were assaulted by. Any enemy formations that are contacted by counter charging units are drawn into the assault, and will fight just as if they had made the assault themselves. Treat them and the original attacking formation as a single formation for all rules purposes for the duration of the assault.
A 2D6 roll is used to resolve a combined assault. If the attacker loses then each formation is broken. If the attacker wins then each formation receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units the formation lost in the assault.


The underlined part should solve any queries as it states for the duration of the assault not just the first turn.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Ginger wrote:
With the death of the lead Jetbikes, most of the Scorchas and the entire Blitz brigade were now out of 15cms from the target jetbike formation, but still in range of the supporting Jetbikes. So, can the supporting Eldar jetbikes still support or not? The key here is whether the Ork units now out of range are still considered to be "involved in the assault" or not


They could lend supporting fire if they had any viable targets (in FF range and within 15cm of their own troops being directly engaged).
Quote:
There are two options
1) All units that were originally "involved in the assault" are considered to be "involved" until the assault is resolved, even if in subsequent rounds they cannot use their factors

2) Units "involved in the assault" are reassessed each round - so those now out of range are no longer involved even if they were "involved" in earlier rounds

As the rule states anyone dragged into an engagement are involved for the duration of the assault not just per turn.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Well, the moral of this story is to look in the book before calling a ref over!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
"Any enemy formations that are CONTACTED"

Does this not mean you must get into Base to Base? Not just FF range?!

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
dptdexys wrote:
Ginger wrote:
With the death of the lead Jetbikes, most of the Scorchas and the entire Blitz brigade were now out of 15cms from the target jetbike formation, but still in range of the supporting Jetbikes. So, can the supporting Eldar jetbikes still support or not? The key here is whether the Ork units now out of range are still considered to be "involved in the assault" or not


They could lend supporting fire if they had any viable targets (in FF range and within 15cm of their own troops being directly engaged).


And this is the point. While it is clear that the other formations dragged into the assault are all considered a single formation for the duration, it is not clear from the text whether the term "involved" is also intended to last for the duration of the assault. (and yes MoK they had to be "contacted" base-base, though being jetbikes they can then still use their FF values).

In this case, at the start of the 2nd assault round, the Blitz brigade was no longer in 15cm of the target (Eldar) troops as the lead jetbikes had already died; and these BB units were the only ones in range of the support fire from the other Jetbikes. So do they constitute a 'viable target' from the definition of being "involved" in the 1st round or not?

Support fire is normally considered purely in terms of those enemy units that have actively participated in the assault. We agree that support fire cannot take place where those enemy units have died or did not actively take part.

However here the support fire is in range of units that are still alive but no longer actively participating in the assault, although they were involved earlier on in the assault. So are they still "involved" or not?
(note, at the end of the 1st round they [i]were eligible targets for support fire as they were involved and had not been killed during the assault)[/i]

To me at least, it is still far from clear whether such units can be considered to be 'viable targets' or not. :-\


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
So...just for ME to be clear on this one: for an additional formation to be dragged into an assault the enemy have to counter charge INTO B2B contact, not just FF range (as that's just support fire?)?

THe mistake I made was to have units within 10cm of your jetbikes thus allowing them to come into B2B yes?

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Correct MoK, to be drawn in the units have to be B2B. pesky jet bikes, far too good ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
Curses! Foiled again!

At least I came out victorious in the long run!

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: continued assaults - who is "involved in the assault"
PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Ginger wrote:
Support fire is normally considered purely in terms of those enemy units that have actively participated in the assault. We agree that support fire cannot take place where those enemy units have died or did not actively take part.

However here the support fire is in range of units that are still alive but no longer actively participating in the assault, although they were involved earlier on in the assault. So are they still "involved" or not?
(note, at the end of the 1st round they [i]were eligible targets for support fire as they were involved and had not been killed during the assault)[/i]

To me at least, it is still far from clear whether such units can be considered to be 'viable targets' or not. :-\


They would still be involved (part of the assault for outnumbering,taking hackdowns,consolidation,breaking from losing etc.) but not "directly involved" as stated in 1.12.6 (highlighted relevant part)

Quote:
1.12.6 Supporting Fire (addition/change)
Both sides may call upon support unless the defender has been wiped out or the attack stalled as described above. Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault. In this case ‘directly involved’ means belonging to the attacking or defending formation(s) and in a
position to attack.
This rule represents units from both sides that are not directly involved in the assault lending supporting fire when they see their friends coming under attack. Units from formations that are either Broken or Marched this turn cannot lend support.


It would make no difference from 1st round of combat to 2nd/3rd//4th/Nth round of combat.
If there is a viable target you get to support, if no viable target you do not get to support.
Any formation that was in position to lend support, at any stage of the combat, that was on the losing side would also take a BM. Even if it was eventually out of support range.

( from 1.12.8 )
Quote:
Finally, any formations belonging to the losing side that were in a position to have lent support (ie, they were within 15cms of an enemy unit in the assault) receive one Blast marker each, even if they did not actually lend support. These Blast markers represent the detrimental effect on morale of seeing friends defeated in an assault.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net