Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Assault/Engage question
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=761		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  nightserpent [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
I tried the first training scenario (objective with 2 formations of 6 units on each side) yesterday. I didn't have any marine models available, so we made do with my Orks. I gather this made it harder (using small formations of Orks, rather than the reliable marines), but we had to make do with what I had. I tried not to think of it as an accurate representation of an Epic game, rather a way to get a sense for the rules.

But a couple of questions came up, and I was hoping you all could help me...

Other than being able to, perhaps, gang up more of your models in base to base, what is the real benefit of charging? ?

I gather if you are a more HTH oriented formation, or you greatly outnumber the opponent, you have better odds... But there appears to be no real bonus to being the assault-er. Am I missing something?

Retaining the initiative: in the above mission, say I go first. I nominate formation A to carry out an action. Then, I decide to retain the initiative and attempt to force formation B to make an action as well. Then, my opponent carries out an action with one of his formations. Back to my turn, can I carry out an action with formation B?

Or, did it already make it's action for the turn when it retained the initiative?

In other words, can retaining the initiative actually grant an extra action for the formation, or is it merely pushing it's action to the head of the line?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!
Author:  MaksimSmelchak [ Sun Aug 10, 2003 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
NightSerpent,

Other than being able to, perhaps, gang up more of your models in base to base, what is the real benefit of charging?


Good question. I'm not sure of the answer. Where's Dafrca when you need him?

I'm pretty sure that charge is the only way to go straight to HtH rather than firefight. I'm not as invested in the rules anymore as I once was. The playtesting forum isn't as enchanting as it once was.

I gather if you are a more HTH oriented formation, or you greatly outnumber the opponent, you have better odds... But there appears to be no real bonus to being the assault-er. Am I missing something?

That must be wrong. However, the HtH rules are a bit odd. It's possible for both sides to really lose out.

Retaining the initiative: in the above mission, say I go first. I nominate formation A to carry out an action. Then, I decide to retain the initiative and attempt to force formation B to make an action as well. Then, my opponent carries out an action with one of his formations. Back to my turn, can I carry out an action with formation B?

No, if it lost the initiative then it used up its' action. Bummer!

At least, that's how I understood the rule.

Or, did it already make it's action for the turn when it retained the initiative?

It already made it's action.

In other words, can retaining the initiative actually grant an extra action for the formation, or is it merely pushing it's action to the head of the line?

You can try for a double action, but if you already failed an initiative then it's done, period. So, in your words, it's like pushing its' action to the front of the line.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!

You're welcome although I'm not sure how much help it was. :D

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Author:  nightserpent [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:13 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
any reason why my topic titles are being re-named??

Quote
That must be wrong. However, the HtH rules are a bit odd. It's possible for both sides to really lose out.


I don't follow you... what must be wrong??  It makes sense that a more combat oriented formation would be better at an assault than a shooty one.  

Speaking of odd results... I did charge a formation, I had more units using the close combat value than he.  I caused more causalties... and HE won!   :l   I guess we shouldn't rely on the outcomes of an assault unless we grossly outnumber the enemy.

thanks for clearing up the initiative retaining question.  It makes more sense your way, but I wanted to make sure!  :)
Author:  MaksimSmelchak [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:23 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
NightSerpent,

Any reason why my topic titles are being renamed?


I usually rename topics to indicate what they're about to make them clear. It makes it easier for everyone to know what's in the thread.

I'm also the Grammar and Spelling Commisar (GSC). ? :D

I don't follow you... what must be wrong?

What I meant is that it would certainly logically seem that the assaulter would get some sort of bonus.

It makes sense that a more combat-oriented formation would be better at an assault than a shooty one. ?
Speaking of odd results... I did charge a formation, I had more units using the close combat value than he. ?I caused more causalties... and HE won! I guess we shouldn't rely on the outcomes of an assault unless we grossly outnumber the enemy.

The CC rules are certainly a bit odd. It's really odd when you deal out the damage, but STILL lose the CC. Weird! ?:O

Thanks for clearing up the initiative retaining question. It makes more sense your way, but I wanted to make sure!

You're welcome. I may still be wrong. I'm certainly no E-A expert. Now, Dafrca, on the other hand...

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Author:  Tas [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:40 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Quote (nightserpent @ 11 2003 Aug.,00:59)

Re Charging.  You mUST charge to enter a unit's Zone of Control (ZOC) which for most units is 5cm.  So, if you move but not charhe you can close to a range of 5cm and get into a fiefight, but wont get into base to base required for CC.  Thus you MUST charge to get into CC.

Retaining the Initiative- this rule is to allow you to try and move 2 units in a row, not get a unit to perform 2 actions in a turn.  Every unit only gets a single action each turn. So if you retain the initiative and Formation B does "stuff", thats it, its done its stuff for the turn and must until next turn.

It is a VERY handy feature though, because it allows you to for example engage a target unit, heap up Blast markers and cause casualties, then retain the initiative and smash a unit into close combat and clean it up
Author:  nightserpent [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:58 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
thanks, Tas, for the re-affirmation!  

I guess I wasn't clear about the charging bit.  Is there an actual benefit for being the charger than the charge-ee? (other than the placement issues I mentioned above).
Author:  Periodic [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
No, there is no bonus for charging, other then being able to dictate the terms of an assault. In fact, there is a penalty, as an assaulting formation cannot take advantage of cover bonuses in an assault.

-Periodic.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
What periodic said.

Don't underestimate the value of picking the where/when of an assault.
Author:  dafrca [ Tue Aug 12, 2003 4:20 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Quote (Periodic @ 10 2003 Aug.,21:12)
No, there is no bonus for charging, other then being able to dictate the terms of an assault. In fact, there is a penalty, as an assaulting formation cannot take advantage of cover bonuses in an assault.

-Periodic.

Periodic is right, there is not a lot of "advantage" to being the attacker vs. the person being attacked. But having said that, as Neal said, it is nice to be the one picking the plce of the attack. Also if you have a unit that is better in FF be careful to not get too close.

In that vain, watch out for the infeltrators. They get to "charge" twice their movement.

dafrca
Author:  Legion 4 [ Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:04 am ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Ah yes, the G/W close combat conundrum ... again ... :laugh: However, as I said, the E-A rules generally, are pretty well done. And as with many games, the more you play the game, the more you get to understand the rule mechanics and how to use methods and what tactics they represent.  Or you can just line up and run into middle and use high-tech ranged weapons as clubs ... oh ... wait ... that's 40K ... :blush:  ... :laugh: ... }:)
Author:  Shadow Hunter [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Just wondering what you guys are going to do with all those extra Ork figures on the sprue that wont now get used for EpicA?

For instance the Shokk attack gun (I know it could be a big gun, but that would look crappy) the Pain boss, the Bigmek (could be put onto the soopa gunz I guess), the Weird boy etc.

Also, what about the other sprues?  Are there any obsolete figures on the Imperials and marines?  I can't think of any.
Author:  Chris [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
There are no "obsolete" figures on the IG or Sm sprue, unless you count the Techmarine and Apothcary etc.

I think this has happened with the Orks because much of the Ork armoury has been "streemlined" to make a more managable force. They did end up with LOADS of different vehicles!

Cheers

Chris
Author:  the_fifth_horseman [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Jervis made a list of what counts as what in the Ork army. For example, the Boarboyz are used as Warbikes and so on... You might want to read this list.
Author:  Shadow Hunter [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Oh yeah.  I've found the list.

painboyz, mekboyz and Runtherd are all Nobz.

shootaboyz and weird boyz are big gunz.


hmmmm. ???  Maybe I'll just add them into the odd Nobz stand for variety then.
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Assault/Engage question
Conversions, conversions, conversions, baby! :D

On the Big Gunz, I think the shokk attakks look fine mixed in with hop splats and such.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/