| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Hack-downs and transported troops http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=17758 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Silly question came up last weekend:- a broken mechanised formation came under fire, and so had to lose a unit. The infantry were being transported, so which unit dies? Strict RAW says you must remove the unit nearest the enemy so is that a unit in the transport, or the transport itself (potentially killing the contents as well)?? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Came up as well in my game. We just let the infantry dismount. |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Rule as written I would apply to transport (as by definition it would have to be closer than guys inside?)... at least that's the way I play it (often happens with my Orkeosauruses when broken and infantry back inside to avoid even more damage from arty etc). |
|
| Author: | mnb [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
i could see a rules lawyer having you make saves for the units inside the transport. |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Quote: (mnb @ Jan. 25 2010, 13:36 ) i could see a rules lawyer having you make saves for the units inside the transport. Well rule as written might also make sense from Real life POV though. Non-lethal fire hits transport (without doing non-lethal damage but hard to assess in confusion of battle). Crew panics and bails out... chaining to other passengers panicking and scattering also (rather than continuing a semi-ordered retreat). There's plenty of historical examples of the catastrophic psychological effects of non-lethal fire on the enemy, intact vehicles being left behind in rout. Slightly off topic but am also reminded of related stories of Napoleonic conscripts running off at noise, smoke and minor self-injuries caused by shooting their first musket volley (their own shooting!)... But yeah, I would have no problem with lsoing the vehicle and passengers just dismounting either. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
The only applicable transport-hackdown in the FAQ is for a lost assault. In that case the auto-kill on the transport counts as normal destruction. Quote: Q: If a formation loses an Assault and have to remove a Transport with units inside it, is that considered a TK hit since it does not allow saves, thereby removing the transported units without saves as well? A: No, apply the normal rules. Sounds to me like a BM-hackdown should be handled the same way, i.e. like a normal destruction of the vehicle. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Let's say 3 hackdowns are applied. Would that go on 3 transports, or the first transport and its two transported units? I would tend to play the latter. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 25 2010, 14:34 ) Let's say 3 hackdowns are applied. Would that go on 3 transports, or the first transport and its two transported units? I would tend to play the latter. I believe that's correct and that's how we've played it when it came up. The hackdown hits would hit the transported units. Transported units are only potentially "bonus" kills after the resolution of the hit against the transport kills the transport. The differences between hackdowns and normal hits are that hackdowns aren't subject to line of sight or range, and the target gets no save. Otherwise they are the same and hackdowns would be applied first and then resolved, like normal hits. Because they don't need line of sight, the loaded troops would be valid targets for allocation. The hits would be allocated in a single round, so they'd be allocated transport-loaded-loaded, then they would be resolved. They'd all be killed without save. If there were a 4th hit in your example, that would go on the next transport unit, killing it and requiring the loaded units to make saves. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Another great FAQ to include someplace. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Quote: (nealhunt @ Jan. 25 2010, 14:54 ) The differences between hackdowns and normal hits are that hackdowns aren't subject to line of sight or range, and the target gets no save.  Otherwise they are the same and hackdowns would be applied first and then resolved, like normal hits.  Because they don't need line of sight, the loaded troops would be valid targets for allocation. This lack of differentiators is at the nub of the question. The only way of prioritising the allocation of hits is distance from the shooting formation, but effectively as the transport and it's contents are all eligible and also the same distance from the shooter, would it not equally valid to allocate the hits 'Loaded-Loaded-Transport' (or even Loaded-Transport-Loaded')? Furthermore, as the defender actually allocates the hits under all other circumstances, why would he be prevented from choosing the order of allocation under these circumstances? I might add that the defender's choice is not a clear-cut as it might first appear:- Killing off the contents first reduces the fighting effectiveness of the formation (especially if this includes one or more characters), while killing off the transport risks the knock-on effect on the contents as well as reducing the speed of the formation. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
I think since the units are loaded inside the transport, we can safely call the transport closer to the attacker and therefore allocated first. As far as loaded troops there is no way to distinguish so the defender would determine. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
I am not sure it is so 'safe' especially to the troops concerned  Ok to finish off the FAQ, a single Hackdown BM is allocated to the transport, and one of the loaded units then fails its saving throw. Does that cause a further unit to be lost? (Note it is understood that the Hackdown hits themselves do not cause further loss) Equally, would the loss of the transport to dangerous terrain cause further losses? |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
As a dangerous terrain casualty does not cause a BM I'd say no. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
Quote: Ok to finish off the FAQ, a single Hackdown BM is allocated to the transport, and one of the loaded units then fails its saving throw. Does that cause a further unit to be lost? (Note it is understood that the Hackdown hits themselves do not cause further loss) I would say no. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hack-downs and transported troops |
No, all the way around. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|