> Kevin wrote:
Doesn't that veteran have to make a confidence check
at +8 just to get into close combat with 9 greens? I
think I'm right on this, but I don't have my book with me.
If so, even a veteran 1 only has a 10 percent chance of ever getting into that
situation, he would have to roll a 10 to pass. A veteran 2 could never pass
the confidence check.
Tomb replies: Depends. Yes, I agree with you, if the figure has a choice. At
some point, depending on how you read close assault (and this was a thread of
length a short while ago), the figure may NOT retreat from the combat. The
fact he can then kill all these guys with one good roll is utterly silly.
I've seen far to many vets close assault larger units (maybe only 3x as big,
but still big enough) and roll well, and have the defender not even bother
picking up a die. This effect should be minimized by some die shifts for
odds....
Or think of the other side: I bring 2 x as many regulars as you have.... yet
you fight me at equal odds. Even if I bring 3x as many guys. In real close
range fighting, odds do tend to matter, all other factors being equal.
Yes, tonight we had a game where 6 PA troopers, with 2 flamers, killed about
10 troops, from a vet 2 and reg 2 squads. The PA suffered no casualties. One
trooper was knocked down but got back up. The only reason that more of my
troops didn't die was that I rolled quite well for the first squad.
That's the way it should be. One PA trooper is worth two regulars, that's
pratically spelled out in the rules. In this instance, the reg and vet
squaddies were "outnumbered" 12 to 10.
I think Confidence Checks are a better way to handle the "ganging up" factor
than additional die shifts in the combat. I think it's more realistic that a
single veteran would *not* close assault 10 greens than just making it tough
once he gets there.
I wouldn't mind a house rule that the odds should factor into the attacker's
and the defender's check before close assault. That way, a squad that's got a
real numbers advantage would be more likely to assault than one that's
outnumbered 2 to 1 or more.
> --- Corey Burger <burgundavia@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Kevin Balentine wrote:
Actually what happened was that the PA squad assulted the Vet squad, the vets
ran for it after one round of combat, the PA then did a follow up attack on
the Reg squad.
No, I am not complaing about the rules. It was just an observation.
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Corey Burger wrote:
> Yes, tonight we had a game where 6 PA troopers, with 2 flamers, killed
> about 10 troops, from a vet 2 and reg 2 squads. The PA suffered no
> first squad.
God, it was nice to see the PA do it's thing properly, for once. The fact that
you let them get well behind you didn't help you any, of course.
Nothing like coming up behind an enemy squad, through the woods so they
can't shoot you - besides, they were busy hosing the unit to their front
down, when black-camoed heavy PA began to tap-dance on their foreheads.
After having PA shot up and suppressed in too many games, having one grand
close assault come off perfectly was wonderful. Good for the soul.
Gloating, just a bit,
> Brian Burger wrote:
> God, it was nice to see the PA do it's thing properly, for once. The
I'm still iffy on that close assulting without line of sight.
> After having PA shot up and suppressed in too many games, having one
Sorry about that. But if you put them infront of me I tend to say "Sit! Stay!"
:) You know my feelings, if there's PA on the board, only mine should have
free reign:)
> Gloating, just a bit,
Well you don't get to too often with PA:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Brian Burger wrote:
Ooo. I remember a BIG discussion on that. Now, the rules as I read them, say
you can close assault a position. E.g. a piece of geography. So you wouldn't
have to have seen the enemy, but could be given orders like 'take that patch
of wood by close assault' and rush into, and through the trees, assaulting
whomever you run into first. Of course, my opponents disagreed vehemently.
What's the consensus here, can you:
... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can not see
all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned destination
of the close assault move), but ARE aware of enemy presence in those woods?
... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can not see
all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned destination
of the close assault move), but are NOT aware of enemy presence in those
woods?
Cheers,
In message
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1010405113904.6149D-100000@cc5127-a.deven1.ov.nl.home
> .com>, Derk Groeneveld writes:
Hmmm. I can't say this has ever even crossed my mind. We're all 200 hundred
foot generals anyway. I know the troops are there, I've spent the last four
turns maneuvering my entire side based on the fact that they are there, it
doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me not to
> Ooo. I remember a BIG discussion on that. Now, the rules as I read
--> what the book says is:
-->"The target of the assault must be a single defensive position or
location held by one enemy unit, though the attacking player may attempt to
commit more than one unit..."
-->And that's it. It never, anywhere, says that you have to have line
of sight to declare your intention to close assault. And in an era of
powerful space/air/land/helmet based sensors, HUDs for every trooper,
etc etc I don't see why you should have to. I figure that unless you are going
to use hidden movement (a huge pain) then your side has, at the least, a
general knowledge of what the enemy is up to. The game doesn't require you to
plan your movement and your strategy assuming that you know nothing about what
the other guy is up to. You don't have to "wait until first contact" before
reacting, unless the scenario says so. So why would you be limited in close
assaults? Having said that, if you are playing with hidden squads (using squad
counters and dummy counters), I wouldn't let you assault a *counter* that you
don't know is an enemy. The rule says that you can close assault a defensive
position held by an enemy. I think it is fair to say that if you don't know
he's there, you can't assault him...
Line of sight isn't necessary - because if the squad has been revealed
for some reason (ie the hidden counter turned over and the models placed on
the table), I think it is fair (in the SG universe) to assume that knowledge
of the squad is passed on to the entire force through their tactical data net.
Or whatever other PSB you use... They wave flags at each other. Send smoke
signals. Whatever. But if the figures are on the table, then I know
they're there. At least generally - enough that I can plan my movement
around where they are, can plan attacks, etc.
-->Some people want to add a line-of-sight limit to the game, but it
isn't there in the rules. At least, not that I've ever seen.
... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can not see
all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned destination
of the close assault move), but ARE aware of enemy presence in those woods?
--> Yes. We play that you have to have a reasonable chance of *getting*
there to initiate a close assault - in other words that you can't
declare a close assault at someone across the board if you can't get there in
two combat moves just to force a confidence check, but other than that, you
don't have to see the target position. There has to be an enemy there, though.
... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can not see
all of it (e.g. far end of the patch of woods; the final planned destination
of the close assault move), but are NOT aware of enemy presence in those
woods?
-->No. You have to be close assaulting an *enemy* in a defended
position -
the rules say so. If you don't know he's there, then you can't assault him. I
think the *only* time I might allow this to be different would be if you were
using the sniper hidden movement rules, and you close assaulted a sniper's
hidden counter, hoping that you were getting the right spot. But that's an
unusual circumstance and needs more thought.
On 5-Apr-01 at 15:48, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
> Having said that, if you are playing with
Why not? I would bet there have been many close assaults on what turned out to
be an empty position. Heck, with counters you could even close assault a mine
field. <evil grin>
We're all 200 HUNDRED foot generals?
Personally, I am a general sitting back reviewing satelite and recon drone
feeds.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> ... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can
Okay, that's what I thought.
> ... close assault a well defined piece of geography, even if you can
mmm. I think that's prone to abuse, as a single squad could easily cover all
three potential sniper positions. Then again, IS that all that irrealistic?
The sniper should have buggered off long before that, otherwise it's his own
stupidity.
Cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]