Last weekend we had a great time Stargrunting. I picked some scenarios from
the internet. We did do 3 scenarios which kept us busy for about 15 hours. At
first the going was a bit slow due to lots of rule lookups, but all in all
things went great.
Scenarios do help a lot, and time limits add even more to the fun.
We are slowly getting the hang of the rules, and the index I found on the web
was a great help.
A few rule interpretation questions came up with the close assault though.
Problem 1. Attacker charges first time but doesn't get there, and defender
holds and fires. Attacker then charges some more and defender fails test and
runs away. However, attacker didn't throw a high enough die roll to reach
defended position. Does he still occupy the position, or does he stop at the
end of his movement? The rules don't say anything about this, as it just says
occupy the position if defender runs away.
Problem 2. At the moment the attacker starts his charge, the defender has to
test. If he fails, he runs away. With the optional follow-through move
the attacker can then either occupy the position or follow up by doing a test
and another combat move. Does this second combat move start at the point he
was when the defender failed his test, or does it start at the target
position? The rules state it is an additional combat-move action, so we
interpreted as meaning the second case. Is this correct?
Problem 3. If the follow-through move is enough the catch up to the
fleeing defenders, what happens? If have seen some references on the web to
close assaulting right across the table. However, the rules state that if you
can reach the fleeing defenders another close combat takes place, not a close
assault. We took this to mean that hand-to-hand combat is initiated. Or
does this mean that defenders first have to make another confidence test?
Cheers,
> On Mon, 12 March 2001, Frits Kuijlman wrote:
> Last weekend we had a great time Stargrunting. I picked some scenarios
Out of curiousity, which scenarios?
> Problem 1. Attacker charges first time but doesn't get there, and
Okay, I don't have the rules in front of me, but does the defender have to
test a second time for the same charge? I'm not saying they don't, just that I
don't have the rules in front of me.
> Does he still occupy the position, or does he stop at the end of his
That's a good question. I don't think I've had this happen in a game. I would
interpret it as the defenders stopping where they ended their combat move.
This is why I'm questioning the defenders making a second test. I thought it
was: attackers test to charge; defenders test to stand; attackers combat move;
if attackers don't make it into combat range, then: defenders attack;
attackers test to continue; attackers combat move.
I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't remember the defenders testing
twice. If they do, then I'd have the attackers end their movement where they
ended their second combat move.
> Does this second combat move start at the point
I've always interpreted it to mean that it started at the target position. So,
I believe you are correct.
> Problem 3. If the follow-through move is enough the catch up to the
Or does
> this mean that defenders first have to make another confidence test?
The rules in this area are hazy. The way it's interpreted on the list is that
after the defenders run away from a close assault, the attackers may initiate
the whole close assault sequence again. Which means that the defenders have to
test to stay and fight again.
If the defenders fail, they run away.
Now, it's at this point that the list members and the rules depart. The
rules imply that this whole defender runs away/attacker follows sequence
can be played out all the way across the table. Most of us think that's a bit
silly. We (meaning my group, but others on the list have said the same thing)
limit this to two attempts.
So:
- the attacker announces a close assault. The defender fails their roll
or voluntarily runs away. The attacker moves into their position.
- the attacker announces a follow up close assault. The defender fails
their roll or voluntarily runs away a second time. The attacker moves into the
position just vacated by the defender.
- that's it, close assault is over.
That's not a strict interpretation of the rules, and a rules lawyer will fight
you on it (all the way across the table top, in fact) but it's a reasonable
limit. It's how we play, anyway.
My responses marked by [Bri]. Since Alan plays more than me, give his comments
more weight. I am just providing an additional view.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:29:23 -0500, "Brian Bell" <bkb@beol.net> wrote:
> [Bri] I respectfully disagree with Alan here.
I re-read the passage tonight, with the rules in front of me. It seems
obvious from the writing that Jon was thinking of a situation where the
defenders ran
and the attackers could have engaged them in hand-to-hand combat.
The problem comes when the unit couldn't make it to engage them in the first
place. That is, they do the two combat moves and fall short.
After thinking about this, and actually having the rules in front of me, I
concur with Brian. Start the overrun from the point where they stopped moving.
> [Bri] Aye. A good house rule.
It's also easy to remember. Close assault eats up two actions, so the idea
that it's restricted to an initial assault and one follow-up has a
certain amount of logic.
> Problem 1. Attacker charges first time but doesn't get there, and
This one is relatively easy to sort out, but requires *careful* reading...
The scenario you describe can't occur. The defender only takes ONE test unless
the attacker reaches him, a close assault occurs, and he loses... (or as
required by the "ending close combat" rule on pg.42.
It goes like this:
Attacking unit announces intention to close assault.
Attacking unit takes reaction test, if passes, close assault may go on.
Defending unit takes confidence test, if FAILS, then NO movement die are
rolled. The attacking unit immediately occupies the position of the defender,
and the defender withdraws 6" or his basic movement, whichever is greater.
If the defending unit passes the confidence test, they may elect to abandon
the position, in which case no movement die are rolled, and the attacker
occupies the position. If they choose to take the assault, then the attacker
rolls movement die. If he reaches the defender, fight the close assault. If
the attacker fails to reach the defender, then the defender gets the free
"final defensive fire" action. At this point, only one test has been taken by
each side. There is a potential for a second test by the defenders, but that
only happens if they are eligible to get off a round of defensive fire (the
attacker didn't reach them), but they are suppressed
-
and in this case, failing the test does not produce a morale loss, it just
stops them from taking the defensive fire (it is a reaction test, not a
confidence test).
In the defensive fire action, the defender may shoot his regular and support
weapons. If he does NO casualties to the attacker, then there is no affect on
the attacker, and the attacker may roll his second movement. If the defender
causes casualties to the attacker, the attacker takes an
immediate reaction test with a penalty of +1 per casualty. If he passes,
then he rolls his second movement die. Defender does NOT need to take a second
test. If the attacker fails, then he moves either back to his
starting position, or to the nearest cover - attackers choice (and
because this is a reaction test and not a confidence test, he doesn't lose
morale).
If the attacker fails to reach the defender on his second movement, then he
may elect to either move the distance rolled toward the target and continue
the attack the following turn, or move as if he had failed the reaction test
and go to nearest cover or back to starting point. Either way, the close
assault action is over.
Now, the only other tricky bit is how Follow-Through works. If the
defender fails his confidence test at the beginning of the assault and
withdraws (or choses to voluntarily withdraw), or is completely destroyed, the
attacker automatically reaches the abandoned position. At that point, that
close assault action has ended. The attacker may now elect to use the
special Follow-Through move. He makes a reaction test (with threat
level
+1 if defending unit was wiped out, and +2 if they pulled back), and if
passed, he takes ONE extra movement action, rolled as a combat movement.
Note that this is NOT a new CLOSE-ASSAULT sequence, and does NOT require
a confidence test from the defender. The defender does not take another
confidence test here - either the attacker reaches him, at which point a
close assault combat is fought out, or the attacker fails to reach him, at
which point the action is over, and the attacker is stuck where he ended up
(if he fails to reach the defending unit with his follow-through move,
he
can't chose to ignore it and stay in the position or move to cover -
this is clearly stated as a COMBAT MOVE, and so you're stuck where you end up,
just like any other combat move). This should make units considering a
follow-up action cautious if there is any chance they might not make the
distance to the defending unit - who if they have high enough morale,
might be able to turn around and blast them... The important thing here is
that
the Follow-Through is a MOVEMENT, not a CLOSE-ASSAULT SEQUENCE, and
combat will only occur if the attacking unit has enough movement to move into
contact with the defending unit again.
The only way that the "chase them across the table" scenario could take place
at all is if the attacker reaches the defender in the follow through movement,
they fight a round of close combat, and the defender loses and withdraws. The
attacker then has then won the round of combat, fulfilling
the requirements for being allowed another follow-through attack. He
has to take another reaction test to be allowed to do so. Note, and this is
the important bit, the defender does NOT make a confidence test to receive
the follow-through movement. It just happens, decided by whether or not
the attacker rolls high enough on his combat move die to reach the withdrawn
defender. If this is the case, I don't see it as very likely
that the fight will cross the table - by that point, the defender will
have lost some *serious* morale, and will probably have surrendered, if they
haven't been wiped out. Losing a couple of rounds of close combat will break
just about any unit, unless they are *really* lucky. Sure, theoretically is
*could* continue across the table, but the defenders only have the choice to
voluntarily withdraw ONCE (at the very beginning), so it is *really* unlikely.
And that's it...
Normally, the only tests taken by the defender are the initial test to receive
the charge, and then again at the end of the close assault, as dictated by the
"ending close combat" rules on page 42. The other possible tests are the
reaction test to take defensive fire if they are suppressed, and a confidence
test if they are reached a second time with
follow-through
movement.
Close assaults are an ugly business, but usually a short one...
> Does he still occupy the position, or does he stop at the end of his
attackers test to continue; attackers combat move.
Remember though, if the defenders withdraw (either voluntarily or
otherwise) then the attackers don't roll their combat move - they just
get there automatically. If the attackers fail to reach the defenders, the
defenders DON'T take another confidence test - so *can't* withdraw...
unless the attackers get there and a close assault is fought.
The scenario exactly as you described it can't actually occur, because either
the defender passed his test, or he failed. He doesn't get a second one after
the attacker doesn't reach him the first time...
> Does this second combat move start at the point
So, I believe you are correct.
Yes - that one seems clear. If you take the position, then you get to
the position... if the defender has failed a test and withdrawn, the attacker
automatically gets there... so the follow-through movement starts from
the target position.
> Problem 3. If the follow-through move is enough the catch up to the
Or does
> this mean that defenders first have to make another confidence test?
Well, I think the rules are actually quite clear on this. The attacker never
gets to start a whole close assault sequence again. Either he makes
his follow-up move, reaches the defender, and a close assault COMBAT
takes place (no tests required from the defender), or he doesn't make the move
and he's stuck hanging in the breeze. The attacker doesn't get the option
of declaring another close assault like he did at the beginning - either
he passes the reaction test allowing a follow up move, or he doesn't. Either
way, the defender doesn't have a choice about what happens - because the
close combat is ONLY fought if the follow-through movement has enough
distance to bring the assaulting unit into contact with the defending unit.
This is NOT a "regular" close assault sequence. The defenders do not have the
option of testing to stay and fight again, and so, of course, they do not have
the option of chosing to withdraw a second time.
I most certainly agree with Allan that it should be difficult/impossible
for the "chase across the table" situation to occur. But I think if you read
the rules carefully, you'll agree that it is nearly impossible for that to
happen. The defending unit would have to pass too many confidence tests with
huge penalties, and unless you have a magic horseshoe stuffed up someplace,
the defender will more than likely break (and be destroyed or surrender)
before more than two or at most three rounds of combat have occurred. And
since even if the defender does withdraw they can only withdraw 6" (or their
normal base movement), they aren't going to be going too far. I don't see a
need to limit the number of times an attacking unit
may attempt a follow-through movement. Except in *really* unusual
circumstances, the close-assault rules are rather self-limiting - the
cumulative morale losses for the losing side will cause them to surrender in
short order, if they are not wiped out. I have *never* seen a close assault go
more than two or three rounds.
Hope that helps clear things up (and that I didn't confuse more than
clarify...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Now, the only other tricky bit is how Follow-Through works. If the
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?
Now, on to the overrun bit:
"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.
Clearly this is silly, and not how the rules were intended. Should the
explanations earlier in this thread make it into an errata or FAQ to clarify?
Cheers,
G'day Adrian,
> the Follow-Through is a MOVEMENT, not a
When you put it like that it sounds so clear. We'd always just interpreted the
bit where it says "and commence yet another close assault combat" to
include the reaction/confidence tests (and so chance of withdrawal too).
Your interpretation seems much more sensible though!
Cheers
Beth