Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

Supporting Fire in an Assault

 Post subject: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:25 pm
Posts: 282
We had a chat about this at the recent tournament, and I wanted to check the views of others.

A unit carries out an assault, it positions so that it is equi distant from the assaulted unit, and places so that one unit from its formation is 15cm from a different enemy unit - the aim being to give that unit a blast marker on winning the assault.
So far so good.
But what happens if this unit is killed before supporting fire occurs?

The thoughts at Bristol was that the adjacent unit, now with nothing in range, can't shoot (FF) but still gets a BM on resolution.

I'm not sold on this, it just seems a bit cheap. I can see how a cunning person may use this to their advantage. - Just wanted to hear the views of others.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:56 am
Posts: 13
You get BM. From rules section 1.12.8 Loser Withdraws

Quote:
Finally, any formations belonging to the losing side that were in a position to have lent support (i.e., 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.


This also applies to situations where one formation is wiped out before any support can be made. So it also should apply to here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1169
Location: Devon, UK
I thought the bit in 1.12.8 was for units that don't have a FF value? I also can't find anything about it applying when one formation has been wiped out.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
The rule your looking for is 1.12.8, highlighted relevant parts.

Quote:
1.12.8 Loser Withdraws After the result of the combat has been worked out (either because all defending units were destroyed, or the attack stalled, or through a result roll), then the loser is broken and must withdraw, and formations on the winning side receive Blast markers for the casualties they suffered.
If the loser was already broken when it was assaulted then the whole formation is destroyed, and ALL units in the formation are removed from play as casualties. If the losing formation is not broken then it becomes broken and may withdraw (see 1.13.3).
Once any additional casualties have been removed, any surviving units on the losing side must make an immediate withdrawal as explained in the rules for broken formations later on (see 1.13.3).
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.


Also remember that supporting formations (on the losing side ) only get a BM if they were within 15m of a unit that was "directly involved" in the engagement, not from being within 15cm of a unit that was not "directly involved"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5465
Location: London, UK
Agreed, and this has always been the case as dptdexys points out.

As long as the formation started the assault in a position to support, irrespective of whether it was able to actually provide the support (because the relevant units did not have a FF value, or because targets were killed etc.), then it receives a BM if its friend was defeated.

Note, it must have LoS etc to “be in position to support”; being within 15cm but blocked by some obstacle would prevent the formation from supporting, and hence from suffering the BM.

While there is potential for gameyness, in my experience it is rarer than you might think or expect. The same is true of the other ‘gamey’ aspects like clipping or pinning part of a formation through the countercharging rules.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Posts: 377
Location: London
the rule is clear enough I guess but it doesn't follow its own design notes where it says "these Blast markers represent the detrimental effect on morale of seeing friends defeated in an assault." because the rule doesn't require the supporting unit to have any LOS to the defeated target unit. You could have a bunch of formations close behind the broken assaulted formation who won't get a BM because they're not near enough to the attacker and, conversely, say, a participating super heavy that kills a bunch of the attackers units and can't see the defeated target unit (due to terrain - admittedly unlikely) that will take a BM. Just saying

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
ffoley wrote:
the rule is clear enough I guess but it doesn't follow its own design notes where it says "these Blast markers represent the detrimental effect on morale of seeing friends defeated in an assault." because the rule doesn't require the supporting unit to have any LOS to the defeated target unit. You could have a bunch of formations close behind the broken assaulted formation who won't get a BM because they're not near enough to the attacker and, conversely, say, a participating super heavy that kills a bunch of the attackers units and can't see the defeated target unit (due to terrain - admittedly unlikely) that will take a BM. Just saying



The rule does require a LOS to the assault to receive a BM .
It clearly states they have to be in a position to have lent support fire which LOS is needed to do that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Posts: 377
Location: London
you don't need LOS to the unit that breaks though

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
ffoley wrote:
you don't need LOS to the unit that breaks though



Misread the post , realised you were stating you do not have to have a LOS to your own formation if it loses an engagement to receive a BM.


Last edited by dptdexys on Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:56 am
Posts: 13
Technically you don't need LOS for breaking unit (assuming it is your side), only the enemy which is in assault :).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supporting Fire in an Assault
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Posts: 377
Location: London
Ginger wrote:
While there is potential for gameyness, in my experience it is rarer than you might think or expect. The same is true of the other ‘gamey’ aspects like clipping or pinning part of a formation through the countercharging rules.


the elephant in the room is that players like the gameyness of these rules. they allow on occasion a more advanced level of game to be played. by analogy its like learning a special move in a video game or knowing extremely obscure words in scrabble

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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