Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Assault versus movement

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    retired_airborne's Avatar

    Blog Entries
    3
    Real Name
    Rich
    Location
    Greater Falcon Area
    Posts
    51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Assault versus movement

    Just my opinion here, but feel pretty confident on this one. I'm sure this will pop up during the tournament, so at least for me, I need to have it clear. During a game this weekend, a couple of assault scenarios caused a bit of an issue. If anyone has any other interpretations I'd love to hear them. I play light infantry companies so the assault is a force multiplier for me. A clear understanding of this concept is a plus.

    The assault phase is just that, a phase. All normal movement in the movement phase and all shooting in the shooting phase has already been resolved at this point; prior to the assault phase.

    You can move up to four inches away from the enemy in the movement step and NOT assault, not a good move IMHO, but it is the players choice. This is where I used to get confused. Assault phase MUST remain separate from the movement phase.

    Base to Base contact is not made during the movement phase, regardless of the players intention to assault or not. Base to base contact between the closest unit is the made during the Assault phase. This makes perfect sense to me as a player may want to soften up the enemy with indirect fire to pin prior to moving into the assault. This would be hard to do if your units are sitting in base to base contact from the movement phase.

    Anyone watching the excellent Battlefront videos? This is explained at the very beginning of the first assault video, they state that all other movement and shooting is already complete. I missed that and I've watched that video a dozen times. Don't know if this helps anyone else, but this issue can turn a good game sour really quick.
    "When we jumped into Sicily, the units became seperated, and i could'nt find anyone. Eventually I stumbled across two colonels, a major, three captains, two lieutenants, and one rifleman, and we secured the bridge. Never in the history of war have so few been led by so many."

    Jumping Jim Gavin
    505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

  2. #2

    HellRaiser#7's Avatar

    Real Name
    Ed Rossman
    Location
    Falcon, Colorado
    Posts
    123
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Re: Assault versus movement

    your right, i was confused on the sneak attack during the assault and the "Allies" were correct. My Bad... Now I understand the sneak attack and how it works. Never had it happen before. Ed
    "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand
    ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us"

  3. #3

    jeremyb's Avatar

    Real Name
    Jeremy
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    194
    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Re: Assault versus movement

    We have to be sneaky with all those panzers around

  4. #4

    HellRaiser#7's Avatar

    Real Name
    Ed Rossman
    Location
    Falcon, Colorado
    Posts
    123
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Re: Assault versus movement

    Wiped them all out but one...LOL
    "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand
    ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us"

  5. #5

    retired_airborne's Avatar

    Blog Entries
    3
    Real Name
    Rich
    Location
    Greater Falcon Area
    Posts
    51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Re: Assault versus movement

    It's all good! I did find this on closer inspection of the v3 rulebook and a post on the BF forum for clarification. I guess we all missed this one. It's new in Version 3 apparently.

    pg154, "Tanks Fall Back From Two Effective Hits"
    "However, if two or more Armored vehicles ... are Bailed Out or Destroyed by Defensive Fire, the platoon must Fall Back."

    You said that two panzers were bailed out and one destroyed. So, the platoon fails to assault and gets pushed back to 2" away from the infantry.

    ...But otherwise, they would indeed be captured as only bailed/bogged tanks are remaining in the platoon.
    "When we jumped into Sicily, the units became seperated, and i could'nt find anyone. Eventually I stumbled across two colonels, a major, three captains, two lieutenants, and one rifleman, and we secured the bridge. Never in the history of war have so few been led by so many."

    Jumping Jim Gavin
    505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

  6. #6

    retired_airborne's Avatar

    Blog Entries
    3
    Real Name
    Rich
    Location
    Greater Falcon Area
    Posts
    51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Re: Assault versus movement

    It's all good! I did find this on closer inspection of the v3 rulebook and a post on the BF forum for clarification. I guess we all missed this one. It's new in Version 3 apparently.

    pg154, "Tanks Fall Back From Two Effective Hits"
    "However, if two or more Armored vehicles ... are Bailed Out or Destroyed by Defensive Fire, the platoon must Fall Back."

    You said that two panzers were bailed out and one destroyed. So, the platoon fails to assault and gets pushed back to 2" away from the infantry.

    ...But otherwise, they would indeed be captured as only bailed/bogged tanks are remaining in the platoon.
    "When we jumped into Sicily, the units became seperated, and i could'nt find anyone. Eventually I stumbled across two colonels, a major, three captains, two lieutenants, and one rifleman, and we secured the bridge. Never in the history of war have so few been led by so many."

    Jumping Jim Gavin
    505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

  7. #7

    mrobohn's Avatar

    Real Name
    Mike
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    202
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Re: Assault versus movement

    Quote Originally Posted by retired_airborne View Post
    It's all good! I did find this on closer inspection of the v3 rulebook and a post on the BF forum for clarification. I guess we all missed this one. It's new in Version 3 apparently.

    pg154, "Tanks Fall Back From Two Effective Hits"
    "However, if two or more Armored vehicles ... are Bailed Out or Destroyed by Defensive Fire, the platoon must Fall Back."

    You said that two panzers were bailed out and one destroyed. So, the platoon fails to assault and gets pushed back to 2" away from the infantry.

    ...But otherwise, they would indeed be captured as only bailed/bogged tanks are remaining in the platoon.
    One of the panzers was destroyed during the defensive fire, and the other two panzers were bailed when british paratroops counter-attacked the assaulting panzers.

    So, in this case the assault went off (only one tank knocked out in defensive fire).

  8. #8

    HellRaiser#7's Avatar

    Real Name
    Ed Rossman
    Location
    Falcon, Colorado
    Posts
    123
    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Re: Assault versus movement

    The tournaments I have played in, they were capturing the tanks on the next turn. But you should be able to capture them when you consolidate the same turn the platoon bailed/destroyed, etc.
    "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand
    ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us"

  9. #9

    retired_airborne's Avatar

    Blog Entries
    3
    Real Name
    Rich
    Location
    Greater Falcon Area
    Posts
    51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Re: Assault versus movement

    Yep. Now that I understand that better, I will be using the new rules to my advantage. Especially against leg tankers!

  10. #10

    John's Avatar

    Real Name
    John
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    349
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Re: Assault versus movement

    But what if they are not leg tankers?????
    Oberst Huah!

    God Bless those that serve.
    All gave some, Some gave all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •