Scott Shupe wrote:
>
> Well, being on assault orders doesn't neccessarily involve
> charging headlong towards the enemy. I've seen a handful of
> maneuvers where an assaulting detachment moves away from the enemy
> in the movement phase and then rushes in the assault phase. Of
> course that wasn't your intent in the above case, but intentional
> or not it's a valid option.
>
> If you have a conceptual problem with a detachment turning
> around between the movement and assault phases, do you have the same
> problem with a det. reversing direction between the assault phase of
> one turn and the movement phase of the next? Because it's pretty
> much the same situation since all movement is continous, it's just
> arbitrarily broken up by the turn sequence.
Sure, I think that makes sense. I guess I don't have a problem with the
movement itself, that the jetbikes can reverse their direction. Rather
than a question of "could they do this", it was "would they do this". I
guess the problem is just that the orders system doesn't have any sense
of intent in them. Just because I think of it as giving these guys the
order to "tear off that way and attack the guys near the ruins", doesn't
mean that I can specify any more than "go attack somebody" in Epic 40K.
In my mind, it is "go get those guys who are a threat, are vulnerable,
and in range, getting further from those guys with big guns coming up
behind them", and there isn't any reason to turn around and go back
towards the guys who aren't currently a threat, aren't as vulnerable,
and weren't in range, anyway. But the orders don't have any of this
kind of thought in them. I believe that this situation makes sense to
interpret the way we did, but I could see that there would be plenty of
situations where it wasn't so obvious, and drawing the line would be
hard. So we'll probably go by the strict rules next time. But it
doesn't make any sense.
> The problem I have with moving detachments on assault orders
> is: what do you do when the assaulting detachment has enemy dets in
> 2 opposite directions? This has happened to me when additional
> enemy troops have been deposited via drop pods right behind my main
> CC force. According to the rules, if you're on assault orders you
> can't move away from the enemy but you have to move at least 5cm
> towards the enemy. But no matter which enemy you move towards you
> are moving away from the other:
>
> enemy A
>
> CC detachment
>
> enemy B
>
> What to do? When this question first came up, part of my CC det.
> was closer to "A" and part was closer to "B" (the units in the
> center of the det. were in a gray area), so there wasn't even a
> "closer enemy" for the entire detachment.
I've wondered about that, too, especially when the assaulting detachment
would be split, and neither half could do much of anything.
andy
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Mon Apr 27 1998 - 18:46:39 UTC