Noticed 'Hidden' Rule For Assaults

[vince hughes]

I was fooling around today with PG in the absence of any proper play recently for many reasons including decent PC access.

Anyway, I stumbled on a situation that may have cropped up in others play, but not mine or an opponent's that I can remember.

Situation

Defenders in a town hex consist of good order leader 8-0-0, 1 x reduced DEM INF and 1 x DEM INF.

Attackers were 2 x leaders, 2 x SCH all activated (with others) for a FIRE activation.

I considered sending in a leader with 1 x SCH first, assault and then again, send the next leader in with the other SCH and assault again. This would have given a 6 point SCH on the 5 column (+1 with leader, +1 better morale, +1 all enemy units DEM, -2 attacking town) a net of +1 column for 2 x 9 column attacks.

However, I decided to check the rules to see if the assault could be done this way and noticed at rule 12.2 the following:"Resolve the assault after ALL (my caps) active units which are to enter the assault hex this action segment have finished entering the hex."

In other words, when you assault a hex in one Action Segment, it can only be assaulted the once and not multiple times. If I had wanted to do the 2 x 9 column attacks, I would have needed 2 activations. A very subtle rule buried away in there IMO.

As I say, I have never tried it in a 'live' opponent game, so it goes to show how just goofin' around with the system can find new rules, or should I say, old ones that you never noticed. Fortunately, with me never trying it before, no opponent can call 'foul' for a previous game we've played.

Is this new to anybody else ? Anybody assaulted the same hex twice in one activation ?

[Matt W]

Never thought of it (poor imagination on my part). Glad to see that I have inadvertently been playing it correctly...

[campsawyer]

Vince,

I may have used this before, but in a different context. Let's say you have a AFV in a separate hex than the infantry stack. Move the infantry stack in first and see if you get a result, then send in the tanks in a separate activation to see if you can finish them off or at least position for a combined attack next turn.

Possibility are only up to your imagination...

[vince hughes]

Vince,

I may have used this before, but in a different context. Let's say you have a AFV in a separate hex than the infantry stack. Move the infantry stack in first and see if you get a result, then send in the tanks in a separate activation to see if you can finish them off or at least position for a combined attack next turn.

Possibility are only up to your imagination...

Alan,

That is fine as they are seperate activations. The rule stands only when entering troops (or tanks or mixed bag) in the same activation. As I say, I'd never considered it before (like Matt), but saw the chance of 2 x 9 column attacks rather than 1 x 13 column against DEM troops likely to suffer compunded demoralisation.

Alas, the rules forbade my nefarious inclinations

[campsawyer]

ok, you you are looking at it like DF soviet inf. Might be better to fire 2x4 rather than 1x7

[Matt W]

Exactly, with DEM units defending there is probably a better chance of clearing the hex through 2 chances for double demoralization. However, according to the rule, as Vince noted, it would require two separate activations.

[campsawyer]

Exactly, with DEM units defending there is probably a better chance of clearing the hex through 2 chances for double demoralization. However, according to the rule, as Vince noted, it would require two separate activations.

The two activstions make sense as well. After a bit of thought, the activation method is quite elegant for simultaneous actions. The fact that two activations are required give the defenders a chance to recover or some othrr action before the second assault. I find this and the damage effects to be the best rules in the system.

[Matt W]

I tossed in my two cents on the "favorite rules thread". There are a number of quite simple, very elegant rules in the system. Unlike other tactical systems which appear to exist primarily to admire unless one is willing to devote a lifetime to them, PG seems designed to be played.

Someday I will play La Bataille using the Regs including tracing ricchochets, etc. But for now, PG fits the bill and uses the game table.