|
RE: AT fire *during* assault
OK,
This is for Alan & Hugmenot. Other readers may / will find this interesting, particularly as nobody else has raised it.
One of you at least MUST be wrong. Although IMO, both of you are incorrect and here is why with the below example which if you were both correct would reveal a serious flaw in the PG system after so many 1000's of plays on PG_HQ alone that nobody noticed before.
In 1942 in the USSR any scenario almost (as most Soviets have a '7' morale) , 3 x StGIIIG's activate to FIRE in order to carry out an assault attack on a town hex that 3 x T34's are defending. They assault because part of the VC's are that towns controlled is part of the VC's.
Using PG rules, the attacking StG's have 2 choices. Either add their DF's together (3 x 10) for 30pts (-2 against a town +1 higher morale) = a 24col attack. OR take 6 x AT shots requiring 9's+ to hit. They go for the 6 x 9's AT attack as the damage possibilities are far more luctrative.
That is the easy part: Now we introduce Alan and Hugmenots interpretation of the rules.
Alan says the defending T34's, unlike the attackers are not allowed to AT fire,, therefore, the T34's are denied their 3 x AT shots where they would have a gun of 5 v an armour of 4 (plus town) therefore needing 10's to hit. As stated, Alan's interpretation of the rules is denying this possibility because he states that defending units can not AT fire in assault albeit attacking units can.
OK
If we take that rule, that leaves them with ONLY their DF option. This now moves us onto Hugmenot's rule interpretation of NOT allowing the defending units assault roll to affect units that have AT fired at them in the hex because they did not roll on the assault table. Hugmenot's interpretation being that AT firing units in an assault hex are not 'assaulting'.
Well this now leaves a serious flaw. Using Hugmenot's interpretation, because the StG's AT fired, the T34's can not harm them with an assault roll because they are exempted !!
The combined interpretation of Alan's and Hugmenot's rule means that an enemy can attack in assault using AT fire and receive NO harm at all. they can not be AT fired on because Alan does not believe defenders can AT fire and they can not be harmed by an assault table rule because Hugmenot does not believe AT firing units IN an assault hex are assaulting and are therefore exempt from attack. This is clearly incorrect... no assaulting units are exempted.
Another problem with H's idea is that it assumes the attacker designates his attack first ? As the fire against each other is simultaneous, there is no need for the defender to work out who has AT'd and who has DF'd. They are simply activated to FIRE in an assault and are therefore IN ASSAULT. What if the defender rolled his dice first in a simultaneous assault ?
Therefore, I reiterate the rather simple rules:
Any unit with an AT factor in an assault that is activated for a FIRE activation may AT fire if they so wish. The defenders may also use AT values as per 12.52. Also, any unit activated to FIRE in an assault hex is also open to the effects of any assault roll whether they AT fire or use their DF numbers. Assault is not what table you use to fire, it is the act of activating to FIRE in an assault hex.
So I maintain that activating to FIRE in an assault hex whether AT or DF numbers are used is all part of the assault hex and therefore that unit WILL be included in the retaliatory results. To have a situation where a unit assaulting can not be touched by the combination of two interpreations is clearly an error of judgement. As I play against both of you, there clearly is a need for one or both of you to re-visit what you are putting forward. The procedure I put forward seems obvious from the reading, intuitive and means that assault FIRE activations is the HEX rather than the type of fire.
I will add that units activated to MOVE when an assault takes place, such as recover from DIS or DEM ARE exempt as they are not taking part in the assault FIRE activation.
|
