Close Assault example on p.43

Started by Cuachiqueh, 20 May 2019, 04:55:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cuachiqueh

Hi All,

I was working through the Close Assault example on p.43.

When the number of dice for the close assault is calculated, why didn't the Republican player gain a die for having an unsuppressed friendly unit within 10cm? It appears in the example that the Republican infantry unit second from the left should be in a position to provide support, but didn't.

Thanks,

Jim 

Ithoriel

It may just be an oversight but potential supporting units have the option not to add support in order to provide support elsewhere later in the turn.
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Big Insect

You are right - the Republican players unit could add support dice from any friendly units that have appropriate stats and are within 10cm of the CA.
However, equally that support is optional - as stated by Ithoriel - and as a supporting unit can only support 1 assault in a game turn, you may wish to leave that support to be added to a combat if it is draw (for example) or you do not want to risk them being effected by a bad outcome on the assaulted/assaulting unit.

But I agree - it would be a stronger example if the supporting +1 d6 per supporter was added in.

Cheers
Mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Cuachiqueh

Hi again,

Thanks. I see that it was just personal player preference that the Republican unit didn't support the Close Assault. This raises another question for me.

Mark's response indicated that "you may wish to leave that support to be added to a combat if it is draw (for example)." As the close assault example continues into p.44, it shows that the Nationalist player loses a die because his unit is no longer making an assault move. However, it looks like the Nationalist player hasn't lost the additional die that the supporting unit provided, as the player is rolling 5d6 (down from 6d6). It looks like the Nationalist player should be rolling 4d6.

Should the example be amended in the errata?

Jim

Big Insect

'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.