Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
KitG
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:51 am

Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by KitG » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:26 am

Right, having just finished playing NATCON is the midst of a Gale and the rubble of the earthquake, and speaking with the well worn authority of the First Loser, I raise the following points:

(a) Firing - Mr Marshall raised an interesting point about the firing area. He pointed out that in order to fire the target unit had to be within range and have some of the target in its firing 'arc'. This meant that you could shoot at a bit of a unit that wasn't in 'arc', but was within range. I said that this must be bollocks because of the picture in the book that defines the 'firing area' and that you can only shoot at what is in the firing area - ie - straight ahead for an infanty unit along its entire frontage and up to six inches, anything not in that area and you can't shoot at it. Mr Marshall claimed that the rules do not say this and that some people in Australia (of all places...) play it this way. How interesting.

(b) Intercept Charging - a unit intercepts an assaulting unit contacting it - fine. The unit being charged then counter charges out to meet the assaulting unit and contacts the assaulting unit - therefore both units fight the assaulting unit? Is this allowed - I could see nothing in the rules to suggest it was not. Another special effort from Mr Marshall, this.

Bar853
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:55 am

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by Bar853 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:50 am

Your second question on charging has an answer on this thread viewtopic.php?f=188&t=47296

Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by Saxonian » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:07 am

Hi Kit, as one of those "interesting" Australians, let me respond....

(a) I agree with you totally - this is bollocks!! The target has to be within range and arc, not one or the other. Don't know where Keef got that one from. :?

(b) It has appeared in a thread on this forum (somewhere) that a cavalry unit that is the original target of an intercepted charge is allowed to counter-charge.
This sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it with a friend, and IMHO is a bit dodgy.

It has also appeared (somewhere) that if a wavering unit is charged and the assault is intercepted, then the wavering unit does not have to take a cohesion test because the original charge is considered to be cancelled. (my emphasis)
Similarly, an infantry unit in the open that is the original target of a cavalry assault does not need to test if the charge is intercepted - for the same reason.

Allowing the original target of an intercepted assault to counter-charge seems to be allowing them to react to an assault which, in any other circumstance, is considered to have been cancelled.

EDIT: Ok, just saw the topic thread. (Don't you hate it when someone responds while you are composing your own Homeric reply, and gets it up first? :evil: )
I have to say I agree with Dead. though - I thought that the whole point of an intercept was to prevent the original target from being contacted.

Also, for an intercept to be legal, it has to prevent the chargers from contacting the original target.
If the original target counter-charges, and the intercept does not prevent contact, then the intercept charge does not happen and that unit is moved back to its start point.
You can't have it both ways!

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by BrettPT » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:02 am

Agreed on the countercharge.
Intercepting and countercharging are (or should be?) mutually exclusive.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by hazelbark » Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:46 pm

Saxonian wrote:
Also, for an intercept to be legal, it has to prevent the chargers from contacting the original target.
If the original target counter-charges, and the intercept does not prevent contact, then the intercept charge does not happen and that unit is moved back to its start point.
You can't have it both ways!
I think I missed this point. :oops:

pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by pugsville » Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:38 pm

There are already a large advantage in being the initiator of cavalry v cavalry combat (win ties, move supports into position chance to rally) the ability to pick off cavalry units in a line is just one too many IMHO.

A group of three cavalry units is opposed by another three cavalry units, the initiator picks the middle one and moves his others to support, (or 2 charges one etc) why do the other (non phasing ) cavalry just have to stand around and take it? The Game system uses the phasing non-phasing for simplification. Simplicity and workable are vital in a rule system. But in this case I think there is an argument that some allowance should be made so this isnt as easy as that.

In FOG (A) without counter charges BUT WITH stepping forward, conforming bases, it isnt a issue , you can charge one unit in the middle but combat isnt SO decisive (impact can be , but often inst which maintains a balance)

As the rules are written (as I understand it) the intercept has to merely contact the charger NOT prevent the charger from contacting the original target, in a number of circumstances simultaneous contact can be arranged. And as intercept moves can be 2-4mu there is scope to manufacture such contact. What I dont like about this is it's a bit twiddling about with exact angles and move distances. I like a simpler way of preventing the pick off, as i think it's historically /realistically questionable and tilts the advantage too far to the phasing player.


In the simple group of cavalry dead

Saxonian
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by Saxonian » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:42 am

pugsville wrote:As the rules are written (as I understand it) the intercept has to merely contact the charger NOT prevent the charger from contacting the original target, in a number of circumstances simultaneous contact can be arranged. And as intercept moves can be 2-4mu there is scope to manufacture such contact.
This is correct. I wrote my last post without the rules in front of me (always risky :oops: ). It still doesn't feel right to me. The fact that it is called an "intercept" to me implies that it prevents contact with the original target, as shown in the diagram on p.31. I realise that this shows cav assaulting inf being intercepted by cav, and so not really relevant to this situation, but it does seem to imply an intent.
If someone swings a sword at you, and you use a shield to 'intercept' it but it still connects with your head, to me that is not much of an 'interception'. :wink:
pugsville wrote: I like a simpler way of preventing the pick off, as i think it's historically /realistically questionable and tilts the advantage too far to the phasing player.
The thing about phasing turns is that each side gets the benefit in their turn. If player A 'picks off' a unit in his turn, then player B will be able to do the same in his own turn, quite possibly against a spent or even wavering enemy.
The rules as they are at the moment allow for a certain amount of tactical finesse in cav on cav match-ups. Brett has mentioned this in his thread about cav tactics.
Allowing multiple units to intercept charge with the original target still counter-charging will, I fear, create an 'all or nothing' approach.
This interpretation discourages anything short of all out aggression.
If you decide to assault it will almost have to be with everything at once, for fear of the overwhelming intercept if you go with just one.

And no-one has mentioned what this means for infantry assaults. I haven't yet worked it through, but I think we will find a similar outcome - all or nothing.

I can see a certain amount of skill being massaged out of the assault phase, where whoever has the most units on a given front will charge with all of them at once.

pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by pugsville » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:37 pm

I disagree. I think there is more finesse and skill and tactics available if the pick off tactic is rectified. The pick off tactic just loads the dice favorably to a rather unsophisticated tactic. if you have quality advantage in cavalry a straight up fight is pretty favorable with the initiator advantage, if you have a numbers advantage there are plenty of other more tactics that can be used, if inferior in both numbers and quality well you are going to struggle and so you should,

Two lines of cavalry the phasing player can get as many or as few units in contact and move supports, and he wins ties, and he gets to rally, is it good for the game or realistic that he has such advantages? The pick off allows three units to gang up on one while the units just to the left and right of the target just stand around, effectively 3 units charge one, Why are the others just standing about?

The intercept and counter charge being able to work together is some sort of solution, I;m just not quite comfortable with the amount of micromanaging distances and angles, I would prefer a simpler solution,

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Rules Issues from NATCON 2014

Post by terrys » Fri May 02, 2014 10:52 am

See the post on "Cavalry charges intercepts and counter charges"

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”