Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Rise and Decline of the Third Reich» Forums » Rules

Subject: Two hex attack vs defended and vacant hexes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
14.23
..... Attacker‘s units in one hex may attack units in two or more adjacent hexes, treating it as one attack. All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking......

DQB If two or more adjacent hexes are attacked, can all attacked hexes be treated as breakthrough hexes as long as 15.3 is adhered to?
A. Yes; however, this cannot be stretched to include an attack on an occupied hex and a vacant hex (14.4)


What is this DQB answer saying? Does the DQB imply that a Attacker is allowed to attack a hex with defenders and a vacant hex at the same time, assuming both defending hexes are adjacent to all attackers, or that a vacant hex cannot be included in a multi-hex attack?
If the attack is allowed, is the DQB saying that the vacant hex cannot be used for exploitation, or that only one hex of the hexes attacked must be selected as a hex from which exploitation can take place?

Note: I think the reference to 15.3 is a typo. Probably should read 14.3.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I agree, should reference 14.3. I read it as saying you cannot combine vacant and occupied hexes, for breakthrough purposes, in a multi-hex attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It had never occurred to me that a multi-hex attack could be made involving vacant hexes at all, or on combining occupied and vacant hexes as co-defenders. I found the DQB a little bit vague, and wondered exactly what it was trying to prevent.

Is the restriction on using the vacant hex as a breakthrough hex, or must one choose between the vacant and (formerly) occupied hexes?

If one was faced with open territory, an infantry and armor could attack two vacant hexes, 180 degrees apart from one another, each advance to create a breakthrough, and eligible armor could exploit from either hex. Does that sound correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the DQB is limiting a multi-hex attack leading to a multi-hex breakthrough to only those attacks where all hexes are occupied.

I don't think it opens the door to attacking multiple vacant hexes simultaneously to achieve multiple breakthroughs.

I'm sure they were thinking two 4-6s in one hex attack two 1-3s in two hexes, they both can advance in separate directions and the exploiters can use either hex. They didn't want to open a new problem with Russian front encirclement that would unbalance the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
First, I'll disagree slightly with Patrick on the question being addressed by the DQB.

1. It allows multiple hex attack / exploitation in the case where all hexes are occupied by enemy ground units.

2. It prohibits multiple hex attack / exploitation from a combination of defended and vacant enemy controlled hexes.

I do not believe that it directly addresses the question of attacking multiple vacant hexes in a single attack for purposes of exploitation. However, from a practical perspective, I'm not really seeing any advantage in attacking more than one vacant hex in a single attack. Each hex would have to have an armour unit advance into it in order for it be used as a breakthrough hex. So what would be the practical difference between making two attacks against two vacant hexes with one armour each vs. one multi-hex attack against two vacant hexes with two armour?

Regarding point 2 above, I do not believe a multi-hex attack against a combination of defended and vacant hexes would be allowed to be made in the first place. As to whether or not the door has been left open for an attack against multiple vacant hexes, I think the difference between that and simply making multiple attacks against vacant hexes is a difference which makes no difference.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for your responses. As I wrote, I just recently saw the reference to the possibility of combining empty and defended hexes in a multi-hex attack, and the reference did not seem very clear to me.

Quote:
I think the difference between that and simply making multiple attacks against vacant hexes is a difference which makes no difference.


Good point

Quote:
I'm sure they were thinking two 4-6s in one hex attack two 1-3s in two hexes, they both can advance in separate directions and the exploiters can use either hex.


A minor aside: would an armor unit stacked with an infantry unit, which attack two hexes with defenders, allow exploitation from both hexes? I believe it would, as there is no stipulation that the armor unit has to advance into the breakthrough hex, just that one needs be involved in the initial attack, and at least one attacking unit must advance. It is only with empty hex attacks that the armor unit must advance into the breakthrough hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I agree, if one armoured and one infantry unit were to attack two defended hexes in a single attac, then both hexes could potentially be breakthrough hexes. All that would be required is for both the armour and inf to survive, with one unit advancing into each hex. This would not work with vacant hexes, as (as you mentioned) the armoured unit must advance in order to create a breakthrough hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.