Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Rise and Decline of the Third Reich» Forums » Rules

Subject: Attack vs two hexes across a river with airborne rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If an attack is made from a single hex across a river against two hexes combined (both defending hexes are across the same river), and an airborne is dropped on one the defending hexes, do both hexes lose the tripling on defense for the river?

If the two defending hexes are across different rivers, would one then be tripled and the one with the airborne dropped on it be doubled?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Would rule 31.2 prohibit such an attack?

31.2 An airborne unit may drop on a hex containing enemy units. If it does so it must attack them and no other adjacent units, either alone or in conjunction with other attacking units. If not dropped on hostile units it may attack hostile units adjacent to its drop hex.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
polack wrote:
Would rule 31.2 prohibit such an attack?

31.2 An airborne unit may drop on a hex containing enemy units. If it does so it must attack them and no other adjacent units, either alone or in conjunction with other attacking units. If not dropped on hostile units it may attack hostile units adjacent to its drop hex.


I don't see how 31.2 prohibits such an attack. To me it reads that the airborne unit needs to attack the enemy units in the dropped on hex only, and may do so with other friendly units.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GordoMG wrote:
polack wrote:
Would rule 31.2 prohibit such an attack?

31.2 An airborne unit may drop on a hex containing enemy units. If it does so it must attack them and no other adjacent units, either alone or in conjunction with other attacking units. If not dropped on hostile units it may attack hostile units adjacent to its drop hex.


I don't see how 31.2 prohibits such an attack. To me it reads that the airborne unit needs to attack the enemy units in the dropped on hex only, and may do so with other friendly units.


Gordon G, as you said enemy units in the dropped on hex only. In Fangotango's example, it's attacking two hexes combined in conjunction with other attacking units. 31.2 doesn't allow that. It can only attack the enemy units it dropped on, no other adjacent units.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I see now. Didn't catch that when I originally read his question. Agree with you that the airborne can not attack the airdropped hex with enemy and an adjacent enemy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I agree with David surprise that the attack as described in the OP is not allowed, as per the referenced section.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Where is the reference that says if two hexes combine to attack a hex, one from across the river, and the other from not (e.g airborne drop) the defender takes the lesser of the defensive modifier (i.e doubling, not triple for river defense).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
GordoMG wrote:
Where is the reference that says if two hexes combine to attack a hex, one from across the river, and the other from not (e.g airborne drop) the defender takes the lesser of the defensive modifier (i.e doubling, not triple for river defense).


Quote:
5.72 Defending ground units have their combat factor tripled when behind a river, or a hexside crossing arrow and all attackers are on the opposite side.....


underline added
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So is the conclusion that if an attack is made against two hexes at once, there cannot be an airborne drop on top of one of the defending hexes? That is, if one wanted to drop an airborne on one of the hexes, then a dual-hex attack is not allowed?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Perhaps it's 'deja vu all over again', but didn't we already have this discussion at some point in the past? This:

Quote:
14.23 ... All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking...


[underline added]

appears to suggest it is allowed. The section David referenced appears to state the contrary. As usual there are no explicit exception cross-references between the two apparently contradictory statements. If it is allowed (players have to agree, given the ambiguity) then (back to the OP) only defending units where all attackers are on the 'other side' of the river would get the terrain benefit. Is there a situation where that is not clear?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
fangotango wrote:
If an attack is made from a single hex across a river against two hexes combined (both defending hexes are across the same river), and an airborne is dropped on one the defending hexes, do both hexes lose the tripling on defense for the river?

If the two defending hexes are across different rivers, would one then be tripled and the one with the airborne dropped on it be doubled?


The prequel question is, obviously, whether the multi-hex attack with the airborne dropping on top of an enemy unit is allowed in the first place. If it is, then in the first case (above) the airborne is not across the river from either enemy unit, so neither gets the river terrain benefit. In the second case, all attackers (including the airborne) are across the river from one of the defenders, so that defender would get the river terrain benefit while the other defender(s) would not. I think that much is 'clear', even while the legality of the multi-hex attack may not be in this case.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The dual hex attack with an airborne landing on one of the hexes sounds like something that needs to have a house-rule, or go on the pregame list of items to agree upon.

A further question. If the airborne drops on an empty hex in the first situation, does the attacker get to place a BH if they succeed?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Poskitt
Portugal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If an airborne drops on top of an enemy unit, it may only attack that unit. It may not attack an adjacent unit.

If an airborne drop is made into an empty hex it may attack units adjacent to the drop hex.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fangotango
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fangotango wrote:

A further question. If the airborne drops on an empty hex in the first situation, does the attacker get to place a BH if they succeed?


I think I found the answer to my own question:

Quote:
9.12 ........ They may also be placed when an airborne drop untriples defenders who would otherwise have been tripled against cross-river attack.
 
 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
So taking into account Rules 9.12 and 32.1:



The Ru 3Gds can attack the Ge 49&50Inf at 3:6 for a 1:2 CA 1:1 or the Ru 1AB may drop in a vacant Warsaw where it untriples the Ge 50In and the attack would then be at 5:5 for a 1:1 CA 1:3.



But it may not drop directly on either German unit and still allow such an attack.


Other such hexes occur near M46, Q45, F53...I can't find any others


EDIT: this is just an illustration of the point of view. I believe the rules allow the "on top" condition.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Just to document the alternate interpretation, let us say in Patrick's example that the furthest the Russian airborne could drop was onto the German unit beside Brest-Litovsk. Now, the Russians could clearly, under any interpretation, NOT have the Russian airborne ignore the unit it dropped on and attack the other German 1-3 to the west. This is the case even if the Russian 3-3 were to attack the German 1-3 upon which the airborne landed. The Russian airborne would have to attack the 1-3 it landed on, and not another unit.

Now if 31.2 is an exception to 14.23, then the Russian airborne must attack the 1-3 it landed on, and only the 1-3 it landed on. If 14.23 is an exception to 31.2, then the airborne could attack both 1-3's (in which case the one it landed on would not get a river terrain benefit and the other would).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What part of 14.23 makes it an exception to 31.2? 31.2 is pretty straight forward in stating what an airborne unit can and can't do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
14.23 ... All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking....


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
deadkenny wrote:
Quote:
14.23 ... All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking....




Is that in relation to multi hex attacks? Because if it is 14.23 also states...

Quote:
Attacker‘s units in one hex may attack units in two or more adjacent hexes, treating it as one attack.


My underlining.

The airborne unit is attacking from one hex, the other units are attacking from another. According to the above rule section from 14.23 I quoted, this attack isn't allowed.

Deadkenny, in the section you quoted it states (or on top of). Is that stating it's either one or the other? Why not state and/or on top of.

The problem with 14.23 is that it's not just talking about multi hex attacks. It's a series of sentences stating possible alternatives in regards to ways of attacking a hex/hexes. It's all very general.

31.2 is specific. No way should 14.23 in some way override 31.2. That's my take on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
polack wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
Quote:
14.23 ... All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking....




Is that in relation to multi hex attacks? Because if it is 14.23 also states...

Quote:
Attacker‘s units in one hex may attack units in two or more adjacent hexes, treating it as one attack.


My underlining.

The airborne unit is attacking from one hex, the other units are attacking from another. According to the above rule section from 14.23 I quoted, this attack isn't allowed.


The part you quoted specifies something that is allowed, it is not a prohibition (i.e. it doesn't say all attacking units must be in one hex, just that attacking units in a single hex may attack multiple hexes. Are you saying that you believe the attack Patrick specified in his second picture (posted above) where the airborne drops into Warsaw and attacks both German 1-3's with the 3-3 is not allowed?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you follow 31.2, that attack is allowed. The airborne hasn't dropped onto a unit. That's what I believe.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
polack wrote:
...Deadkenny, in the section you quoted it states (or on top of). Is that stating it's either one or the other? Why not state and/or on top of....


Saying "and / or" wouldn't make any sense. The sentence would then have to make sense using "and" as well as "or". Using "and" it would read:

All attacking units must be adjacent to (and on top of) all the defending units they are attacking.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
polack wrote:
If you follow 31.2, that attack is allowed. The airborne hasn't dropped onto a unit. That's what I believe.


You missed the point. You said above that 14.23 required the attackers to be in a single hex in order to attack multiple hexes. In Patrick's example the airborne and 3-3 inf are in two different hexes, yet they are both attacking the defenders in two separate hexes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David G.
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The point I was trying to make is that you if you take sections of 14.23 literally, (I gave an example of one regrading attackers in one hex) then a lot of the things we do in the game don't seemed to be allowed. That's all. I try to use common sense when dealing with these rules, doesn't always work.

For what it's worth, in A3R, the attack in the OP is allowed. Go figure.



 
 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
polack wrote:
deadkenny wrote:
Quote:
14.23 ... All attacking units must be adjacent to (or on top of) all the defending units they are attacking....




Is that in relation to multi hex attacks? Because if it is 14.23 also states...

Quote:
Attacker‘s units in one hex may attack units in two or more adjacent hexes, treating it as one attack.


My underlining.

The airborne unit is attacking from one hex, the other units are attacking from another. According to the above rule section from 14.23 I quoted, this attack isn't allowed.

Deadkenny, in the section you quoted it states (or on top of). Is that stating it's either one or the other? Why not state and/or on top of.

The problem with 14.23 is that it's not just talking about multi hex attacks. It's a series of sentences stating possible alternatives in regards to ways of attacking a hex/hexes. It's all very general.

31.2 is specific. No way should 14.23 in some way override 31.2. That's my take on it.


Actually I disagree completely. My earlier picture was only meant to illustrate the Op's point of view

IMO
Rule 14.23 does indeed override 31.2. It is the exception. It is very specifically speaking about attacking units in more than one hex and allows "on top of" and further supports this paradigm with allowing air able to reach only one hex as counting. What's more, everything after the first sentence is conversational and not concise.

Obviously the two rules directly conflict depending how one reads 31.2's conditional "If it does so it must attack them and no other adjacent units, either alone or in conjunction with other attacking units.". Does one attach the part after the comma to "must attack them" or to "no other adjacent units".

EDIT: I also believe that the conversational "units in one hex" was not excluding units in a different hex that met the same conditions from attack.

In the vacant Warsaw picture all the attacking units are adjacent to all defending units. This is the primary requirement. I think we may have discussed this particular point in an earlier BGG thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.