Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Rise and Decline of the Third Reich» Forums » Rules

Subject: Exploitation Chain rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Smith
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Question,

The Russian player has just made a breakthrough from the west and into Yugoslavia. Three Armour units expolited off the breakthrough hex.

The first unit moved 2 hexes. The second unit followed its line and moved a further two hexes putting it adjacent to Belgrade.

The third unit followed the line of the first and second armour units and ended one hex further (so 5 max as per MF) south east of Belgrade.

An attack was then made by Unit 2 (a 3-5 armour) and unit 3 (a 4-5 armour) on the defending garrison - a paltry 1 replacement.

So the attack was 3-1. The result was a full exchange (a 1 was thrown).

My opponent argues that the 3-5 armour can be exchanged to satisfy the loss and then the 4-5 (which moved 5 hexes) will advance to occupy.

Is this correct? (Rule 14.36) I would have thought the 4-5 would then break the 2 hex chain as it was connected to the exchanged unit.

Sorry not sure how to post images which would make it clearer.

Any advice welcome, Chris
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Better qualify West.

The attack came via HUngary at the Golden triangle of Hungry/Poland/Rumania (thus a western offensive).

Chris
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Poskitt
Portugal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
14.36 Exploiting units that survive their Exploitation attacks may advance to occupy the defender's hex, but not if such advance would break the required two-hex chain of Exploiting units.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Would an advance by either unit break the so called 2 hex chain? If he took the 4-5 armour off and advanced the 3-5 armour wouldn't the 3-5 be moving a hex too far from the first exploiter as well?

Just trying to save a 20BRP loss to the German War Machine.

Chris
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Poskitt
Portugal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chris,

Are you playing in VASSAL or on the real mapboard?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for quick reply Doug.

Wish I could post a picture. By my reckoning no advance can be made. If he eliminated the 4-5 then the 3-5 armour would be 3 hexes from the first exploiter (inclusive of Belgrade).

If he eliminates the 3-5 then the 4-5 (which is already 3 hexes away) couldn't advance either.

What do you think?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
New Zealand
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
The real board.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Poskitt
Portugal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Real board.

Ok.

There's a rule that states casualties incurred in the two-hex chain do not negate other units in the chain. There's a DQB associated with 14.36. If you haven't got the DQB, download the 5th Ed rules here on BGG 3R forum and have a look.

Without seeing what the situ is it's a tad confusing here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Sweeney
United States
Clinton Township
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DQB Can you be more precise on exactly what constitutes ―breaking the chain when advancing after exploitation combat?

A. Two requirements must be met: 1) the hex advanced into must be adjacent to the previous unit in the chain or be separated from it by one hex already passed through by an exploiting unit; 2) the advance must not leave a more distant unit in the chain in violation of the first requirement.

So, since the hex being entered has NOT been passed through AND the 2 hex chain has been broken; no advance is allowed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I believe you have raised a legitimate question, as the rules are not entirely clear. First, for reference the rule and two pertinent DBQ items.

Quote:
14.36 Exploiting units that survive their Exploitation attacks may advance to occupy the defender‘s hex, but not if such advance would break the required two-hex chain of Exploiting units. Note that such an advance does not constitute a new Breakthrough hex, and that the intervening hex between the last unit in the chain and the hex to which the attacker advances must be one through which the attacker advances as per 14.33.


Quote:
DQB Can you be more precise on exactly what constitutes "breaking the chain" when advancing after exploitation combat?

A. Two requirements must be met: 1) the hex advanced into must be adjacent to the previous unit in the chain or be separated from it by one hex already passed through by an exploiting unit; 2) the advance must not leave a more distant unit in the chain in violation of the first requirement.


Quote:
DQB If, say, the first or second exploiting unit in a "chain" of three makes an exploitation attack and is eliminated (thus "breaking the chain"), is there any adverse effect on the more distant units?

A. No.


The second DBQ item above would seem to suggest that perhaps the advance is legal, as being unable to advance due to the elimination of another unit in the chain would presumably be an 'adverse effect'. However it does raise the question of whether or not with two units in the same hex one can be considered 'more distant' than the other.
1 
 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
LimboLance wrote:
DQB Can you be more precise on exactly what constitutes ―breaking the chain when advancing after exploitation combat?

A. Two requirements must be met: 1) the hex advanced into must be adjacent to the previous unit in the chain or be separated from it by one hex already passed through by an exploiting unit; 2) the advance must not leave a more distant unit in the chain in violation of the first requirement.

So, since the hex being entered has NOT been passed through AND the 2 hex chain has been broken; no advance is allowed.

I agree with this interpretation.

I believe the DQB presenteted by
deadkenny wrote:
Quote:
DQB If, say, the first or second exploiting unit in a "chain" of three makes an exploitation attack and is eliminated (thus "breaking the chain"), is there any adverse effect on the more distant units?

A. No.


The second DBQ item above would seem to suggest that perhaps the advance is legal, as being unable to advance due to the elimination of another unit in the chain would presumably be an 'adverse effect'. However it does raise the question of whether or not with two units in the same hex one can be considered 'more distant' than the other.

means that nothing bad happens to further units in the chain if their predecssors are destroyed. This DQB doesn't seem to be negating the two-hex chain for advancement.

In general, it behooves the attacker to conduct his furthest attacks first to achieve the greatest odds that the chain remains intact.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
SewerStarFish wrote:

I believe the DQB presenteted by
deadkenny wrote:
Quote:
DQB If, say, the first or second exploiting unit in a "chain" of three makes an exploitation attack and is eliminated (thus "breaking the chain"), is there any adverse effect on the more distant units?

A. No.


The second DBQ item above would seem to suggest that perhaps the advance is legal, as being unable to advance due to the elimination of another unit in the chain would presumably be an 'adverse effect'. However it does raise the question of whether or not with two units in the same hex one can be considered 'more distant' than the other.

means that nothing bad happens to further units in the chain if their predecssors are destroyed. This DQB doesn't seem to be negating the two-hex chain for advancement.

In general, it behooves the attacker to conduct his furthest attacks first to achieve the greatest odds that the chain remains intact.


Again, unfortunately it is not completely clear what is intended by stating that there is 'no adverse effect'. It can certainly be argued that losing the ability to advance after combat is an 'adverse effect', and that the 'not breaking the chain' restriction excludes the case where a 'gap' is created by the elimination of a unit in combat.
 
 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.