Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Advanced Squad Leader» Forums » Rules

Subject: HtH Sequential Close Combat (J2.31 and A11.31) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Al Cannamore
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay this is keeping me up nights and I really need my beauty sleep. I'm learning vehicles and found a rules loop hole maybe.

Consider an ATTACKER Squad, ATTACKER Vehicle, and a DEFENDER Squad are in the same location. HtH is allowed by SSR and hasn't been declared yet.

J2.31 states that HtH can only be declared by the ATTACKER. In a sequential CC situation due to a vehicle (A11.31), the DEFENDER attacks first. Therefore the DEFENDER can't declare HtH. But if they botch their CC against the ATTACKER squad, the ATTACKER squad can attack back using HtH. Kind of a bummer for the DEFENDER? More reason to use the VBM tactic? Am I missing anything? Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
It's sooo Hot out here...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Having vehicles in CC is a bitch!

Nrbh, I'd say hth declared before any roll and the attacker has to wait it out due to vehicle.

Same principal like withdrawal, must declare the style if cc

Withdrawal must declare to apply the -2DRm
Otherwise, you just withdrawal first with no detriment

My $.02
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
It's sooo Hot out here...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Otherwise, this would top the VBM sleaze freeze HANDS down.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Roundhill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
BigAl737 wrote:
Okay this is keeping me up nights and I really need my beauty sleep. I'm learning vehicles and found a rules loop hole maybe.

Consider an ATTACKER Squad, ATTACKER Vehicle, and a DEFENDER Squad are in the same location. HtH is allowed by SSR and hasn't been declared yet.

J2.31 states that HtH can only be declared by the ATTACKER. In a sequential CC situation due to a vehicle (A11.31), the DEFENDER attacks first. Therefore the DEFENDER can't declare HtH. But if they botch their CC against the ATTACKER squad, the ATTACKER squad can attack back using HtH. Kind of a bummer for the DEFENDER? More reason to use the VBM tactic? Am I missing anything? Thanks.


Looking at the ASOP, you have it correct. Not a loophole, but an unintended consequence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Kennedy
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the ASOP unclear on this:

8.21B Declare first/next sequential CC attack (A11.3-.34) or, ATTACKER first (A11.12; G13.495), all simultaneous CC attacks if no sequential CC exists. Declare if Hand-to-Hand (A25.43; G1.64; G18.62; J2.31; SSR RB11) and/or Capture attempt (A11.52; A20.22). Reveal (A12.31) all units declared to be making/directing a CC attack (A11.19).

8.24B Resolve that sequential CC attack, or all simultaneous CC attacks if no sequential CC exists. Successfully Withdrawing unit(s) enter(s) Accessible Location(s) (A11.21-.22); resolve, vs Withdrawing unit/stack (only), each FFE (C1.51-.53 (C1.71-.72; C1.9; E12.5; G14.65-.661})/minefield (B28.41-.412) attack as it occurs, and cheek for Column Disbandment (E11.533)/trip flare activation (E1.95)/Panji MC (G9.41). Berserk unit(s) that eliminated all Known enemy units (at least one) in Location return(s) to Good Order (A15.46). Lastly, go to Step 8.21B if further sequential CC can be declared.

In 8.21B declaring HtH is one thing you can do. The highlighted line of 8.24B says to go back and repeat 8.21B. This would seem like there might be multiple opportunities to declare HtH during sequential attacks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
It's sooo Hot out here...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The ATTACK is sequential, NOT the declaration of the type of attack.

You must declare retreat, keeping concealment, ratio of who the hell you are attacking etc. Your physical roll may differ in it's timing...but not the declaration of the type of attack.

Again, this would be worse than dumping your sister and going out with your MOM instead... (unless she's hot devil)....



OR

FINALLY a reason to have TRUCKS in CC
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am glad for this post. I have been playing this wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Kennedy
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ASLNoob wrote:
I don't read 8.21B so that declaring HtH is one thing you can do. I read it that you perform each action that is listed

First, declare first/next sequential attack, or, ATTACKER first, all simultaneous attacks

Then, declare if HtH

Then, reveal all units making/directing a CC attack

All of this is defined within 8.21B. There's nothing to make you think that you would only perform one of these actions.

That's one way to read it. Another way to read it is (just covering sequential to keep it simple):
8.21B
1) Declare the first sequential attack
2) Declare if the first sequential attack is HtH
3) Reveal units making/directing the first sequential attack

8.24B Resolve the first sequential attack. Repeat 8.21B for the next sequential attack.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Cannamore
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the responses guys. Looks as if this may be a loop hole. Or maybe the ATTACKER is meant to get the HtH advantage here but then why wouldn't the same advantage apply to ambush as well?

You guys are great at reminding me to reference the SoP more often. Lots of good stuff nestled within.

I'll check for a "Perry Says". If nothing there then I guess the next step is to submit it for a "Perry Says".

Thanks guys. If you have more insight on this question, please keep responding.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Cannamore
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Great responses guys. Very much appreciated! It seems by the strict interpretation of the rule that the DEFENDER is disadvantaged here. That doesn't seem right to me, so with Rising Sun on the near horizon (featuring the HtH kings of the ASL world), I posted this same question on Consimworld. I'll see if that generates new discussion. If not, then I'll play it as written...i.e. the DEFENDER can't declare HtH in this situation. I think that is the overall opinion of the responses above. Again, thanks much!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Cannamore
United States
Eagle River
Alaska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I got a very quick reply from Chas. He's of the opinion the DEFENDER can declare HtH if otherwise allowed. You can follow the conversation here:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.ee6b46b/54783

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
BigAl737 wrote:
I got a very quick reply from Chas. He's of the opinion the DEFENDER can declare HtH if otherwise allowed. You can follow the conversation here:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.ee6b46b/54783

Which when as the DEFENDER (and having not Ambushed the enemy) isn't normally allowed.

Personally I think I would play this as if the first CC attacks determines what type of attack all the rest of the CC attacks are as well.

Normally, when the ATTACKER declare H-t-H all attacks [EXC: vs PRC/Pillbox] are H-t-H. Seems to me that the opposite should also be true - first attack is non-H-t-H, then all subsequent attacks are also H-t-H - but, of course, I don't think that is what the rules say.
 
 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.