|
|
Post by stormbringer on Mar 4, 2013 16:56:33 GMT -5
I posted a question about building assaults on the Flames of War forum and it's generated some interesting responses. Here's a link... Panzerfausts in a building being assaulted by tankswww.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=552480&afv=topicThe main points I find interesting are that Infantry can shoot at vehicles over other stationary infantry (p.80 in the rulebook) & that since two tanks passed their skill checks to crash through the wall, they can be treated as inside the building for LOS. So, I think both panzerfausts would get defensive fire. Jeff |
|
|
|
Post by shoey109 on Mar 4, 2013 17:41:09 GMT -5
I posted a question about building assaults on the Flames of War forum and it's generated some interesting responses. Here's a link... Panzerfausts in a building being assaulted by tankswww.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=552480&afv=topicThe main points I find interesting are that Infantry can shoot at vehicles over other stationary infantry (p.80 in the rulebook) & that since two tanks passed their skill checks to crash through the wall, they can be treated as inside the building for LOS. So, I think both panzerfausts would get defensive fire. Jeff I would have never assaulted the building if we had more turns to play. So I came to the side of the building because there was no opening in that side of the wall. So the question would be if defensive fire happens as the tanks come charging into the building or after they make there openings. I would agree that both teams see the walls coming down and two tanks appear. It would seem plausible they could fire. The only problem is there was no opening. That is why I choose that side of the wall. The other thing we forgot was the teams where dug in. That would have created loopholes for the team that had its side facing the wall. I am sure that wall had no opening. Then again a team makes loopholes when they dig in a building. So they would have been able to fire. That will leave the question can the other team fire. Will |
|
|
|
Post by shoey109 on Mar 4, 2013 19:06:24 GMT -5
Then again If both teams fired and got a bail and a kill. The assault would have been stopped and the bailed tank would have fell back two inches. The bogged tank would have fell back unbogged. Page 154. If both tanks died in the assault. The bogged tank still would have fell back unbogged. I would have more tanks active and never would have tested. So that would have been a better outcome for me then what turned out.
If I never assaulted and just ended the game. We would never have learn either way about tanks assaulting into buildings. I just did it to see by some chance I could take the building.
The results after the fight. You killed all three and I had to test. Either way. Its good to know in the future how to play it. That way one day we will have these rules licked and when I go to these tournaments this year. I will have a better knowledge of the rules. Then I can stand my ground on a rule challenge.
The other thing I like to point out. Jeff has yet to fail a tank terror or a counterattack roll when he has been in assaults. It goes down to somebody dyeing. This case it was me. Three dead tanks.
Will
|
|
|
|
Post by shoey109 on Mar 4, 2013 19:59:00 GMT -5
I just brought up another good question. If the tanks made it in the building after passing skill test. Then during defensive fire. The tanks would get concealment per page 30. There would be a chance as the building walls are falling down around the tanks. A shot from the panzefaust could have a chance to deflect from hitting a part of the collapsed building. I just asked about concealment on Jeff's thread. So it would be interesting in what they say. Its turning into a interesting subject.
Will
|
|
|
|
Post by shoey109 on Mar 4, 2013 22:58:37 GMT -5
I am leaning that the teams in the building get to fire at the tanks because they can fire over stationary infantry teams and they are shooting at a big tank. Then again the building gives concealment according to page 109 and page 30. Then you followed it up with page 152. Concealment from defensive fire. The tank teams charged into contact from non-concealing terrain and ended the charge in a building that gives concealment. Page 30 says buildings give concealment just like woods.
If me and Jeff replaced the same size building with a patch of woods. I charge in after his two teams with the three same tanks. I bog one tank and the other two make it in. Then he defensive fires. I would get concealment according to page 152. Page 152 states woods and smoke would count as concealed for instance.
Sometimes you almost need to go to law school to understand these rules.
Will
|
|
|
|
Post by kv1e on Mar 4, 2013 23:36:54 GMT -5
I would suggest in the future we decide what Terrain is before we start playing.
Further in the future we do not rule that a building is ruin on one or more side and a building on another. It leads to to much confusion.
Instead a building like structure is either building or ruin not different structures on different sides.
Temis
|
|
|
|
Post by shoey109 on Mar 5, 2013 0:05:40 GMT -5
I would suggest in the future we decide what Terrain is before we start playing. Further in the future we do not rule that a building is ruin on one or more side and a building on another. It leads to to much confusion. Instead a building like structure is either building or ruin not different structures on different sides. Temis Page 30 list a building and a ruin as very difficult. So it would be a skill test either way. Then again we do need to discuss all terrain before the games start. That is where most issues and disagreements come from. Will |
|
