Loaded Infantry Assaulting

Discussion in 'WaW Rule Questions' started by Starman, May 12, 2019.

  1. Starman

    Starman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    10
    The rules state
    9.8.3 Unloading into an Assault
    Passengers not transported by Helicopter Transports may unload into an enemy occupied hex adjacent to their Transport unit. This is only permitted during the movement portion of an Assault Action.

    I read this as meaning they need to be loaded in a vehicle that starts adjacent to the assaulted hex or is taking part in an assault and moves half or less of its movement. The objective being to allow the carrier and its infantry to unload and assault together, otherwise the infantry would just be passengers in the assault. Both units if moving may be subject to op fire in the same hex.


    The rules also state if Assaulting as part of a stack then units without assault capability can split and stay in the adjacent hex, are loaded units part of a stack so this could apply to non assault transport ?

    If an assault capable transport moves but is not assaulting then it would be part of a Move Action, not part of an Assault Action.



    A recent video gameplay show a Vehicle moving (Marder capable of Assault) and unloading Infantry into an assault, is this permitted and if so do the rules need tweaking.
     
    #1 Starman, May 12, 2019
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  2. Keith Tracton

    Keith Tracton Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    39
    Hi!

    Design Note: Assault is a particularly deadly form of attack, where units move to and enter an enemy-occupied hex...

    The Assault action now looks like a regular move, but you must end by entering an enemy hex and assaulting. The Assault is resolved as soon as the attacker enters the hex, so you may not unload once you enter the enemy hex. Thus 9.8.3 for loaded ground transports.

    The intent of 9.8.3 is to allow two carriers to unload two infantry into an assault as a stack of two infantry, rather than the transport and infantry assault as a stack. Why? A subtlety here, located in the immediately previous section 9.8.2: Carriers may not move any further after unloading their passengers. So, this means is they may not move into an assault with their passengers.
    As far as opportunity fire goes, the assumption is that if unloading into an adjacent hex, the Transport units are proceeding to the very edge of the hex, and then unload their Passengers. But troops exiting Transport units are at their most compact and therefore most vulnerable and things can go awry pretty quickly if the enemy is able to respond. A dangerous situation arises when your assault troops are Disrupted, never make it to the Assault hex, and then are piled up onto your Transport units in the adjacent hex. The stacking limit may be quickly violated, thus eliminating assault troops, Transport units or both.

    Upshot? they do NOT accompany their infantry unloaded into an assault. The only way to do that would have been to start the move with the infantry already unloaded, and the two units as a stack move together into the assault, as usual.

    As far as the splitting of units without assault capability, that is required, rather than optional. So if your infantry is loaded into a non-assault transport (truck?), it may not assault until unloaded. Functionally this is the difference between, for example, a truck unit and an APC or IFV. But loaded infantry are just that, loaded, and may not contribute to an assault if they are loaded.

    I recommend taking a look at 9.8.2 and 9.8.3 together. I know this is all a lot to take in so please let me know if you need further clarification.

    Thanks for touching base!!
     
  3. Starman

    Starman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    10
    I had thought that if the carriers unloaded as part of an assault action they could still assault.

    Thanks for clearing up, it seems if they wish to combine assault it will take longer however the rules are ambiguous because they are not unloading during the movement portion of an Assault action as the carrier is moving and that is part of a move action ( it will not be part of the assault even though it is not prohibited from doing so) If you declare an assault action you have to assault.

    13.0 An Assault Action may be initiated by your units which have an Assault value and which have neither an Ops Complete marker nor a Disrupted marker. A unit selecting this Action may Move up to its full MP allowance to reach and enter its intended target hex.

    9.8.2 Unloading only allows the Transport to instigate unloading , you need to add three ways and include a passenger unloading. The transport is activated to Move so your clarification means that passengers unloading may immediately make an Assault Action...
    Or include 9.8.3 as the third part of 9.8.2 , which it effectively is from your clarification.


    9.8.2
    There are two ways to unload a unit.
    The Transport unit may remain........

    If a Transport unit did not move
     
  4. Keith Tracton

    Keith Tracton Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    39
    I think what may be the source of the confusion is this: Assaults are NOT mandatory once an Assault is declared. As the rules state, you MAY Assault if you declare the action. Further, in the note on page 70 (left column in yellow) it states "The assaulting unit must have enough Movement Points remaining to pay the full cost of entering the target hex, or the Assault does not take place, If that is not the case, the unit is marked Ops Complete in the last hex before it entered the target hex." The transport in our examples has initiated an Assault but by unloading its passengers, and it is subsequently marked Ops Complete in the last hex before the target hex. So, per the regular rules of Movement, a moving unit is marked Ops Complete when it has ended its movement. So it will not make it into the Assault hex anyway. :)

    The Assault Action starts with a move, as you correctly quoted, and the rules of movement apply to more than just pure movement actions, that is why the section is called Movement Action & Movement. Its rules apply to Movement; Move & Fire; and the movement portion of Assault. Stacking limits, Transports and Passengers - all of that still apply during the movement portion of Assault.

    I hope this helps clarify! :)
     
  5. Keith Tracton

    Keith Tracton Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    39
    And my apologies for the confusion! I had stated "must assault" in my first response above! :-0
     
  6. Starman

    Starman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ok the wording of Assault action implies it must assault unless prohibited from doing so by say Op Fire, as for movement points this should be easy to work out before declaring Assault Action.

    That is probably why you said must it is how it reads.

    I understand the spirit of the rules you were explaining and justifying. I am puzzled as to why you have Assauit action as a seperate action as from your answer this is clearly an optional part of Movement Action.

    What you are saying is you can select a move action but turn it into an Assault Action or select an Assault Action and turn it into a move action.

    I can see why some ask if you can unload and fire etc.

    It would be far clearer and consise if the rules for movement were you can as part of movement optionally carryout one other action providing you have spent half or less of that units MP allowance and this may incurr a penalty depending on the amount moved from 0+ , the unit abilities and the permitted action type Fire,Load/Unload, Assault. This would fit with generic movement rules for movement and make ut clear you can do one of four actions or move and do one of the four actions. At least for consistency it should be Move and Assault and clear Assault is optional.


    I do think that the rules have bloated a but and unnecessarily in some areas, the call out boxes are great and some rules needed expanding but sometimes less is easier for everyone.
     
  7. Keith Tracton

    Keith Tracton Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    39
    Thanks for your input, I do appreciate your attention to detail on this!

    How is this for a bit of rules lawyering.... ;-)

    Logically it makes sense to call everything a Movement Action that moves and add an optional other actions. But I prefer to have each action separated by intent (in similar fashion to the old game) so as to be as complete as possible in their specific rules sections, and labelled by the player's intent for that unit or stack, regardless of whether the player is able to fulfill it. We found that when playtesters wanted to know in the rules about Assault, i.e. the fact that an Assault has a move component should be included in that section. The placement of the Assault rules does assume the player has already read about Movement in the prior Movement Action & Movement section.

    I do want to further clarify on the concept of Ops Complete and where it falls in these Actions and their sequences. This is important to understanding why certain combinations of Actions do not work (like unloading and following the unloaded passenger into an Assault; or moving and unloading and firing).

    In declaring an Assault Action, if you cut short the movement portion you have in effect converted it to a Movement Action. As stated, there might be a miscalculation in approach and if you do not have enough MPs, you musty stop and are Ops Complete. Some people do not always calculate accurately (lost a Speed Circuit tourney that way myself). But: you declared an Assault so you get either get an Assault in the end or your move ends before the Assault hex. But the rules do not state you can convert your Assault into, for example, a Move and Fire. So you may not. Thats most assuredly NOT the intent of an Assault Action, despite its similarities to movement. :) (This is an example of the Important note in Section 1.5 of the Core Rules that says "IMPORTANT! And one thing above all others in all games in the series: if the rules do not state that your units CAN do something, they may NOT do it.")

    [Convert a Move to a Move and Fire Action? People do it all the time, I do not have a problem with it, but that is how I play, though technically it violates 1.5 above. Safer to adhere to the rule, though, unless you and your opponent agree.]

    Move a loaded transport with an Assault Action? As soon as a transport is unloaded, it is marked Ops Complete, according to the Movement rules. It is therefore immediately done its Action. So the transport by itself may not execute an Assault if it unloads its passenger into an Assault. The specific section on Unloading into an assault covers the passengers.

    Move a loaded transport and unload, and then fire? As mentioned, if, during the Movement portion of the Move & Fire Action you unload, you are then immediately marked Ops Complete, not because of the Move and Fire Action itself but because the Movement rules still guide moving at least 1 MP. According to the latter rules, once your unloading is done, i.e. your transport is marked Ops Complete, you may not continue doing anything, including firing. Thats why its explicitly states that after expending at least 1 MP, a unit "may (not must) execute Direct Fire at a target." So, if you unload during the Move and Fire you have in fact cut short the fire portion of the Move and Fire Action. And yes that is the equivalent of converting to to a Move Action if you want to think of it that way.

    Did I cover everything? Let mw now and thanks for your attention!!
     
  8. Starman

    Starman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes you covered exactly my points, I was not disagreeing with the intent but pointing out why some are confused and proposing solutions.
    Rules lawyering for interpretation means there are ambiguities and that is never a good thing.

    Totally agree if it's not there don't infer it but the seperate actions are there and I missed the flexibility on cancelling a declared action, obviously the opponent might object as he may or not have taken op fire. Which is why I suggested the Movement and one other action, this wouldnt have changed much apart from a few words and some numbering.

    Even a call out box that says you may effectively move and take one other action, the order being determined by the other action, would resolve that.

    When rules proofing I prefer the Devil's Advocate style, rather than defend what is written.
     
  9. Keith Tracton

    Keith Tracton Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    39
    Yes, you are correct, I will bear that in mind as we move forward. And I agree, that perspective is necessary for rules writing - thanks you for contributing that! :)
     
    Starman likes this.

Share This Page