Orm -> RE: Rematch 4 player game (Orm, Peskpesk, jjdenver and Mayhemizer) (8/28/2019 8:12:58 AM)
|
Right. Here is an explanation why the HQI was destroyed. Edit: It is the retreat priorities that dooms the French retreat attempt. 1) The units retreat according to the priorities listed below. Priority #1, and #2, is out because of enemy ZOC. However, priority #3 is viable since there is a hex in ZOC it can retreat into that doesn't cause overstacking and that is to the NE where the MECH is. 2) Then the rule that say that if the unit ends up in a hex that is still to be attacked, then it must continue retreating. 3) However, the only available retreat hex now is the combat hex. And retreating back into the combat hex is forbidden. Hence the unit is destroyed. Note that this would be the fate if the unit was division sized. If all adjacent French hexes would have been priority #4 hexes, then the MWIF rules would forced the German to retreat the units so that they could 'survive'. Cut from RAC: 11.16.5 Resolving attacks .... Retreats If the result includes an ‘R’, the attacker retreats all surviving defending land units 1 hex (even if disorganized). You retreat units individually and you can retreat them into different hexes. You can’t retreat a unit into a hex it couldn’t move into. If a unit could retreat into several hexes, you must retreat it according to these priorities: 1. a hex not in an enemy ZOC and not causing over-stacking. 2. a hex not in enemy ZOC and causing over-stacking. 3. a hex in an enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and not causing over stacking. 4. a hex in enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and causing over stacking. [Clarification. A unit cannot retreat “back into” the hex from which it started its retreat. Note that #2 takes precedence over #3, which can result in units being overstacked (and destroyed) even though a #3 retreat path exists which would not destroy any units. There are no overstacked hexes at the end of this step, because as part of this step, units are destroyed rather than remain overstacked - Nov. 29, 2007. The attacker may choose a retreat path of #4 priority hexes that results in a retreating unit being destroyed due to overstacking, even if an alternative path of #4 priority hexes exists that lets the units survive - Mar. 7, 2008.] [Deviation. If a unit can be safely retreated, then the attacker has to do so. This overrides and replaces the last sentence in the preceding clarification.] Destroy a unit if it can’t retreat under any of these priorities. [Clarification. If overstacking causes units to be destroyed, retreating units are destroyed - Mar. 7, 2008.] If the unit ends in a hex which is still to be attacked, or where it is overstacked, continue retreating the unit according to the same priorities (or destroy it if this is not possible). [image]local://upfiles/29130/10CBEEDAE4FE466A9B55AC58B62CCE49.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|