I enjoyed a day of PBI last week. Four games, all close.
We had an assault result that I hadn't seen in 15 years of PBI. And it led to an extended debate.
Situation.
Attacker launched a close assault with the last three bases of a platoon against an objective with three opposing bases in it.
Assault result.....
Assaulter rolled two '6s'
Defender rolled one.
This meant that the assaulting platoon being down to two bases is 'removed instantly it doesn't get to finish what it was doing' rule 35 p78
However, the assault result was assaulter inflicted 2 kills v target's 1. So the target had a base remaining in the target square but had lost the assault.
P114 assault outcomes states 'target always wins unless assaulter achieves more kills or wipes rather out'
So the debate centred on whether the surviving target base having lost the assault should withdraw. Or, as the assaulter bases had been 'instantly removed' the target would remain.
After much discussion we applied the assault outcome as written. So both things happened.... The surviving target base withdrew, and fall back dice rolled, and the attacking platoon removed as down to two bases.
Question for this wise group is should the defending base withdraw because assaulter had inflicted more hits. Or does the assaulter being removed override that?
Made me think that there could be a result which sees the assaulter wiped out but still inflicting more kills on the target. Can you win an assault if assaulters are all removed? Or are the defenders so 'shocked'. by the kills received they retreat irrespective of there being no assaulters left.
Good to see PBI getting played.
The 2 base =removed rule is instant.
This might mean that 3 bases assault, 1 base gets killed by here they come shooting. = Platoon removed and no assault. The target wins. there is no allowance for a unit to be destroyed but still have a game effect. They are gone.
The moral is that any platoon down to a few bases is about to disappear pretty soon anyway and the owner knows that. Players should not expect them to achieve a final assault etc. The platoon is about to disintegrate and anything it achieves is a bonus.
You got a consensus Nigel so all is good.
martin :)
In your example Nigel, am I right in thinking the defenders were reduced to 2 bases too? So should both units have been removed?
It was an Objective square, so Defenders would become Die Hards, I think, Sean?
Simon
Sounds bloody and nail biting.
martin :)
It certainly was nail biting!!
The defending platoon was still in good strength.
I don't use the optional die hard rule.
The 3 attacking bases - all that was left of a platoon - won the assault two kills to one. But that took them down to two surviving bases and instant removal.
There was one surviving defender base in the target square. The discussion centred on whether the target lost assault outcome should still be applied to the defender when there were no assaulting bases left to occupy the square.
Quote from: martin goddard on March 01, 2025, 04:10:11 PMSounds bloody and nail biting.
martin :)
I'm finding pretty much every game is nail biting with PBI25.
We played four games and the biggest VP difference was 17!
The assaulters lose because they have hit the instantaneous 2 base minimum.
It's tough work.
martin :)
Great. Thanks Martin.
I'm happy because that was my view. My central point being "you can't win if all your bases are lost!"
Quote from: Nigel_s on March 01, 2025, 05:04:30 PMQuote from: martin goddard on March 01, 2025, 04:10:11 PMSounds bloody and nail biting.
martin :)
I'm finding pretty much every game is nail biting with PBI25.
We played four games and the biggest VP difference was 17!
Ha! I'd sort that out for you Nigel ;D I can lose by way more than that with out even trying!