scenario four : a delaying action

[Tuilerian]

hello,

can you clarify the victory condition please.

As Objective conclue "any other result is a victory for the defender", I'm the defender and I will sacrifice my units to breakdown until moral = 0, and I win... because attacker has not enought time to join the jump off point.

It seems unfair, but can you explain to me how to change this ?

It's not exactly the same for scenario two : the probe because the attacker can move one team to ennemy base line before the defender can succeed this tactic to obtain moral = 0.

Of course, this "unfair tactic" is not possible in a campaign game.

Thanks.

[Seret]

You're not the first person to ask this question; it's perhaps not worded the most clearly.

Bottom line: having your morale fall to zero and routing is always a loss, in any scenario. Or as Rich Clarke himself put it "you cannot win by losing".

[Truscott Trotter]

Wot Seret said "morale fall to zero and routing is always a loss"

[Neil Todd]

Several at our club are a little more relaxed with this one. If the defender has put up a hell of a fight and the attacker not been very aggressive and multiple turns have passed we have sometimes ruled it a win to the defender. We have talked about creating a table with turns V FM loss to standardise this. At the moment we just discuss it in a civilised way after the game.

[Truscott Trotter]

The OP is talking about a defender with an FM of 0 winning Neil

[Neil Todd]

The OP is talking about a defender with an FM of 0 winning Neil

I understand that TT and we have sometimes ruled a defender win it the game has gone multiple turns and the attacker has also been significantly reduced in FM because it felt right. After all the attacker gets more points than the defender so he should be trying to force a win.

[Truscott Trotter]

If the attacker fails to win the defender wins no debate.
As long as their FM is 1+

The attackers FM is not really relevant unless it hits 0

But the defender breaking themselves to end the game before the attacker can win no just not logical.

[Tuilerian]

so, I understand the only way to win this scenario for the defender is to break the morale of the attacker.
There is two way for the attacker to win : to break the morale of the defender or take the JOP and end the turn.

So what are the others results ?

[dakkadakka]

We are about to play the second scenario in the 29 Let’s Go campaign, which is the delaying action. Given that the Germans are trying to hold back the American advance for as long as possible, there is a certain logic in the defender getting at least a minor victory by preventing the attacker from reaching the objective, even if their morale reaches zero.

I’m not suggesting that the defender should deliberately run his forces headlong into the attacker and obliterate themselves. But, I also don’t see how the attacker can win a delaying action by sitting back and pounding the defender from a distance and not advancing. That completely goes against the intent of the scenario. I’ve always wrestled a little with this particular aspect of the rules.

Another thing to consider, especially in a campaign setting, is that the defender will likely take heavy losses if he holds until his force morale reaches zero. That will have an impact on how many men will be available to fight in the next scenario. If there is no reward to balance that risk (ie winning the game by keeping the attacker from exiting the baseline or capturing an objective, etc), there is no incentive to hold on.

I think that our house rules will be that the attacker has to take the objective to win the game. If the defender holds the objective but breaks in the process, it will be a draw. The defender delayed the attacker long enough, but at a high cost.

[Truscott Trotter]

I would that hard to rationalise and harder still to judge.

Personally I would fix a time limit (hours or phases) and say if the defender still holds the objective and is unbroken the defender has won.