cancelling assaults gamey?

[Dog Soldier]

Canceling an assault due to the disruption of one or more of the assaulting units, thus lower the success chances is perfectly reasonable. there are other reasons for canceling an assault that are valid. VM Makes a good case.

I took the question to be how could this be abused?
My initial reaction was to the type of game play where moving in units that could not or would not assault to draw off fire. An example would be a unit of tanks, less than 10 setting up and assault then canceling just to draw an infantry units HA fire. This type of fire has little chance of a bas result against many rested tank units in the series. Other less valuable hard targets can do the same with high MP allowances. Repeat this with other small hard target units. Once the three defensive fires are made, move in the infantry for an assault that will only take defensive bombardment from artillery, if any is left. This can be done to guarantee no defensive fire to disrupt the assaulting infantry.

Good tactics or gamey play? In reality would the defending infantry unit coolly hold fire against the demonstrations of the armor? How is this different than "dancing"?

There was a rule devised to prevent units from performing the tactic of moving into an defender's ZOC, taking a shot, then retreating. Wash, rinse, repeat until desired results are achieved. A limit was put on the number of men equivalents that could fire from a single hex in a turn. Assaults being ordered then canceled do not count against this limit.

Dog Soldier