Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rules AT Ditches, Engineers and Fog of War
#1
I am playing a scenario using the fog of war optional rule. 

In the scenario the engineers have to clear a number of AT ditches.  In order to do so they require three turns to complete the task.  When using the fog of war rules, do they need to be activated to increment the counter for each of the three turns?   

I apologize if this question has been answered in the past.  
Reply
#2
No need to apologize for asking a question.

Yes, the engineers need to be activated to increment the counter for each of the three turns,

The idea behind using fog of war is to put even more pressure onto players as to the prioritization of activations. Should you activate the ENG to fill the ditch or have that WPN unit fire at an enemy?
Reply
#3
(10-03-2016, 06:00 AM)Hugmenot Wrote: No need to apologize for asking a question.

Yes, the engineers need to be activated to increment the counter for each of the three turns,

The idea behind using fog of war is to put even more pressure onto players as to the prioritization of activations. Should you activate the ENG to fill the ditch or have that WPN unit fire at an enemy?

Thank you for the response.

I understand the logic of creating the pressure in prioritizing the activation, this is why I choose the option.  I play solo, and what to avoid the game feeling like a chess match. 

I asked the question because an argument could be made that filling the ditch is a just a matter of time - in game terms 45 minutes for engineers.  If they were not activated, would they not still be working away?  I realize this this line of thinking may result in a can of worms being opened.  This was not the point of my question rather it was to see how the group was interpreting the rule.  Thank you again for the response.
Reply
#4
Fog of War is a curious beast in my opinion because when I look at the board after fog of war is rolled, there is no way you can convince me that some units would have done nothing.

It became easier to accept when I imagined units were trying to do something but failed due to unforeseen circumstances. Like maybe a sniper shooting at the engineers and they took cover until the sniper was dealt with. Or a Tiger having some mechanical issues and not shooting at that Sherman two hexes away this turn. It's not a convincing argument by any means but it helped me accept the consequences of fog of war more easily.

I would be curious to know what other players think about filling the anti-tank ditch before we encounter the situation in a 4th edition game and I am forced to write the rule.
Reply
#5
Quote:I would be curious to know what other players think about filling the anti-tank ditch before we encounter the situation in a 4th edition game and I am forced to write the rule.

My vote would be to leave the FoW rule alone for the reason that you cited, i.e. it doesn't necessarily mean they stopped working, but maybe they ran into some unforeseen obstacles, were unexpectedly pinned down, etc. The fact that it compels a player to make the tough decisions on occasion is also a plus, as combat often does that also. Le Campagne de Tunisie is really fun, as the FoW roll drops to a 14 on a turn in which the player passes, causing one to occasionally think about passing to possibly prevent the opponent from taking a shot or advancing that armored cav group, etc.
Reply
#6
Hugmenot,  I believe I am on the same page as you.  The sniper explanation is not impossible, but the Tiger not shooting at the Sherman brings home the real problem.  We are not talking about a single tank where a mechanical malfunction could save the Shermans' bacon.  It is a platoon of tanks, and the Shermans would require an act of god not be fired at.  Still, I prefer the unpredictability the rule bring to the game. 

The problem with creating a special rule for AT Ditches is how many other situations are there where an exception may be in order, and at the end of the day will the rule become to cumbersome to use?  
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)