4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Matt W]

I remember and there was a lively discussion about the topic. I figure lets make it clear at this point since it only takes a few words to make it happen.

[enrique]

Let's try this:

12.43 When conducting an assault against dug-in or entrenched enemy units or enemy AFVs in non-limiting terrain, the defending units occupying those fortifications resolve their fire first...

Sounds like a good solution.

Thanks.

Saludos,

[tlangston28]

7.63 Assault
I would apply the rule of the first and second editions: all AFVs are immune to "M" and "M #" results. They are only affected by "1", "2" and "3" results. Under the current rules AFVs are the weakest units in assaults: they do not take advantage of the leaders' morale modifiers and also suffer the effects of the small and portable AT arms (Panzerfäuste and bazookas)

This statement intrigued me so I went to my Battle of the Bulge rules (which is Second Edition) to look it up and I don't know if I am missing something here.. There is no specific rule that says that AFVs are immune in assault.

The rule says: " If a 1, 2 or 3 result is rolled on the Assault Table, the fire eliminates that many steps of personnel, APC or AFV units..." This sounds similar to the 3rd edition rules but it doesn't specifically say who is affected by "M" or "M#" rolls.

Also, under Rule 7.25 it states "AFVs and APCs are immune to all but an X or X# result on the Direct Fire or Bombardment Fire tables." It does not mention immunity on the Assault Table.

I think the 3rd edition cleared this up but I believe it was always intended to be this way.

I am not trying to start anything, like I said, this intrigued me.[/u]

Tony,

Look at the copy of the assault table that Enrique posted. I think it shows there his version. I have to admit, I am not averse to the idea.

Ah ha, I did not see the link Enrique posted - sorry about that.

In any event, I checked the chart from BotB and sure enough, the same thing was there. In any event, I think I like it as is but if it were to change, I like the first fire rule being described here more than the immunity rule. That seems to make more sense to me.

[vince hughes]

That seems to make more sense to me.

I bet this wont though:

s.fjfkbe jjffr fpjfjff wl''pk'eig w#ol tj4wpa
r wh ujg tgskf jtwa

[Airlifter]

I suppose I am asking for something akin to a hand-holder type thing to introduce new players into the ruleset. Wargames are really a tough nut to crack and they usually take someone with experience in playing them to learn how to play.

Lessening the learning curve will encourage people who haven't play the game to play.

Nero,
I like where you are going with this, but I don't think it is THIS project. But I promise to work on it. What I envision is a completely FREE downloadable print-and-play version of PG-LITE. One or two one-page (8.5x11) maps, maybe 40 counters, stripped-down rules basics, and charts. And if someone has the skills to convert it (and I can convince Mike) a VASSAL version. Do you guys think that would scratch an itch for folks who want to try it?
John

[Airlifter]

What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Combat Commander: Europe.

Is it good?
John

[Shad]

I'm the wrong person to ask, as I detest the CC series. The fans seem pretty happy with it though.

[Airlifter]

with regard to afvs in assault, Ottavio Ricchi has put forward another option which looks interesting. Giving AFV's first fire in an assault. My assumption would be that it would work like entrenchment first fire.

I'd say it only applies in clear terrain though, not close terrain. Or Perryman's suggestion about INF having to test morale to initiate assault against an AFV in clear.

[Airlifter]

Let's debate this:

12.11...This is called "assault movement." They may do this only if they start their activation adjacent to the enemy-occupied hex they wish to enter, even if the hex is vacated due to other results during the current activation (EXCEPTION: Cavalry Charges, 15.31), and must stop moving once they've entered the hex. This initiates an assault (or reinforces an existing one).

The purpose of the proposal is to permit assault movement in the odd situation that an assaulted hex becomes vacant due to direct fire or whatever during the current activation.

I'm not following your train of thought. please spell this out as an example.

[campsawyer]

What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Combat Commander: Europe.

Is it good?
John

I will comment on it. It is a very good squad level game, nice tight rules and a scenario builder that is very simple. The play is different from PG and that is where people have trouble with it. It is card driven and can have a lot of variability to the games. If you like lots of FoW this would be for you.

As for the scenario generator is very simple to step through to create a scenario, but nothing too different from what the C&C supplements do to create scenarios.

From the reading of other posts on the build your own stuff, they are looking for something that can build formations and match them up rather that just buying individual units. At least that's what AH PB/PL/AIW did.