4TH EDITION TABLE RELEASED.

[plloyd1010]

Wayne, it was intended as a oblique reference to players noting the inconsistency of the rule/modifier, but no one addressing (apart from the weird-ass Yankee outlier). I find especially amusing my own countryman's complacency on the subject.

[Brett Nicholson]

I think I'm going to stick with 3rd edition annotated rules for my solo plays until I actually, if ever own a copy of the 4th edition rules and/ or own an actual 4th edition game that is designed around the new rules. In fact have only been playing with 3rd edition rules just over a year now as most of the games I own were 2nd edition releases. This opportunity fire change is a little too much. I thought 4th edition was to clear up or fix existing rules, not change the game mechanics.

[vince hughes]

This opportunity fire change is a little too much. I thought 4th edition was to clear up or fix existing rules, not change the game mechanics.

So did I Brett. If that turns out not to be the case, you'll have an opponent in me

[Brett Nicholson]

Well, if this rule change was an attempt to add more realism to the game system I can understand a few arguments both pro and con. Opportunity fire is against moving targets. The (-1) AT modifier is understandable enough as most AT capable units can only lob so many armor-piercing shells at a moving target within a 15 minute turn and each shell would have to make direct contact to be effective -fine. In the case of having or not having a (+1) DF opportunity fire bonus against all moving targets it is understood that motorized and mechanized units will most likely be moving much faster than foot units but, especially in the case of an HMG unit many rounds can be sprayed down in anticipation of the mobile, moving target's next hex entered within a 15 minute turn. Armor immunity is sufficient enough against DF attacks whether through opportunity fire or otherwise. Moving targets are what they are whether armored or not. So I believe that the (+1) DF opportunity fire bonus should be against either all targets or none of them at all. If this was an attempt at realism then PG is probably not the right system. If that were the case than rules that allow foot units to overrun armor units and easily eliminate them, rather than merely disable them AND not have to make serious morale checks beforehand AND also assuming they have things like teller mines, molotov cocktails or hand grenades to lob down a turret (open or closed) would have to swept aside. There are optional rules, apparently a whole booklet of them alone in the new 4th edition set to try to add realism -fine. Let players whether solo or in shared matches decide or negotiate that.

[plloyd1010]

Brett, I think it has more to do with the increased exposure of personnel units while moving. Vehicles don't have the advantage of crouching or laying down when stationary, nor do they stand up any higher when they start moving.

[Brett Nicholson]

Aha! Then we can just throw in some rule where my INF units aren't running but merely crawling at the sacrifice of its movement rate limiting such units to moving just one hex per turn and nullifying any opp. fire bonus etc. I mean, how technical does the system need to get to remain fast-moving or playable? Also, Grant tanks always stand up higher when moving!

[vince hughes]

Brett, I think it has more to do with the increased exposure of personnel units while moving. Vehicles don't have the advantage of crouching or laying down when stationary, nor do they stand up any higher when they start moving.

But you've completely ignored the American M100 Stretchy-Bendy Tank ?

[plloyd1010]

We actually thought of a rule like that, never adopted though. The rejection point was pasting the future problem. That is like the moved or will move clause in the new AT fire modifiers. We also thought about a high tank vs. low tank modifier. We shelved that mostly because of the graininess of the combat system.

[Brett Nicholson]

Don't get me wrong, I do like using some OPTIONAL rules and like random events for solo plays; after all, fog of war is an optional rule. However, too many optional rules can leave actual opponents haggling for hours over which ones will be used and then it can get shady. Is one person choosing a rule that will clearly only benefit him in the match and put a wrench in the scenario balance? This is why Vince and I are not using leader characters in our C&CVII desert campaign; but for solo play, I like using the leader character rules, at least until one leader gets too powerful and really throughs the play balance off.

[plloyd1010]

I wasn't thinking like that. The rules we use in our group are a consensus project, and were adopted somewhat slowly. Referring to the upcoming AFV rule: Let's assume to take a shot one of my tanks. I say I'm going to be moving that tank later (I truly intend to move it at this point). You roll the dice and barely miss. A couple activations later, you move something, I decide I would really like to take a shot my tank. Where would that leave us then? Do we take things to the past? Is the past stuck to the future? Rather than try to sort that out, or make pre-plotted move & fire orders, we just left things alone. No creep & rush move rule.