+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Panzer Grenadier Rules (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 (/showthread.php?tid=1993)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Shad - 09-06-2019
(09-06-2019, 06:05 AM)Hugmenot Wrote: It 4th edition, it is "Demoralized units in an assault hex that fail a morale check must exit the hex, and may move only one hex when doing so (12.13). On later activations they flee at their full movement rate if they fail to recover."
The addition of check in 4th edition make it very explicit that demoralized units that fail a morale check must exit the assault hex. Why this was not added as a bullet in 14.3 is very strange to me if this was really what was meant in 14.35.
I still oppose Matt's interpretation for the following reasons:
- demoralized units that are NOT in an assault hex and fail a morale check caused by a combat result go nowhere
- the second half of the line talks about later activations, which implies the first half is talking about an activation as well
- this would be the only case in the entire ruleset where a unit would be able to move without first being activated, breaking a core principle of the entire system
Bogus!
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Hugmenot - 09-07-2019
I don't like it either and it may be just a typo ("morale check" instead of "recovery attempt") because this creates at least one additional situation that is not covered in 12.12 Exiting a Hex.
I think the consequences of the problematic sentence may have been overlooked while 4th edition was being written. Keep in mind John was working with tight deadlines towards the end because AvP was running out of 3rd edition rulebooks and did not want o print more.
I think 14.35 is now clear but I have my doubts whether it works as intended. I will definitely ignore it in my solitaire play.
Note to Peter: While I am developing a product (very slowly to family issues), I am no longer an official member of the developing team and thus my opinion is now just my opinion. Possible exceptions may be Landship Cruisers and River Fleets because I wrote the rules and thus have a good idea what was their intention.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - plloyd1010 - 09-07-2019
(09-07-2019, 02:00 AM)Hugmenot Wrote: Note to Peter: While I am developing a product (very slowly to family issues), I am no longer an official member of the developing team and thus my opinion is now just my opinion. Possible exceptions may be Landship Cruisers and River Fleets because I wrote the rules and thus have a good idea what was their intention.I wasn't trying to be critical. I come the era where there were many games of lesser historic quality. As such, I am quite comfortable with the notion that if you don't like the rules, write your own. Also being from that era, I am used to the idea of negotiating the rules that are used with different people. That particular creativity stream seems a little dry these days. Sad, when you consider the level of communication possible these days.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Hugmenot - 09-07-2019
I am sorry my last post was confusing; I was rather referring to "I'll leave this one for Matt & Danial" as that made me think you were looking for an official answer.
My last post was just to inform you specifically and every other reader that my responses are no longer those of an official developer of the series.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - plloyd1010 - 09-07-2019
Not to worry.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Blackcloud6 - 09-07-2019
I actually like the interpretation. It makes sense, the demoralized units take further punishment in that they fail a MC so they really feel the need to get away from the enemy that is in close and ethal proximity to them.
And, this alleviates the gamey aspect, when playing with Fog of War, of trying to avoid the mandatory recovery check by putting off the check hoping that a FoW is rolled.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - cjsiam - 09-08-2019
(09-07-2019, 12:16 PM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: I actually like the interpretation. It makes sense, the demoralized units take further punishment in that they fail a MC so they really feel the need to get away from the enemy that is in close and ethal proximity to them.
And, this alleviates the gamey aspect, when playing with Fog of War, of trying to avoid the mandatory recovery check by putting off the check hoping that a FoW is rolled.
I particularly like the change to force demoralized units out of Assault hexes....meaning Assaults, and bombardment into hexes which can cause a morale check CAN drive out a unit....and this reduces the "Pray for Fog-of-War to keep me in the hex"....
There is also a Rule 14.33
14.33Fleeing demoralized units and leaders may only enter hexes farther away from enemy units capable of harming them with Anti-Tank or Direct Fire. If this is not possible, they may enter hexes at an equal distance from such enemy units. If this is also not possible, they must remain in place.
So if I'm a demoralized unit....and I'm in an assault hex...and there are adjacent assault hexes, with friendly and enemy units, and if my moving OUT of the Assault Hex due
to failing a MORALE? check causes me to move closer to an enemy which can put down AT/DF on me----MAY I STAY IN PLACE? The above says I must? Which MUST
takes precedence (must exit or must remain?) Does the "Fleeing" caveat 14.33 to ONLY apply to a failed RECOVERY situation?
14.33 certainly applies to Fleeing--- which means it results from an activation and failure of recovery.....Where as 14.35 is at the same level as Fleeing...and says Morale Check, not Recovery Check....and Recovery is 14.4...completely different section...so I would interpret the rule framers intent to be that 14.33 applies to ANY demoralized unit failing a
morale check in an Assault hex, NOT anything to do with a recovery roll....
But---By this rationale....according to 14.33...I can roll recovery and STAY in the hex if I fail...because 14.33 says that's ok....because RECOVERY is not a MORALE CHECK,
14.35 does not say recovery....and 14.33 says I can stay if I'd be advancing toward an AT/DF attack source by exiting the hex.
So the way I see this....If I am a demoralized unit in an Assault hex:
A) I roll and fail a morale check (due to incoming fire on the hex) --- I must evacuate the hex....I must move one hex out of hex, regardless of surroundings and exposing myself
to either Free-shot, or advancing on AT/DF fire source.
B) I am activating and rolling for recovery---and I fail---14.33 says I can avoid Fleeing if I'd be moving toward AT/DF source, and stay in Assault hex.
?
I think the Fleeing stuff, anything related to Fleeing should ALL be in the RECOVERY 14.4 subsection...the fact Fleeing is even mentioned in passing in 14.3x becomes problematic....MORALE CHECKs and RECOVERY CHECKS are different things, as pointed out by others....
Do above A) B) hold up?
cj
thanks
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Hugmenot - 09-10-2019
Your interpretation is as good as any. Please let us know how it feels in practice.
Only John would know the true intent and he has not participated in these boards for years.
RE: Clarification Rule needed on Rule 14.35 - Hugmenot - 09-14-2019
Funny coincidence but it looks like John Stafford will attend a mini-con in Richmond in November. I will ask him then if he remembered what was the intent.