+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Question on Strongholds (/showthread.php?tid=430)
RE: Question on Strongholds - campsawyer - 12-28-2012
In an attempt to answer the strongpoint and being dugin, a quick email to PG king Doug McNair, responded with this. Note the my question is first:
Can strongpoints dig in or start dug in?
I've never heard that question before, but my gut feeling is that they can't because they're fixed fortifications and thus already as secure as they're going to be. So, I'd say no.
RE: Question on Strongholds - vince hughes - 12-28-2012
Suddenly strongpoints become rather weak points LOL !
RE: Question on Strongholds - RLW - 12-28-2012
Just my thought.
I was rather liking the idea of them being able to dig in or be entrenched.
I wonder what would be Dr B's ruling on this question and if he would concur?
RE: Question on Strongholds - RLW - 12-28-2012
(12-28-2012, 06:23 AM)vince hughes Wrote:(12-28-2012, 04:46 AM)RLW Wrote: I have been wondering if the rules don't mention something as either as being included or excluded which trumps the other, i.e. does no mention mean a type of unit (e.g. strongholds) does that mean they included (albeit not mentioned) or not included (by the fact that they are not mentioned as being included)?
That said, I would think that if a stronghold can benefit from the terrain in its hex it should also be able to benefit from being dug in or entrenched, else the stronghold would be a second class citizen vs a normal unit (since it has no survivability benefit on its own except for not counting against stacking).
[edit] Also, the wording of the rule about other units being dug in seems to me to be ambiguous as to how it applies to the stronghold. It could mean that the stronghold gets first fire regardless of whether dug in or entrenched while the other units only get it if dug in or entrenched, or it could mean that being dug in or entrenched only applies to other units.
However, I have yet another question... once again on a different topic.
Rule 12.51 states
Only leaders in an assault hex may influence units there. Leaders in adjacent hexes may not. Leaders in the assault hex may direct units in adjacent hexes to enter the assault hex, but may not influence them in any other way if they don't enter the assault hex.
Does that mean
1. if a leader adjacent a assault hex can provide a moral check or rally bonus to a unit in an assault hex?
2. Can a leader in the assault hex provide a moral check bonus or rally bonus to a unit adjacent an assault hex.
3. Can a leader in an assault hex activate a unit adjacent the assault hex to do anything other than enter the assault hex?
1. NO. Units in an assault can not be helped by a leader outside an assault. This is clearly covered by the "Only leaders in an assault hex may influence units there. Leaders in adjacent hexes may not." part of the rule.
2. NO. The leader in an assault hex can only call in non-AFV units IN to the assault. He can not help them with morale or anything else. This is covered by the " Leaders in the assault hex may direct units in adjacent hexes to enter the assault hex, but may not influence them in any other way ".
3. NO. As per point 2 above
That is what I suspected the rule meant... but I was never sure.
Rule 3.1 states
3.1 Action Segments
An action segment consists of any one of the following:
A single unit or leader self-activating;
All units stacked together in the same hex activating at once, with or without leaders. If any regular leaders or tank leaders are in the stack, they may activate and direct the units in the stack for movement and combat purposes, plus units and subordinate leaders in adjacent hexes;
A single leader activating and directing all units in his hex plus the six hexes adjacent to him;
A single leader activating and directing a chain of units and lower-ranking leaders in several hexes through subordinate activation (3.2).
I wasn't sure if 12.51 over rode 3.1 in in all cases or not.
Thanks fro the reply.
RE: Question on Strongholds - vince hughes - 12-28-2012
No probs. Enjoy your games and any more Q's don't hesitate to ask (especially on the forum Rules Q&A section) which is always a good source of previous asked Q'a.
Let us know how you get on !
RE: Question on Strongholds - campsawyer - 12-28-2012
Quote:I wonder what would be Dr B's ruling on this question and if he would concur?
Believe it or not, he does not play the games. As of late, I believe he has too much to do with just their production. He had differed to developers like Doug to these questions.
RE: Question on Strongholds - larrymarak - 12-28-2012
(12-28-2012, 09:21 AM)campsawyer Wrote:Quote:I wonder what would be Dr B's ruling on this question and if he would concur?
Believe it or not, he does not play the games. As of late, I believe he has too much to do with just their production. He had differed to developers like Doug to these questions.
What's even sadder, he is rarely able to produce new historical Daily Content. He is a historian conducting war by other means (ala War is diplomacy by other means) and I'm sure he'd like to be doing new research and sharing his findings with his customers. Back when the company couldn't afford to produce new product that was how he kept the flag flying a Avalanche. I get the feeling his day is filled with assembling, shipping, and making deposits at the bank these days. And he probably never feels like he's caught up.....