(08-28-2012, 04:49 AM)campsawyer Wrote: More to the point, unless the rules can generate income for APL, they don't want to even listen.

(08-28-2012, 08:16 AM)Shad Wrote: PG-HQ will strategically wait until 4.0 rules are published, then swoop in and release 5.0 rules for slightly less money!

(08-28-2012, 05:21 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote:

(08-28-2012, 04:49 AM)campsawyer Wrote: More to the point, unless the rules can generate income for APL, they don't want to even listen.

I am not surprised: they don't seem to recognize that perhaps they owe some product support to folk from whom they've already taken payment.

(08-28-2012, 09:44 AM)JoeBuckeye Wrote: Owe is too strong a word. You purchased a product from them. I don't remember there being any mention of future support. That probably fails under the category of "hand holding" from their POV.

I believe they would say that the PG Daily Content articles constitute product support.

(08-28-2012, 11:58 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: Name one product you buy that you do not expect the seller to "stand behind" in terms of support when something is wrong.

(08-27-2012, 04:09 PM)vince hughes Wrote:

(08-27-2012, 11:39 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: How come, no one ever believes me?

Hey Jay,

Just been on holiday travelling through Belgium and Germany down to Bavaria. Had I been here, I would have had your back immediately

As an aside, during the journey there and back it was great travelling past so many scenario locations .... Wiltz, Losheim, Malmedy, Butgenbach and more will come to mind later when I drag out the scenario books.

(08-28-2012, 12:35 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: I submit that the real "winner" here is the Site. The rules as written were ambiguous (by which I mean they could be read coherently to imply something other than they did), but discussion here lead to consultation with a former APL designer to obtain an effectively official clarification which the Site can incorporate and disseminate. The "loser," - if you will - is APL: who once again show that their lack of standing behind their product requires such means.

For Ruleset 4.0 ::cough, cough::, I would prefer 9.2 and 9.3 to read (changes/additions/deletions in italics) which I offer for comment (note that I have tried to tighten up the language by repeated use of "factor" and Action Segment):

9.2 Offboard Artillery


Offboard Artillery (OBA) is denoted by "factors" (e.g. 2x16) that represent bombardment fire units off the playing map with the indicated fire value. Unless scenario instructions say otherwise, each offboard artillery factor available in a scenario may fire once per turn at any hex on the board containing units spotted by a non-demoralized friendly regular leader (it has unlimited range). Up to three factors may be activated in a given Action Segment: these activated factors may be targeted individually or combined (9.3) as the owning player determines.

9.3 Combined Fire

Bombardment fire units stacked in the same hex may combine their fire values without assistance from a leader. Bombardment fire units in adjacent hexes may combine their fire values only if a good-order leader with a combat modifier is in one of those hexes (6.41, 7.33).

In the case of OBA bombardment, up to three factors may combine into one fire value, but may not combine with on-map units.

Example: The scenario instructions give the American player offboard artillery factors of "4 x 20." In a single Action Segment, three of these factors may be combined into one 60-value bombardment, one of 40 and one of 20, or three separate bombardments of 20. They may not be combined with any onboard units. The remaining 1x20 factor may be fired in a subsequent Action Segment (or been fired previously).