+- 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: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules (/showthread.php?tid=2370)
3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - g1ul10 - 08-21-2020
According to 3.13, when activating unit players "need not pre-designate directions or targets", basically they have just to choose between "Movement" or "Fire". Conversely, in 12.56 it is mentioned that the unit "intent to assault" is noted at the time of activation. Should I assume that specific trumps generic and 12.56 takes precedence over 3.13? The "intent to assault" does also include the designation of a specific hex if multiple assault targets are available?
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - Blackcloud6 - 08-21-2020
Yes, you have to state a unit given a fire action is intending to assault but you do not have to designate the target.
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - plloyd1010 - 08-22-2020
Technically I don't think you need to designate the hex, but you would give the fire order and note they are assaulting. Sort of like with the move order, but actually rallying or digging in. That is why the activation loop in Vassal was setup the way it was.
I think the rule was written that way to force a commitment to the assault. Essentially the only out of the assault after the units activate activation would be to clear the hex by fire.
P.S. I haven't forgotten the email from your Academy graduation. I hope to get short videos made to demonstrate setting up the boards on the assault maps, and a couple other features.
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - g1ul10 - 08-22-2020
(08-22-2020, 12:20 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: P.S. I haven't forgotten the email from your Academy graduation. I hope to get short videos made to demonstrate setting up the boards on the assault maps, and a couple other features.
That would be great! In the meantime, I discovered how to operate the OBA window. It works nicely
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - g1ul10 - 08-22-2020
(08-22-2020, 12:20 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: Technically I don't think you need to designate the hex, but you would give the fire order and note they are assaulting. Sort of like with the move order, but actually rallying or digging in. That is why the activation loop in Vassal was setup the way it was.
Maybe it would be nice to have an "assaulting" icon in vassal to mark the "firing" units that are actually assaulting. Maybe a command that appears in the menu only when the unit is given the "fire" marker. This is clearly not a top priority, but I can try to modify the module and send it to you by email if you are interested to see a proof of concept.
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - plloyd1010 - 08-22-2020
(08-22-2020, 01:24 AM)g1ul10 Wrote: Maybe it would be nice to have an "assaulting" icon in vassal to mark the "firing" units that are actually assaulting. Maybe a command that appears in the menu only when the unit is given the "fire" marker. This is clearly not a top priority, but I can try to modify the module and send it to you by email if you are interested to see a proof of concept.I'm not sure. This would involve either a sub menu item, or an extension of the loop. A sub menu might be okay. If there If the Fire flag had a Assault option, would not the Move flag then beg for Rally/Dig/Limber/Load options? It could quickly become a slippery slope of excessive options. Even if done, the options would need to be implemented in the base module. That would push the feature out to the December update.
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - g1ul10 - 08-22-2020
I understand. But the rules do not explicitly ask to declare ex-ante if your intention is to rally or move or dig. You can change your mind as the activation progresses, right? It seems that the assault intention has to be stated before instead. Anyway, if you think it is too complicated, let's forget about it.
RE: 3.13 vs. 12.56 in 4th edition rules - cjsiam - 08-22-2020
All of the above has to take into account this:
12.56 Missing EnemyIf units(s) activate with a fire activation with the intent to assault a hex (noted at the time of activation) but other activities performed during the same activation (for example, Direct Fire by other units) vacate the target assault hex, the designated assaulting unit(s) have two options:
- enter the now vacant hex and end the activation, and that movement DOES NOT trigger opportunity fire (it's not "movement" but rather a fire action); or
- execute a fire attack against a valid target.
And I've found the current Fire Activation for Assault works fine....I'd not mess with the VASSAL interface for this until other wonderful things are completed (terrain modes.....roadblocks....)