+- 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: Assault chart fix. (/showthread.php?tid=2805)
Assault chart fix. - Grognard Gunny - 02-22-2023
I noticed on the assault chart (version/edition 4), that assaulting a "Dug in" unit(s) doesn't have any negative aspects. Whereas on the Terrain Effects Chart it does. I have assumed that the -1 adjustment is in effect for that situation, as it makes sense AND makes for consistency in the rule charts. It makes sense.
GG
RE: Assault chart fix. - plloyd1010 - 02-22-2023
There has never been a -1 modifier for assaulting dig in units, just the first fire option. That causes enough problems.
RE: Assault chart fix. - Shad - 02-22-2023
Entrenchments have assault implications, Gunny, being much more extensive than a guy in a scraped out low-spot.
RE: Assault chart fix. - Grognard Gunny - 02-22-2023
Hmmm. So the terrain effects chart is wrong, yes? I can see where the idea of a dugout vs entrenchments would be viable..... It certainly makes "breaking a line" easier, however. We'll keep an eye on the situation and report my findings to the forum.
GG
RE: Assault chart fix. - plloyd1010 - 02-22-2023
No the TEC is correct. Combat effects are: -1 to Direct Fire, -1 to Anti-tank fire, -1 to Bombard Fire, and defender gets First Fire when assaulted,
RE: Assault chart fix. - Grognard Gunny - 02-22-2023
OK, I see my error for the TEC now, "So let it be written! So let it be done!"
GG
RE: Assault chart fix. - Grognard Gunny - 02-12-2024
Here is the discussion over the "rules" concerning "dug in" units.
I might point out that the defensive progression of -2 to -1 is seen in heavy woods/light woods, steep slope/regular slope also.
GG