+- 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: [Rules] Assault on dug in units (/showthread.php?tid=2930)
Assault on dug in units - JAN COLPAERT - 02-12-2024
According to the rules Attacking units in assault should get a negative modifier against defending units in dug in status.
Negative column modifiers for dug-in units (16.2) only benefit defending units which are actually dug in.
But I see no such modifier on the assault sheet. Is this correct?
RE: Assault on dug in units - Grognard Gunny - 02-12-2024
Rule 16.2 mentions a defensive modifier but there seems to be no other reference to this in the rules, except for 12.41. I brought up this very point some months ago and we left it with a view that although a unit is dug in.... there is no defensive "advantage" other than first fire when under assault. I, personally, believe that there IS a defensive advantage to being "dug in" and so I play it with a minus one for the assault. (Otherwise why "dig in"?)
Under 12.41, para 2, it states, "Negative column modifiers for dug-in units (16.2) only benefit defending units which are actually dug in." That makes two references to this "defensive modifier".
Despite the thoroughness of the rules, there ARE a couple of omissions/confusions/contradictory passages in them. Since these are NOT corrected, other than by the forum, one must make up one's own mind as to what is "right" (Read: Logical). If you are playing solitaire this "solution" suffices, if you are playing on line or FTF, that opens a whole new can of worms.
These are known as "house rules" and even the most "rules bound" stalwarts have them.
GG
RE: Assault on dug in units - Grognard Gunny - 02-12-2024
Oh yeah, one cannot "dig in" in woods or in towns. (I suspect this is to keep the column "advantage" within bounds.) (....and makes sense!)
GG
RE: Assault on dug in units - plloyd1010 - 02-12-2024
(02-12-2024, 01:26 AM)JAN COLPAERT Wrote: According to the rules Attacking units in assault should get a negative modifier against defending units in dug in status.
Negative column modifiers for dug-in units (16.2) only benefit defending units which are actually dug in.
But I see no such modifier on the assault sheet. Is this correct?
That is correct. There is no defensive modifier for being dug in vs. assault. All defensive modifiers apply to direct, AT and bombardment fire. The advantage to being dug in, in assault is that the defender may take first fire using the dug in units.
RE: Assault on dug in units - Grognard Gunny - 02-12-2024
Is there a divergence here? TWO references for a "defensive adjustment" in the rules vs an omission (?) on the charts? You tell me.....
GG
RE: Assault on dug in units - plloyd1010 - 02-12-2024
Perhaps there is more of an assumed modifier for being dug-in in assault combat. There may be other modifiers, just not one there.
RE: Assault on dug in units - JAN COLPAERT - 02-12-2024
(02-12-2024, 02:18 AM)Grognard Gunny Wrote: Rule 16.2 mentions a defensive modifier but there seems to be no other reference to this in the rules, except for 12.41. I brought up this very point some months ago and we left it with a view that although a unit is dug in.... there is no defensive "advantage" other than first fire when under assault. I, personally, believe that there IS a defensive advantage to being "dug in" and so I play it with a minus one for the assault. (Otherwise why "dig in"?)I've indeed played it that way ("house ruled" it playing solo). Thanks!
Under 12.41, para 2, it states, "Negative column modifiers for dug-in units (16.2) only benefit defending units which are actually dug in." That makes two references to this "defensive modifier".
Despite the thoroughness of the rules, there ARE a couple of omissions/confusions/contradictory passages in them. Since these are NOT corrected, other than by the forum, one must make up one's own mind as to what is "right" (Read: Logical). If you are playing solitaire this "solution" suffices, if you are playing on line or FTF, that opens a whole new can of worms.
These are known as "house rules" and even the most "rules bound" stalwarts have them.
GG
RE: Assault on dug in units - leonard - 02-12-2024
The sentence you quoted about negative column modifiers for dug-in units in assault was clearly imported from 3r Ed rules where it stands unchanged. However, the supposed dug-in modifier to assault is absent from the 3rd Ed Assault table, as well.
In 2nd Ed rules, it goes like this: [12.41] Column modifiers. All terrain modifiers, plus dug-in, entrenchment and bunker modifiers, only benefit the defender in the assault. [16.2] Digging In. After the Dug In marker is placed atop the unit, the unit gains all the benefits of being Dug In (see combat tables and First Fire under Assault).
However, the dug-in col mod in assault is nowhere to be seen on 2nd Ed Assault table...
Curiously enough, PG Modern rules which were based on 3rd Ed rules do not contain any reference to -1 dug-in col mod in assault (neither in words or assault table)... Since PG modern rules were written BEFORE 4 Ed rules, it is weird.
I'm arguing for a persistent error in the rules; a kind of involuntary oversight. Assault table(s) should be correct.