4th Edition Rules / 3rd Edition Scenarios

[gambler1650]

Hi all,

Getting back into Panzer Grenadier and I have a question.  I've seen a bit of reference to this in other posts, but I wanted to get people's wisdom on this subject in one place.  Since there are some changes to the rules in 4th edition (different movement costs and hills not being limiting terrain anymore), I can see there potentially being some issues in playing a scenario tested with the 3rd edition rules but using the 4th.  I see three possible choices:

1) Use the rules and charts that came with the game,
2) Use the 4th edition rules and charts,
3) Use the 4th edition rules but the 3rd edition charts

Thoughts?

Robert

[thomaso827]

I have enough trouble learning rules in the first place, so when new rules come along, I learn them and stick to them for all my PG games.

[Grognard Gunny]

Amen, brother.

GG

[Shad]

I can see there potentially being some issues in playing a scenario tested with the 3rd edition rules

 Bold of you to assume that all 3rd edition scenarios were tested with 3rd edition rules!

[triangular_cube]

If you play with different rules than were intended to be played with a scenario, you are playing a different scenario. I will always play with the rules that were contemporary to the module for this reason, be that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition. For a lot of modules, the differences in terrain rules alone change so much you would impact the scenario balance less by adding a full platoon of King Tigers to the Germans in every scenario. 

The dangers of house and optional rules have been discussed to death, but retroactively changing everything in an old scenario is much the same.

[Blackcloud6]

It's not like PG scenarios are finely balanced, so retro use of 4th Edition matters not.

[Grognard Gunny]

That is what I thought also, BC.

GG

[joe_oppenheimer]

I was pretty resistant to moving to 4th edition but once I did I started playing all the games using those rules and they seem to work well. The only exception I make is that for Desert Rats and Afrika Korps I treat hills as limiting terrain. I also look at any terrain specific rules in the scenario book and lean towards using those.

[triangular_cube]

I was pretty resistant to moving to 4th edition but once I did I started playing all the games using those rules and they seem to work well. The only exception I make is that for Desert Rats and Afrika Korps I treat hills as limiting terrain. I also look at any terrain specific rules in the scenario book and lean towards using those.

That is one of the more egregious examples of it. In DR and AK, playing 4th edition terrain rules will often force the defender to be the pseudo attacker as they are no longer in limiting terrain. If the attacker has range over the defender, the defender must leave their fortified lines to attack or they will just sit and die on hills that can now be spotted from distance, losing by default. With the generous turn limits, the attacker will have no issue sitting back from a safe distance of 4-5 hexes and pummeling away. Spotting range of 3 is more important that most realize with how it interacts with baseline DF range. 

Its not just balance, it turns scenarios on their heads when you fundamentally alter core rules.

[Grognard Gunny]

That depends on whether you are playing for the reality aspects or the "balance" aspects of a "game". If laying back and "pummeling" the objective is a closer reflection of reality.... "So let it be written. So let it be done!" (Well, I  say anyway.  )

GG