4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[plloyd1010]

Following your idea on elevation lines: I've never had a problem with the 2 elevation line rule, but it was hard to visualize initially. The one elevation line never really seemed to come up.

I did like your examples. Our house rules for a presumed crest would also prevent A from seeing B, but could see C. Our rule says:

The LOS between units of different elevations is blocked if the higher unit is behind the crest of the hill. If the highest unit has a higher elevation line behind it, which is also on the same hill, the units are in LOS of each other.

If the highest unit does not have a higher elevation, of the same hill, behind it, extend the sighting line for LOS check behind the higher unit, mirroring the LOS check to the target. If the higher unit has more hexes at its elevation in front than there are behind it, LOS is blocked between the units. If the higher unit has the same number or fewer, hexes at its elevation in front of it than there behind, LOS is not blocked.

Since A looking towards B has 2 40-meter hexes in front of it, and only one behind, it is behind the crest. If A looks toward C it has one hex in front and one behind, therefore it can see C (with our rules). A looking at K is questionable. The LOS clips the corner of the hex. It becomes an example of why image based or hex based blockage needs to be decided.

We would give the defensive modifier for N, when fired on by M. We apply the fire modifier if fired upon by equal or lower elevation.

Our simplified assumption for our rules was that slopes are fairly consistent up to a central high point/ridge. You can always see down the slope when on the facing side of a hill. What we did not address was observing units on hills from higher elevations. (Mostly it didn't seem to happen beyond 3 hexes.)

[Airlifter]

This is a proposal related to elevation lines.
I should be praised for the effort ... not necessarily for the result!

Thank you Otto. i will look it over carefully. I would like to point out that the number of elevation lines is really irrelevant. I can be on a 120m hill, firing at a unit at om elevation (6 lines) and still have LOS because he's at the bottom of the hill I'm on with no intervening terrain. The "two lines' rules is all about being on the back side of a crested hill. But I agree it needs clarification. Plloyd's Ed. 3+ rules seem to have addressed the elevation with a chart, but I have yet to look at it closely.

[plloyd1010]

That chart is from Panzerblitz 2. Jay uses it too, or said he did a while back. It isn't really intended for elevation lines, though on a couple strange occasions we did use it for a low ridge check. The point of the chart is to provide a quick & dirty way to work out the trigonometry of obstacles along a LOS. It can work in any tactical game.

Ottavio, the result is good, as well as the effort. My comments were only about how we (mostly my cousin and I) worked out issues. That is a good map. If you are going to do more like it, you may want to look into Foxit reader. I used it on your drawing for hex counting, and found that little corner issue about A to K. Good work.

[vince hughes]

Another call or appeal to keep things grounded:

Remember when collating this rule-set the following>

Keep it simple BUT clear and clarified where required. There are many quotes from players all over the PG show that came to this game because its very easily remembered rules and lack of tedious, complex minutiae. I confess to being one of those myself. So lets steer clear of making it a grind for a new player to learn.

IMO, the 4th edition should have its primary raison d'etre clarification AND clarity at the same time. One does not of itself guarantee the other. Clarification of old 'weeping sore' rules but making those new explainations have clarity.

One-Stop shop: The rulebook should be the go-to volume. This should be attested to in the volume opening too. In other words, supplement special rules that have been made general rules need to be highlighted as such.

Talking of highlights, make it easy on PG grognards by highlighting with bullet points (or some other) where there is a change, new rule or errata etc.

Final plea: Remember to KEEP IT SIMPLE do not veer down the road to ASL / ATS and other such systems. A NEW rules crusade and voluminous and fiddly tome may keep future newbies away as well as send away veteran players. Its a platoon level game and can be far more abstract. The level of rules are 'all good now' BUT for the warts that continuously cause confusion. They are the main bumps to smooth out.

Thanks

[vince hughes]

You have just read a post from the PG KISS campaign:

KEEP IT STRICTLY SIMPLE

[otto]

I would also suggest to have two sections. One with the core rules and the other one with special (terrain, units, functions...) rules. The core rules should be enough to play most of the existing modules e.g. East Front, Road to Berlin....
The idea is not to scare away new comers. I can easily go through additional rules may be they would not.

[plloyd1010]

Perhaps it should be more starter and optional rules. After all Ottavio, how ofter have you played the 'Basic" version of any game?

[waynebaumber]

You have just read a post from the PG KISS campaign:

KEEP IT STRICTLY SIMPLE

Vine as you know totally agree with your comments, however if there is to be kissing in our future PG meetings, please no tongues.

[Airlifter]

You have just read a post from the PG KISS campaign:

KEEP IT STRICTLY SIMPLE

Duly noted.

[zaarin7]

I'm in the not-go-down-the-ASL-road group too. In my post I said that. I just think there needs to be clarity and simple language were possible. The one example I point of the pit falls of the English language is one time many years ago the U.S. Congress spent 2 weeks debating whether to put a ':' or a ';' in a bill since they obviously mean two different things in a sentence. Being careful of that kind of thing can only make a great rule set better.

I have play test experience. I would be more than happy to bring that to this project. I have been published as a playtester in the past.