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

[plloyd1010]

Yeah! Much better to go down the hyperbolic and non sequitorial paths. Keep spokes out of wheel, it leads to texting. Stop drownings, ban dihydrogen monoxide.

Sheesh.

[Blackcloud6]

Barring other terrain features, two units at the same level, and on the same hill, are not in limiting terrain with respect to each other. LOS between these units is limited normally by terrain and visibility. Units at the same level do not receive the -1 DF column shift for firing at each other.

I don't agree with this. There are many long hills in PG but they are still hill that have a shape from which units can use to hide in.

[plloyd1010]

We apply the modifier from the same or lower levels. Limiting terrain rules still apply.

[zaarin7]

In general this is not that complicated a rule set however there are some procedures that have to be followed fairly closely. I would suggest some visual examples if possible. For example, after discussing activation show some drawing of stacks giving examples of the options a play has.

[zaarin7]

There was a discussion about the night fighting rules under the 'Rules' thread having a discrepancy. Bombardment and area fire are at -1 while AT fire is not. This should be consistent was the consensuses there.

[otto]

Night rule in Modern Panzer Grenadier are very well made. I would start from having a look at them.

Ottavio

[zaarin7]

Since as I understand Burning Tigers is going to have these rules up I was just wondering where these rules are at? Still accumulating data? Play testing? Handed into APL? Thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

[campsawyer]

Since as I understand Burning Tigers is going to have these rules up I was just wondering where these rules are at? Still accumulating data? Play testing? Handed into APL? Thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

At this point, they are at a point of discussion and playtesting.

[Hugmenot]

A few random thoughts. I apologize if they are just repeat of issues covered earlier in this thread.

1. Clearly define what is a unit (combat unit + transport unit + leader?).

2. Examining Stacks. I like the rule from Modern PG: "A player may not examine an opponent’s stack (look under the top piece) unless the whole stack is adjacent to his own undisrupted/undemoralized unit or leader, or the stack is marked with a Spotted marker". Matt and I have been playing with a similar house rule for the past 6 months and I enjoy the tension it adds to the game. I do believe a clarification will be needed for Skype games because ftf can see how high the stack is while Skype opponents cannot.

3. Other Leader Moves. I like this rule from Modern PG "One leader may move with any other unit type (except fast mover aircraft) at its movement rate if faster than a leader’s four MPs. Place such a leader underneath the unit with which it is riding" because it covers leaders moving with motorcycle units for example.

4. Strategic Movement. It's currently an optional rule and I would prefer it remains an optional rule. My problems with this rule is twofold: (1) it would unbalance many of the existing scenarios, and (2) I have questions about its realism. Did AFVs favor moving into woods unseen at a faster clip than in the open but in sight of the enemy. I am even less certain when it comes to light woods.

5. Clarification. Fleeing units can be targeted by opportunity fire. This clarification would have helped me when I started playing.

6. Smoke. I hope smoke capability will continue to be limited by SSR and not become standard fare. An hex is a really big area to cover by smoke.

7. Preplotted Bombardment. I would like the Modern PG rule become an optional rule.

8. Armor Efficiency. The PG Modern Armor Efficiency rule whereas a AFV unit can move and fire is something I definitely do not want in PG except by SSR because I believe it invalidate many existing scenarios. My very strong preference is that older scenarios are not invalidated by the new rules.

9. Movement Costs. Care should be given before changing the movement cost of clear terrain as this would have a very strong impact on existing scenarios. For example, changing Clear terrain to cost only 1 MP for mechanized units would seriously affect the play balance of existing scenarios.

[vince hughes]

Hugmenot,

I don't think any of us 'PG Grognards' would like to see massive changes. Just clear up the shady edges, and let us all get on. After all, from my experience in ftf games and talking to fellow players, very few of us want too much intense detail. Its the very abstractness, but at the same time, its ability to hit the mark, that this game keeps us involved. Its short count in rules pages and an ability to jump in to any scenario with a minimum of fuss is a fantastic bonus in this day and age of games overly rules heavy.

Another player I know pointed out an interesting fact. That was that of the people he knew playing PG, each and everyone of them (inc.me) had dumped the ASL system once it changed from the original Squad Leader system. If the same occurred in PG, it would be very sad, including a monetary loss for MB's infant phoenix revival.