Combat Movement

[Blackcloud6]

Funny how basic rules question can come after playing for years. This one I've not really had come up and it could be an issue. I think playing in the jungle is what made it happen.

Say I have a unit (unit A) without a leader that is in the jungle and the enemy is two hexes away also in the jungle with a jungle hex between the two. So, they cannot spot each other. can Unit A activate and move into the Jungle hex next to the enemy unit although it has not been activated by a leader? The rule (5.4) says "If a unit is activated by a friendly leader, then it may move closer to enemy units that can spot it," It is the "can" that gets me thinking that Unit cannot make this move because it has not been activated by a leader and the enemy "can" spot it once it moves into the hex adjacent to the enemy.

Also 5.42 says: "Units must be activated (3.1) by leaders of their own kind to move toward what could hurt them." This reinforces my notion that A cannot make the move that I describe above.

What do you think?

[plloyd1010]

I remember when I first started, that was a question that came up too. The official ruling (by one Doug McNair, of AP at the time) was that you could not move into the LoS of a unit which could hurt you either.At the time we were thinking of tanks popping up from behind ridges.

[Blackcloud6]

I remember when I first started, that was a question that came up too. The official ruling (by one Doug McNair, of AP at the time) was that you could not move into the LoS of a unit which could hurt you either.At the time we were thinking of tanks popping up from behind ridges.

Thanks. Since this was officially ruled on, it might make a nice note for the annotated rules.

[zaarin7]

I hope all of these kind of things will be clearer in the 4th ed rules.

[plloyd1010]

I from what I've seen in PG Modern and IA, I expect 4th Ed to be more muddled. Mostly with too much chrome and little addressing of actual issues. We'll see.

[vince hughes]

Peter,

One difference I can tell you about 4th ed and MG is this.

MG was written and produced before any consultation with the heavy users of PG here. So they were released as seen. The 4th ed had two facets. First the addressing of regularly muddled issues from 3rd ed. Here, contentious or ill explained rules were thrashed out so that in the printing of the 4th ed there would be little room for misinterpretation. Still, that said, new issues have arisen from the 3rd set since that time on subjects such as Fred's latest question. I'd never come across that as an issue and I can't remember that one being tackled. But if there is somebody like Fred asking the question, then no doubt it has been asked elsewhere before. Maybe it was addressed but I don't remember.

The second facet was the 'chrome'. John had ideas where he would like to take the game. Now this is from my own stance and I DO NOT speak for others. Everybody had their own view. There were some of John's ideas I liked and others I didn't. These rules & ideas were really thrashed out. Some, and I mean only some were added. Others were put in as optionals if they met a degree of resistance backed up by healthy reasoning and debate. And yet more were binned too where nobody liked them or believed them to not fit in the PG mould. After all that, the final draft was to be viewed by MB. What he has kept, added or changed I have not the foggiest as I am not privvy to that information.

All in all, the 4th ed should be a less contentious volume in older areas and add more 'optionals' in others. If it isn't, I'd be truly disappointed. One thing is for sure. When you plan to play a new opponent, the optionals will have to be agreed beforehand.

Having written all this, I have not seen a 'Near Publication' rendering. I saw a very early version and liked it. But we will have to see what the final production brings. So when I open the Kursk North Flank Box (refuse to use the new title cos' it ain't gonna happen LOL), I will be grabbing the rule book probably before the boards, pieces and scenario book to see what the final iteration of 4th ed. wrought.

Hope this goes some way to allaying doubts, but only when we actually see them will those doubts be erased or dare I say PROVED !!

[joe_oppenheimer]

from what I've seen in PG Modern and IA, I expect 4th Ed to be more muddled. Mostly with too much chrome and little addressing of actual issues. We'll see.

I was hoping Modern PG would be pretty spiffy but I felt like a lot of stuff was muddled. Some of the terrain, limiting terrain, and things like mire were more confusing to me (not to mention the air units with no description of what their values mean).

[plloyd1010]

Well Vince, I certainly hit a nerve, though I am not sure where it was.

I base my predictions on having read the 4th Ed preview, Infantry Attacks, and Modern Battles. Translating some is mentioned in the preview into the PG system in general looks problematic due to the incongruity between the games. I also have the 2nd Ed. rules. I am quite aware of what did not get cleaned up last time.

All games have chrome on some level. For example rule 7.23, the Split Fire rule. Another is rule 15.31, Cavalry Charges. Chrome is an old wargamer term used to refer special rules or units to create a particular desired affect which the rule would not otherwise allow normally. There was chrome in PG, there is chrome in PG, and there almost certainly be chrome in PG. The real question is whether or not it overruns the game system.

Of course someone asked Fred's question was asked before. I asked it. I agreed with answer. My philosophical view for prohibition units to move into the LOS of an enemy capable of harming them would imply some tactical coordination which the game system invests in leaders. Without a leader, my popping up over a dune, or Fred's jumping out of the jungle, at an appropriate moment is quite unlikely.

lastly, old gamers, like myself, view rules as merely being the designer's opinion as how the game should be played (and I think Brian Knipple had an errant opinion in PG). i frequently find the fundamentalist view in gaming as irritating, as I find it disturbing in religion. In case you are wondering, i do like Calvinball.

[vince hughes]

No nerves hit Peter so don't worry. Merely an answer to your post. I have no personal stake in it anyway other than my own enjoyment

We will all see the final printed edition and then I guess make our own assesments.

Like you, I tend to trust to my 42 years wargaming, historical reading and military service to assist me seeing through game v reality v playability v enjoyment.

[zaarin7]

The continuing and on going question is WHEN?