Fair points all around, and I don't think you're being argumentative.
You are correct about ACC and SB, they are indeed Assault Combat Chart and Scenario Book.
I totally agree that the rules should be clearer, and that new players (especially) should be able to find all their answers in the rules. The permanent solution would be to update the PG rules. For now, perhaps we should add an annotation to section 12.41 of the
Annotated Fourth Edition Rules.
Adding the "Display Relevant AFV rules" tab to PGHQ was my attempt to help clarify things for players because I didn't think it was clear enough in the rules.
The "Relevant AFV Rules" pages were put together before the Fourth Edition Rules came out and the passage you quoted:
Quote:Closed-top AFV's: Provide the +1 modifier on the Assault Table when combined with infantry.
Came from the Third Edition Assault Table which reads:
Quote:+1 side includes at least one undemoralized closed-top AFV . . .
We should update that section to match the Fourth Edition Table that says:
Quote:+1 Side includes at least one undemoralized closed-top Efficient AFV (see 11.2)
and at least one infantry of any type except HMG/WPN.
We should also annotate the entry to point out that the modifier really only applies to tanks and assault guns, and also define them.
I'll talk to Shad about making changes to the AFV rules tabs, since I can't edit them directly. If you have any wording suggestions, please feel free to message me (or Shad) here.
I believe that the lack of clarity in the PG rules can be attributed to the incremental addition of more and more vehicles to the game as more boxed games and supplements were added. The rules started pretty basic and didn't take into account all the different AFVs used in the war. As new types were added to the games, new distinctions and rules (and rules exceptions) were required, and sometimes the authors missed putting them in.
