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

[Airlifter]

Defensive personal AT weapons

I have also thought that only allowing assaulting units to get the benefits of personal AT weapons seem a little odd. As there are many documented instances of them being used against attacking units. But I also feel the simple solution of allowing defensive AT shots in assaults does tip the balance of the assault. I believe that a more radical change my need to be considered as the use of a AT shot is limiting.

My thought is to continue to have only certain infantry units and must roll a 5 or 6 to use. If successful, instead of getting an AT shot, there would be a +1 column shift to the assault table. This +1 would be cumulative for all successful 5 or 6 die roll and the first step loss must be taken on an AFV.

My reasons for such a radical change are these are a few. First, the personal AT weapons rule is one I feel is still a bit odd and not complete, much like the M18 move and shoot rule, and can be reevaluated for a better approach. Second, this would allow for both offensive and defensive use. Both sides can use this against AFV's but it is not guaranteed that is will work. By changing from a assault result and AT shot to just an assault result this keeps the attack in the method that it started with. The assault table is good for resolving close combat, let's keep the results there. Third, this is scalable to use personal AT weapons against fortifications. There are many documented instances that American bazooka's being used against pillboxes. With this the use of personal AT weapons can be used for this by adding a rule allowing the qualified infantry units to roll for there use. If successful they can get the +1 shift on entrenchments and strongpoints, with the first step loss taken on a unit in either of those two.

I know this might be radical, but I feel something like this needs to be done as the current rule feels like it is a dead end if we try to modify in some way for other uses and I also feel that something needs to be done for this.

Let the discussion begin...

I'm not opposed to radical changes like this, but i must say I do not like making it work sometimes and not others. Can't we come up with a change that works all the time? I do like the idea of potentially destroying Entrenchment Counters, but I think we need to work this out a little more. THAT would be radical--making us reconsider a lot of scenarios that rely on the defender bunkering up in seemingly indestructible bunkers.