|
RE: Bombarding Tank Riders
> If you are happy with your game results, that's fine, they're your games. After you've read a few small unit AARs and some middle echelon combat narratives, your view on playing RAW will likely soften. That happens with most systems as the tension and compromises between play and simulation is revealed. The beauty of PG is that rarely does one need to look outside the system to find a better application.
I am in progress of teaching this game system to someone at work who is a relatively new wargamer (he has been playing for just a few years, I have been since the 1970s). the first game system he learned was ASL which uses explicit rules. has the concept of COWTAR (concentrate on what the rules allow) and have many nuances caused by rule combinations exception and so on. So, I back him off to a game with what some might be viewed as a "looser" system of rules and it becomes harder t explain the nuances without backing them up with a rule. I asked the question above mainly to see if there was an exception or a ruling that I missed to actually have the +1 column shift for tank riders on bombardment. There appears to not have been such thus I assume then that designer intended the rule to be played the way it was written and I have n problem doing so. I can see an argument for the rule as written as I said above due to the turrets and vehicle itself providing some protection as opposed tot he canvass and mild steel of a truck. When you only have a value of "1" to play with (Some thing that many whole play ASL never have grasped) then sometime a hard choice on "reality has to be made: the designer wanted to show the difference in riding on a tank as opposed to sitting in truck, OK so be it. (BNTW, I think hitting moving vehicles with indirect fire artillery is very difficult anyways and one could argue for a left shift if the vehicle had moved previously to the shot, but that is another argument).
|
