PG New Editions

[plloyd1010]

For those unaware,the rule is basically that tank leaders now, tank leader activation limits. One chooses to do a tank leader activation, declares which tank/armor the activation is centered on, and activates (if applicable) from there.

I personally consider it to be a more workable than the old rule. It grants more flexibility, but not excessively so. And I never liked how the secret designation ended up making tank leaders such obvious targets.

I do have some issues and concerns about the new rule. One is the low attrition rate for tank leaders. Matt and I are having that discussion over in the Rules Section. Another is whether it might be practical to kill off a bunch a light tanks in order to damage an opponent's armor command.

[Matt W]

Necessity is the mother of invention.  As I mentioned in the Designer's Notes to Fire in the Steppe, the fact that we were using the old Eastern Front counter sheets for the game meant that the tank units were not marked to permit leaders to be assigned to counters.  While Mike offered to include the tanks from the old Workers & Peasants product, reading about the Brody battles indicated that the Mechanized Corps fought well past the point at which the old leader rule would have permitted.  In cases nearly every AFV was committed and fought through the end of the action.

As Peter has noted, the attrition rate of the leaders is very low, for that purpose alone.  The rule itself is relatively simple.  Rather than assigning the number of leaders to individual counters, the number of tank leaders is used as a number of "tank" activations (using all the existing rules, including the ability to activate units in your hex as well as those in adjacent hexes).  As tank units take losses there is the chance to lose leaders (in FitS the chance is 1 in 6, reflecting the resiliency of the Mechanized Corps in the Southwestern Front).  I would not use the same loss ratio for other forces in other situations where the armor is not efficient.  One could make the argument, for example, that Slovak or French (or upcoming Belgian, etc.) armor would be far less resilient and may have double or triple the losses in leaders in order to portray that.  If you like the idea please try it out on some other scenarios and let me know how it plays.

If nothing else it makes the counters less busy and that is, for those of us with more years behind us than we wish to acknowledge, a good thing.

[Matt W]

Here is the rule itself:

The Soviet player may make a number of activations for tank units for combat movement or to initiate assault equal to the number of tank leaders that they have. Each such activation must consist of no more than a single hex and the surrounding six hexes. There is no limit to the number of noncombat moves or fire activations not involving the initiation of assault. Tank leaders may become casualties. Each time a tank step is lost roll one die. On a roll of six reduce the number of tank leaders by one. If multiple tanks steps are lost in a single combat roll once for each tank step lost.

Experienced players will note that this provides an increased tank management capability for the Soviet player. This is intentional and represents the level of training provided to these units prior to Barbarossa.

[saracv3]

Here is the rule itself:

The Soviet player may make a number of activations for tank units for combat movement or to initiate assault equal to the number of tank leaders that they have. Each such activation must consist of no more than a single hex and the surrounding six hexes. There is no limit to the number of noncombat moves or fire activations not involving the initiation of assault. Tank leaders may become casualties. Each time a tank step is lost roll one die. On a roll of six reduce the number of tank leaders by one. If multiple tanks steps are lost in a single combat roll once for each tank step lost.

Experienced players will note that this provides an increased tank management capability for the Soviet player. This is intentional and represents the level of training provided to these units prior to Barbarossa.

Good show, and thus if I have 2 tank leaders. I get two combat activations vs. any number of move/fire activations. In scenario 18 in FitS I've already experienced a bloody clash between a PzJr and a force of 3 BT7s. The Jr has destroyed 2 steps and remains alive even though it suffered through 2 attacks. Another BT fell to infantry. So the RKKA has lost 4 steps.

So I should roll one die 4x. This time I beat the odds, rolling no 1s. However, one can see might have no leaders, and with 4 BT steps left- in only the 4th turn. If all leaders became casualties the Soviet would be forced into a defensive posture. Or does assault really mean Assault? In other words, can the BOys still move towards the Germans?

[plloyd1010]

Yes, you would have rolled 4x, once each time a step was lost. Beat the odds? The cumulative odds are 52%, not counting the subtracks for multiple tank leaders lost.

Assuming no tank leaders, the Soviet tanks would not be able to move toward the German tanks or anti-tank guns, which would be in range to take a shot at them. If one of the infantry was foolish enough to be off without AT support, sure. Scrab the little Hitlerite, but you can't do it by assault.

[J6A]

Someone mentioned at CSW Expo that hunting light tanks was the way to wipe out the tank leaders. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it may force players to use light tanks for their intended role of scouting and dealing with infantry rather than as mini-MBTs.

[Dan Storm]

Counters and maps are the same, what is new is the rules and charts. You can download the 4th Edition Rules and Charts from Avalanche Press. It is a free purchase from the webstore.

Question:
When APL Reprints / Reissues a boxed game with a new rules version - do they ever Tweak / Change or Add / Omit scenarios from the original printing or are they most often exactly the same?

[Matt W]

"That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it may force players to use light tanks for their intended role of scouting and dealing with infantry rather than as mini-MBTs. "

Absolutely correctamundo! Give that man a cigar!!!

[plloyd1010]

Question:
When APL Reprints / Reissues a boxed game with a new rules version - do they ever Tweak / Change or Add / Omit scenarios from the original printing or are they most often exactly the same?

Matt or Daniel could probably answer batter than I can, but here is my take on it. Yes, sometimes, but so far not often. The changed example which comes to mind is Kokoda Campaign. It was reworked partly to redress imbalances, and partly to fit in the counter set. So far as i know, FoF '40, Elsenborn, and Lib '44 have not changed. I have no idea if Pusan was reworked or not.

[JayTownsend]

Pusan had some errata corrected on the scenario book from the first release to the second and not just my name but also some scenario setup issues and few other things.