Bufla--The Anomaly of the Fall of France ...

[cjsiam]

The Bufla Unit counter has a Armor rating of "0"...(THIS IS NOT CORRECT.....The Counter provided in the game
  actually does NOT have this Armor rating---Corrected by Author--see below....My BAD continue with your
  normal programming....)

But

The 1940: Fall of France scenario book "special rules" call out specifically in "6.Open-Top AFV" that
a) APC are the only Open Top AFV in FoF
and
b) the Bufla is a -1, like a truck (even though they are SPA)

What was the intent of the specific Mention?
How did the Counter Art differ from the RAW?
So---Do we follow the Counter or the Specific Game Rules?

The Vehicles themselves look large, and vulnerable to DF/BF---much more than the M3 halftrack or SPW251 variants
you might compare them to, due to minimal (none) crew protection from anything but the facing gun shield.

Thoughts?
(we are going with the Counter Art vs. the Rule set)  even in the AVP article they use the counter art with a "0"...though
there were counter art (at one point) without an armor rating (PG-HQ archive shows both ....sigh...connundra....)

[plloyd1010]

So far as I know, the Bufla has come in 2 versions.

The APL version and FaoF 1st Release.
       
I don't know about counter in subsequent FoaF releases. I made the Vassal counter like the APL version, which is still on the website, but I fixed the symbol.

I will also point out that there is a similar argument to be made with the SdKfz 7/2. If indeed mounting a gun on invalidates the armored engine & cab (gave the SdKfz 7 its armor rating), someone needs to explain to me how the SdKfz 10/4 got its armor value.

[cjsiam]

OK....I checked my source....the original game counters from the latest (2020?) Fall of France
...
Peter---your counter without Armor value above is what is in the game---which then aligns with the Rules As Written.
You are most generally correct in things.....and your plate is always full....so, shxt happens.

[plloyd1010]

Craig, I have no particular problem with being wrong, it's happened once or twice before.   That is why there is a quarterly update plan. My issue has more to do with APL's systemic inconsistency.

The Sd.Kfz. 7 is armored, why? Because the cab is armored (but passengers not protected).
Okay... The Bufla has an armored cab and engine, so it should be armored like the Sd.Kfz. 7, right? Nope. Why?
Btw: The Sd.Kfz. 7/2 is armored, right? Nope. Why? Did they take armor off the cab (which was the justification for its armor rating)? Uhhhh....
The Sd.Kfz. 10/4 should be unarmored. Why yes it is, except for in KurS and occasional games afterward. Why? Because some late war Sd.Kfz. 10's had armored cabs. Oh, in light of the Sd.Kfz. 7/2 and Bufla, what does an armored cab have to do with it? Because that is how we made the counter!
Yeah, right... The gods have spoken, not thought much, but spoken.

I can, and probably should, change the Vassal piece.

P.S. I have also been previously informed that a double-positive cannot result in a negative.

[cjsiam]

Peter, you're not wrong.....you used one source instead of another....the source was wrong...that counter (with armor) is 
up on the AVLP website article on the Bufla STILL....I don't think the counter with "0" should even exist (based on everything)

I think you've pointed out that vehicles that have armor only for the cab, really don't protect the crew which is actively servicing
a weapon.....but the way the game mechanic CURRENTLY works is there is only one choice.....
It's only when the weapon stops moving and the men start to run around firing and servicing the weapon that people are exposed
---driving around they are protected in cab....
I might propose (don't flame....)
....FIRING you are a truck (not AFV) target
....Moving(not yet fired) you're an AFV "0"....
Once you have activated to MOVE you are considered an AFV until you activate to FIRE....
Once you have activated for FIRE you are considered a truck/non-AFV until you activate to MOVE.....
(gosh, that kinda works....)

The observation from the Article by the German officer in Poland indicated that Artillery shelling them was something they were happy
they could avoid because they could move out of the way quickly---so, being invulnerable to BF (save for X) as an AFV all the time,
seems excessive based on his comments.

[leonard]

In my original design, Bufla had "0" armor value but they changed that in the published versions of Fall of France.
SK 10/4 has always been unarmored in my design.
SK 7/2 is a misprint by AP. It should be SK 6/2 and completely unarmored.

[treadasaurusrex]

IMHO, the scarce, but dangerous, Bufla in 1940 should be an AFV with the 0 armored value as Philippe originally intended, and the current cyber counter depicts. Given the weakness of the most contemporary AT guns in that memorable year, Peter's depiction is more historically-accurate and mirrors the armor values on such things as the US M-3 halftracks and the early German Hanomag SPW 251 halftracks. Yes, these are not exact comparisons, but a zero armor value, is a zero armor value, which should be relatively consistent for lightly-armored, halftrack-like AFVs throughout the game series.

The inconsitency inherent in the PG series as regards armor, firepower, weapon range and movement values is substantial and challenging for those of us struggling to learn this interesting game's system. My hope is that the upcoming, enhanced playbook version of Fall of France, and the eventual 5th edition of the PG rules will directly address at least a few of these inconsistencies.

[plloyd1010]

In my original design, Bufla had "0" armor value but they changed that in the published versions of Fall of France.

I'll likely be redoing the counter in Vassal for the June update. An armor value of 0 fits in with what APL says about the Bufla and rationalized when it came flak on Sd.Kfz. 7 chassis.
 

SK 10/4 has always been unarmored in my design.

It seems Mike P. is the miscreant here. Dr. Mike picked up that deviation with GD'44. An armor of 0 is inconsistent with APL's rationalization for mounted flak.
 

SK 7/2 is a misprint by AP. It should be SK 6/2 and completely unarmored.

Being a Sd.Kfz 6/2 would make the counter consistent with APL's rationalization for mounted flak. Should I put this note over in errata? I should probably change the Vassal counter accordingly.

[cjsiam]

I cede all perspectives to the designers and those with more depth---
But.... (you knew it was coming, right?)
The APL website article on the Bufla quotes a German officer who ran the Bufla company....his comment was that one of the great advantages
of the weapon being mounted was it could "shoot and scoot" avoiding artillery....

How does that concern of his "jive" vs. a "0" Armor value which allows the weapon to all but ignore DF and BF fire until you get
into "X" territory?  If you have a "0" armor, you really don't worry about Arty firing at you......even open topped.....

Inquiring minds....

Any thoughts on my "Activated for Fire it's a truck (crews exposed), for Move it's armored (crews in cab)" suggestion?
The weapon system/crews et. al. are clearly NOT as protected as those in an SPW with high sides to protect them ....

[treadasaurusrex]

I think that this is a decent compromise that does not directly violate the letter of the scenario rules as currently written. Better a temporary "house rules" fix than arbitrarily making an actual SP AFV into a lowly truck.