Did anyone notice AVF's in assault?

[plloyd1010]

Sean and I came across this last night.

+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. Other friendly units may also be in hex.

+1 side includes at least one undemoralized closed-top AFV and at least one infantry of any type except HMG. Other friendly units may also be in hex. Modifi er only applies to Germans in all scenarios; Soviet Guards in scenarios taking place after 1942; Polish, US and Commonwealth in scenarios taking place after 1943.

I also recall that tank destroyers were ineligible for the +1 combined arms modifier (the only time the tank destroyer definition came into play). In fact I believe the +1 modifier only applied to tanks and assault guns (not the M8 Scott because it is open-topped). Does anyone else remember that?

[rerathbun]

That's the way I remember it.  I did a lot of reading trying to understand the armor rules when I started playing with the Third Edition rules, and only tanks and assault guns gave the bonus.  I have not read the Fourth Edition rules as closely (just started using them).

[triangular_cube]

In third, it was one of the many semi core rules that were included in most modules' special rule section. When it wasn't included in others it was left up to the user to determine if it was intended or an oversight, or what... I don't know to what level it is documented in 4th edition. Many of these game distinctions did not exist in the 2nd edition modules, although original BotB had a different Open Topped rule that made them sturdier than the current one. 

From the RtB scenario book because I have it handy:

"5.0 armored fighting vehicles: Self propelled artillery, Armored Cars, Tank Destroyers, and Open Topped Armored Vehicles do not provide the +1 AFV - Infantry column shift bonus in assault combat. They are treated as AFVs in all other respects."

[plloyd1010]

In third, it was one of the many semi core rules that were included in most modules' special rule section. When it wasn't included in others it was left up to the user to determine if it was intended or an oversight, or what... I don't know to what level it is documented in 4th edition. Many of these game distinctions did not exist in the 2nd edition modules, although original BotB had a different Open Topped rule that made them sturdier than the current one.

I started wondering this morning if it was a standardized GSR. Every boxed game up through RdDk makes note of tank destroyers, if they are in the game. There is nothing in the standard rules, going back to the 2nd edition, that says anything about them in regard to function or difference.

Road to Dunkirk had this:
Armored cars, self-propelled artillery (5.64), open-top AFVS, APCS, Tank Destroyers and Armored Transports do not provide a bonus for assault combat. Only efficient tanks (vehicles that have armor values and do not fall into any of the previous categories) provide the +1 column adjustment for infantry-armor combined arms on the assault table. Note that only German tanks are efficient in Road to Dunkirk.

[rerathbun]

If it helps in figuring out which rules apply, each armored piece has its AFV type (tank destroyer, assault gun, self-propelled artillery) identified on its library page.  They should all be correct, but if you spot any errors, please submit an erratum.

There's also a tab on each unit's page labeled "Display Relevant AFV Rules" that should clarify if the piece counts for the assault bonus.  Again, if there are errors, let us know.

[plloyd1010]

This will be more litigious and argumentative than I normally am. (I hear some people ducking for cover.) I'm using the Jadgpanzer IV/70 for an example, but is applicable to anything ID'd as a tank destroyer on the site.

• Closed-top AFV's: Provide the +1 modifier on the Assault Table when combined with infantry. (Modifier only applies to Germans in all scenarios; Soviet Guards in scenarios taking place after 1942; Polish, US and Commonwealth in scenarios taking place after 1943.) (ACC)
  
• Tank Destroyer: do not provide the +1 Assault bonus, even if closed-top (SB)
  

I am assuming ACC is "Assault Combat Chart". Is SB "Scenario Book"? I'm going to assume it is until further information comes to light. So, going through in production games.

Tank destroyers specified with rules: Elsenborn Ridge (GSRs 4 & 6), Spearhead Div (GSRs 4 & 6), Road to Dunkirk (GSR 5), Fall of France (GSRs 4 & 7), South Flank (GSRs 6 & 9) and Liberation '44 (GSRs 4 & 6). No problem, falls into relevant AFV rules nicely.

Tank destroyers specified without rules: An Army at Dawn (GSR 5), Invasion '44 (no TDs), Burning Tigers (GSR 10), Dishonor Before Death (GSR 9) and Blackshirt Div (GSR 5). Here is where the distinction without a difference problem comes up. Most games get around the issue on the technicality that the TD's are open-topped. So why is it pointed out that the units are tank destroyers? There is no game relevance, but there is a game rule.

No tank destroyers specified: Saipan '44, Broken Axis, Conquest of Ethiopia, Deluge, Fire in the Steppe, Lithuania's Iron Wolves, Marianas '44, Parachutes Over Crete, Britain's Battle of the Bulge, Armata Romana, Afrika '44 and 49th Mountain Corps. There is a hodge-podge of reasons here. In some there are no tank destroyers. Others have open-topped tank destroyers, which are not identified as such. (Why would you?) Lastly a couple seem to rely on the games which they expand, but don't say they are doing so.

All-in-all, it looks confusing for new players, and I suspect some solo players have missed the distinction at times. Sorry Robin, I don't think most players are going to PG unit list when there is a question, they go to the rules and game books. I personally abhor a distinction without a difference. I also have new players to play with and I need to point to rules in their books for their understanding.

[rerathbun]

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:

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:
 

+1 side includes at least one undemoralized closed-top AFV . . .

We should update that section to match the Fourth Edition Table that says:

+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.

[plloyd1010]

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. 

That is probably the best solution for the time. There are other points which should be added, like terrain modification mechanics. Wadis have been brought up, but there are other potential instances.

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:

Not dissing the intent, or even the notion. Just think we need the improve the likelihood that it gets in front of the necessary eyeballs.
 

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.

Since we are both staff, he'll listen to us. Drew has been pretty busy though, don't know when he is likely to get to it.

For this specific issue, I would lift GSR 4 from Elsenborn Ridge as it seems to be direct and complete.

APCs, self-propelled artillery (5.64), armored cars, open-top AFVs and tank destroyers do not provide the + 1 AFV with infantry column shift bonus in assault combat.

I would put it in at 12.41 or 12.54.
 

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.

A reasonable assessment, which I agree with. There are 6 distinctions regarding AFVs in Panzergrenadier (I add another and an optional in my rewrite). When there is a distinction, it requires rules definition. I think we all hoped the 4th edition would have provided more in that catagory.

[cjsiam]

Assault Guns---the famed STGIII..... from the interpretations I see---it STILL gets the +1 with appropriate INF....

but not the Bufla (just saying....)
cj