Which comes first - Op Fire of Minefields

[campsawyer]

Three possible scenarios, lone leader, leader and platoon together and platoon with a leader following.

Lone Leader - the minefield owner decides whether the mines trigger.

Leader and Platoon - Mines trigger, if a step loss the platoon reduces, leader loss roll is taken.

Platoon followed by the leader - Mine triggers, if step loss platoon reduces, then the leader moves in, presumably the owner would trigger for the leader as the strength is known, step loss would kill the leader.

[waynebaumber]

Wayne is brutal with those Soviets :-0

One other thought on the sequence, OP fire is voluntary, so the firer can chose (no pun intended) whether to shoot or not, while mine attacks are mandatory. To me, I would take the mine attack first, see the results then OP if needed. No sense OP firing if the unit is going to be blown up by the mines. Either way, it's not very good to move into a minefield covered by DF.

I think it was Vince who was brutal I was merely following Soviet tactical doctrine

[campsawyer]

Wayne is brutal with those Soviets :-0

One other thought on the sequence, OP fire is voluntary, so the firer can chose (no pun intended) whether to shoot or not, while mine attacks are mandatory. To me, I would take the mine attack first, see the results then OP if needed. No sense OP firing if the unit is going to be blown up by the mines. Either way, it's not very good to move into a minefield covered by DF.

I think it was Vince who was brutal I was merely following Soviet tactical doctrine

Very good comrade

[vince hughes]

I think it was Vince who was brutal I was merely following Soviet tactical doctrine

Now I'm a brute added to all my other foibles ???

[armyduck95]

Anything that enters a minefield should be attacked by the minefield - because that is what happens. I'd have to look back at the PzG rules, but PzG Modern is clear that minefield effects are a negative effect of movement and not an attack.

[vince hughes]

Anything that enters a minefield should be attacked by the minefield - because that is what happens. I'd have to look back at the PzG rules, but PzG Modern is clear that minefield effects are a negative effect of movement and not an attack.

AD,

Yes, by the rule.

But picture this. In a ftf game, defender has minefields. Attacker, rather than send units into the mines decides to send empty trucks in to see the size of the minefield or whether it is a decoy. This is a gamey move and has no basis in reality. It is probably also something that the designer never thought of at the time.

Therefore we use the house rule (in our PG group here) that unloaded transorts can not be used for minefield recon. Its simple but an effective way to stop the rendering of minefields as useless.

[zaarin7]

Way back in the day Mike was working on an update to the PB/PL/AIW system that eliminated some of the abuses like that of trucks and wagons. I'm surprised that is not explicitly mentioned in the rules. Another thing I hope 4th ed takes care of.

[vince hughes]

Another thing I hope 4th ed takes care of.

I think it does. I can at least say I mentioned it as an area of abuse

[armyduck95]

Alan,
I understand, I am just glad I don't play those kind of folks. If a player wants to "be gamey" I just slap them silly. It's a good house rule, I agree.