[Rules] 4th Edition rules are up

[plloyd1010]

I thought overrun was moving though the hex attacking as you go.

Lets see what tomorrow brings.


How is everyone liking the rules so far?

You gotta stay away from that PB/PL stuff, it warps your mind!
AIW didn't even let you in the hex in that version of the system. Seriously though... with out a road, how would you do that?

Some of the changes are good, a couple other weird things. The mortar limber/unlimber clarification is a definition we had rejects at too restrictive.

[richvalle]

I thought overrun was moving though the hex attacking as you go.

Lets see what tomorrow brings.


How is everyone liking the rules so far?

You gotta stay away from that PB/PL stuff, it warps your mind!
AIW didn't even let you in the hex in that version of the system. Seriously though... with out a road, how would you do that?

Some of the changes are good, a couple other weird things. The mortar limber/unlimber clarification is a definition we had rejects at too restrictive.

Well... if it's Inf with no inherent AT fire I'm not sure what a single platoon could do to stop tanks from driving though their 200 M of space as long as the tanks don't stop. Heck if I was a guy with a rifle and 5 tanks started driving at me I'd duck and hope they kept going.

Maybe something like def has to be only inf in open terrain. Attackers have to be all good order Armor with higher moral then the defenders.

Not sure what these looked like historically. Any idea? It would definitely give tanks more of a 'punch though the line and get to the artillery kind of feel.

[richvalle]

Overwhelming force seems to be a factor (trying to Google it... not finding much that's good). So maybe the above and attacking DF value needs to be... at least 3x the def df value.

Well, kind of silly to make stuff up when we can wait and see what part 2 gives us, if anything.

I'm not sure when my first V4 game will be though I'm looking forward to trying out the rules.

[campsawyer]

How is everyone liking the rules so far?

With the rules there are good, there are bad and there are ugly ones.

Optional rules seem a bit lighter in volume than expected. Maybe that will come through in the next installment. There were quite a few in the discussions for the v4 rules. Many may have been lopped off, which would not be a bad thing. More optional rules that core rules would be awkward.

[Brett Nicholson]

The first batch of the optional rules posted at the AP site didn't appear as hideous as I thought they may have been but that's namely because they are optional. One of the optional rules I DO like is the extended assault for AFVS and even loaded APCs from 2-3 hexes away as if Cavalry can do it then why not other armed mobile units? What I still DON'T like is the logistics rule and that if it occurs, unlike fog of war, it affects units for the duration of the scenario (if I've read into it right) instead of just one turn but then again, it is still an optional rule. And if it occurs twice to the same player then there doesn't seem like there is much a point in continuing on as the critical effects are far too severe. I think logistics should be something that a certain scenario's SSR may address given a certain historical situation where one side really was low on ammo, petrol and/or in danger of being have their supply lines cut off (something like during the 2nd battle of El Alamein for the axis). I guess I am more troubled with the core rule changes, particularily with the prospect of retrofitting the older PG games; especially with the limiting terrain and/or LOS changes. For instance in the desert war scenarios hills are usually the only terrain around that will give units any cover there from being easily spotted. Don't care much for fields no longer locking LOS either which would change a lot of EFD scenarios but then again, I don't have to retrofit any of the older 2nd and 3rd edition release unless I or an opponent mtually agree to. In defense of the 4th edition rule changes friendly fire seems a little more realistic as no longer will a single 81mm or (perish the thought) 60mm mortar unit be able to cause a 21 column effect from the bombardment fire table. I think adapting to 4th rule changes will take some time to grasp in their entirety. In the meantime I am opting for 3.5th edition, slowly immersing myself within them. Striving to be optimistic about it all though and will likely experiment with some V4 and/or new optional rules soon enough.

[richvalle]

I agree, I do like the AFV assault rule and I don't like the logistics rule. I think I like the friendly fire and new airplane rules. Air strikes have always seemed pretty weak, except for those tank busting ones. Those are scary.

I disagree about the hills though. That rule in 3 drives me crazy. Case in point, I have the pleasure of playing Vince's ex-email partner face to face and in email games. In one game he drove a platoon of tanks in open terrain on a hill from right to left in full view of the whole German army and there was nothing I could do about it. The next turn they fired and NOW we can see him? Wacky.

Let us know how the rules go for you.

[Brett Nicholson]

Honestly, concerning hills in any ruling is sure to irk someone one way or the other; old rules, new ones or house rules. Also, geographically hills differ -not all hills are smooth, clear, lightly grassy and very broad slopes; in that case, perhaps somewhere in Southern England they may be like that and those types I would not consider limiting terrain but would block LOS and provide a spotting bonus. However, in the desert and in many other places hills can have varying slopes, be very uneven ground, rocky, craggy and provide a lot of cover to hide units. Also, in hills like those I believe that both sides would recieve a (-1) defensive modifier, not just those on higher elevation but on the same level as well. Of course the (-1) for the defender in assaults on higher levels would still apply. Also never thought that units on separate hills but same elevation would be able to spot each other unless one or the other fired. But I have adapted to those older rulings in my shared matches with Vince and Wayne.

[richvalle]

Well, the same could be said for 'open' terrain too I think. It's going to vary from place to place and in some places it's not very open at all.

But I agree... no rule is going to make everyone happy. One of the great advantages of playing board games vs computer games is the ease in changing the rules to suit you.

[Brett Nicholson]

Well, the same could be said for 'open' terrain too I think. It's going to vary from place to place and in some places it's not very open at all.

But I agree... no rule is going to make everyone happy. One of the great advantages of playing board games vs computer games is the ease in changing the rules to suit you.

Well, I will just kick back in the meantime and wait for someone else to brave and pioneer these changes through their future AARS first! Honestly I played most of the 'Afrika Korps' and some 'Desert Rats' scenarios with just the 2nd editon rulebook and misunderstood or misinterpreted a lot a year back; especially the whole armor immunity ruling along with going to ground etc. before getting a 3rd edition rulebook or finding the annoted rules here. So that is where I will eventually backtrack with replays and try out the 4th edition rules to compare results. It will be like playing a whole new boxed set!

[vince hughes]

One sad effect of the hill rules is that for some scenarios, they WILL completely change the game situation and therefore results of what has gone before.

Richvalle's example is a good one. Lets say in the previous 7 plays of his current match with John, side A won because they could use the hills as limiting terrain and therefore throw out a first fire advantage due to that limitation with great effect.

Now in the next 7 plays, they might as well be in clear land as they can be shot at from 12 hexes.

On the subject of hills limiting spotting distance, I really do think it is a simple case of being more abstract with platoon size games opposed to squad size games. There are no crest lines in the game (Peter's own innovation excepted of course), so in Richvalles example, there would be no way to simulate a group of units rolling behind the ridge and getting advantage of first fire. However, when units are on the same level AND same hill, we use the 12 hex spotting distance and not 3. For me, I use this 'broad-brush' approach to platoon gaming as the the acceptable compromise instead of having a manual of rules. Same goes for open ground. Its rolling and undulating with dips etc. That's why firing at troops in open ground is not a complete massacre.

Going back to my opening gambit. That hills are now clear WILL render many previous PGHQ results obsolete and give a false impression therefore of a scenario's balance. Yes we can check what edition of the rules were played with, but really ! Did we want to do that each and everytime from here on ?

The one optional I really did fight against was the efficient move and fire for AFV's. The advantage to the efficient units would have been horrendously slanted. Can't be bothered to write them all down here (plus the experience of the play-testers) but nope, not for me. I will be scanning the rules properly when I get a hard copy. From there, it DOES look like people will be bartering which rules to use with each and every opponent. Pity.