[Rules] 4th Edition rules are up

[campsawyer]

As a change from Overruns, when looking at the recon by fire, it does not say anything about a hidden unit being revealed by recon fire just that different strengths are used. Given that hidden units are revealed when it moves, fires or is spotted does this mean that any morale checks are done in secret?

[richvalle]

Yeah, I want to see how it plays out. Def could be tricky.

Without seeing the Terrain cost chart, I think in most cases (those fast Hell-something from the Bulge maybe being an exception) I think units sitting at the edge of woods with woods behind them will be safe. Not many tanks going to be able to move up, move into woods and move into woods again. Right?

A problem with def in depth is that it allows you to be defeated in detail as the attackers bring their full str against each line.

Sigh... man I want to play!

All we need are two more charts and then I can start watching for 4E AAR's.

[richvalle]

As a change from Overruns, when looking at the recon by fire, it does not say anything about a hidden unit being revealed by recon fire just that different strengths are used. Given that hidden units are revealed when it moves, fires or is spotted does this mean that any morale checks are done in secret?

Yeah, seems like. And rolling moral checks even if no units are there.

[Hugmenot]

I've played enough "exit X steps" scenarios to know defense in depth will not be that effective to prevent AFV steps from exiting. Yes the attacker may end up losing more AFV steps to AT fire than in 3rd edition but who cares? The victory condition says to exit steps and with the front line infantry not nearly as effective to slow down the AFV advance, the optional Overrun rules will clearly favor the attacker (provided he has sufficient number of AFV's) in my opinion.

[vince hughes]

A problem with def in depth is that it allows you to be defeated in detail as the attackers bring their full str against each line.

Sigh... man I want to play!

Rich, I order you to start playing Invasion of Germany scenarios as the German. You will soon become a defensive expert instead of this cowardly-custard nay-sayer I keep seeing here

[vince hughes]

I've played enough "exit X steps" scenarios to know defense in depth will not be that effective to prevent AFV steps from exiting. Yes the attacker may end up losing more AFV steps to AT fire than in 3rd edition but who cares? The victory condition says to exit steps and with the front line infantry not nearly as effective to slow down the AFV advance, the optional Overrun rules will clearly favor the attacker (provided he has sufficient number of AFV's) in my opinion.

So tanks start recklessly going for overruns on your INF front-line ? Then devise something behind that front line that turns it into a suicide mission.

What's wrong with you lilly-livers today !

[richvalle]

A problem with def in depth is that it allows you to be defeated in detail as the attackers bring their full str against each line.

Sigh... man I want to play!

Rich, I order you to start playing Invasion of Germany scenarios as the German. You will soon become a defensive expert instead of this cowardly-custard nay-sayer I keep seeing here

[Matt W]

Interestingly, the ability to overrun may well cause the defense to move AT guns behind the infantry leaving the infantry to strip the attacking infantry away from the armor and permitting the armor to enter into an AT trap. This will certainly change how I play significantly in some scenarios.

[waynebaumber]

Well this is all very interesting but I will wait to see the full package before making any comments. At this moment I do not intend to play with 4th Ed rules until they are well bedded in and there are new games designed for them.

[larry marak]

I suspect the comparison was with the price of a rules&charts package printed 9 years ago in the 10's of thousands. These rulesets are probably being ordered in lots of say 1,000 using the current business model.