4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - Printable Version +- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms) +-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Panzer Grenadier Rules (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=9) +--- Thread: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! (/showthread.php?tid=618) |
RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - campsawyer - 09-15-2013 (09-14-2013, 11:45 PM)vince hughes Wrote: The infantry do suffer because you are rolling on a higher column. Therefore their chances of an M2 check increase. Points taken. The column shift might be too much. But I still believe that it needs to be resolved on the assault table rather than as an AT shot as I think giving the defender the AT still changes the balance under the AT shot rules. Willing to entertain thoughts on the resolution on the assault table. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - Matt W - 09-15-2013 If the defense had a first fire I would not permit the AT shot in the "activation" approach. In essence the defender has to absorb the shock of the assault prior to firing their weapon. Of course, they have a much greater chance of surviving the shock in the event that they have first fire which is enough of an advantage. Alan, I understand your desire to manage this on the assault table but that thoroughly changes the metric as Vince has suggested. Perhaps instead of increasing the defender's column you would consider decreasing the attacker's column since the presence of such weapons would be likely to make the AFVs a little more skittish, or if nothing else to take away any combined arms column shift. I don't like the approach but if that is the one we have to take I would err on the side of making the attack less powerful rather than the defense more powerful. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - campsawyer - 09-15-2013 Matt, I understand both your points. I am still not keen on the AT shot as a different attack in an assault as well as I struggle with reflecting a increase risk to AFV's by personal AT weapons on both offense and defense. Also, my post are also to prompt others to throw out ideas for this as sometimes someone has a truly innovative idea, such as Ottavio's first fire for tanks. The more the better for discussion. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - vince hughes - 09-15-2013 Being totally boring .... I'm happy with assaults as is. If there was a need to bring in defensive AT fire, my only concession would be for both sides to roll a 6 for each unit to be enabled. Thats as far as I go LOL Main vote: Leave alone :-) RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - Airlifter - 09-15-2013 (09-14-2013, 12:59 PM)rerathbun Wrote:(09-12-2013, 07:13 AM)Matt W Wrote: Something that does bother me, however, is the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. In the SSRs this usually requires the infantry unit to be activated. That means that the defender in an assault hex can't use the AT capability. I would expect that such weapons could be used once per turn where the units are involved in assault combat (if neither player assaults at all I could see not firing the weapons). We could write a standard rule for INF with at weapons that supersedes SSRs. i would thin the players should have to choose--either the AT fire or the INF strength for the assault, not both. An AFV should not either. Thoughts? RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - Airlifter - 09-15-2013 (09-14-2013, 06:12 PM)vince hughes Wrote: MTC's You may be right. I just wanted to throw the idea out to the gang. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - Airlifter - 09-15-2013 (09-14-2013, 09:31 PM)campsawyer Wrote: Defensive personal AT weapons I'm not opposed to radical changes like this, but i must say I do not like making it work sometimes and not others. Can't we come up with a change that works all the time? I do like the idea of potentially destroying Entrenchment Counters, but I think we need to work this out a little more. THAT would be radical--making us reconsider a lot of scenarios that rely on the defender bunkering up in seemingly indestructible bunkers. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - waynebaumber - 09-15-2013 Having been out of the UK for some time and deliberately not taking the laptop with me I arrive late to this discussion. I will not add any new suggestions to those that have been posted on this thread but I will add a note of caution. Like Dr's, John's main rule should be "do no harm". The 4th edition rule book should be more about clarification than whole scale rule changes. This in it's self is a challenge eg The Hill LOS controversy which has has engaged our minds since the beginning of time (well since I started playing PG). I agree that some Scenario special rule should be included in the main rule book e,g pushing guns, Inf A/T capability etc. However I do not believe that making AFV's stronger in Assault and faster would be a welcome rule change for most players. That said I am looking forward to seeing the 4th edition rule book and the numerous threads on this forum and others which no doubt will appear bemoaning various aspects of it. The very best of luck John S. RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - enrique - 09-15-2013 (09-14-2013, 12:51 PM)Airlifter Wrote: Plenty of commander's have sent unit after unit to destruction. If you do, you lose. But, we don't currently have a mechanism that directly affects morale of an army. Sure, you lose initiative after losing xx number of steps, and that gives the opponent the chance to mop you up, but that's not the same as everyone getting jittery because their division commander keeps sending battalions forward in dribs and drabs to destruction on a battlefield littered with corpses. Maybe you could apply the special rule 14 ("Formation Morale") of Beyond Normandy: "The morale of the units belonging to a formation is affected by losses. Each step loss or leader lost counts as a step. All units of the formation have their morale reduced as follows when the losses equal the noted number: Lost Steps 8 Morale Reduction -1/0 Lost Steps 15 Morale Reduction -1/-1 Lost Steps 23 Morale Reduction -2/-1 Thus a Regiment that began a scenario with a morale of 8/7 would be reduced to a morale of 7/7 when step and leader losses totaled 8, to 7/6 when step and leader losses totaled 15 and 6/6 when step and leader losses totaled 23". This rule would be easily applicable in scenarios where in the same side are various formations (eg German SS and Heer, Heer and Luftwaffe...), or in large scenarios (eg units in sector A begin the battle with 5 losses and units in sector B without losses). RE: 4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap! - JayTownsend - 09-16-2013 All I can say is lets don't add too many rules. Also Hidden Rules need to be optional. It kills SOLO play other wise. |