05-20-2014, 12:25 PM,
|
|
Poor Yorek
Sergeant Major
![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png)
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 51
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: Bombarding Tank Riders
(05-20-2014, 10:56 AM)Blackcloud6 Wrote: When AFVs with tank riders are fired on by Bombardment is the +1 for "target is loaded wagon, truck or prime-mover applied?"
In my opinion, no.
1. An AFV is not a wagon, truck, or prime-mover: hence, the +1 shift rule you cite does not apply.
2. The "tank rider" special rules stipulate a +1 shift for DF and Assault right after describing bombardment fire as affecting units "normally." Had the rules intended any col shift for BF, it would have been easy to be explicit at that point.
|
|
05-20-2014, 11:52 PM,
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2014, 11:58 PM by Poor Yorek.)
|
|
Poor Yorek
Sergeant Major
![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png)
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 51
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: Bombarding Tank Riders
(05-20-2014, 10:23 PM)plloyd1010 Wrote: As usual, I'm going to be the contrary here. While technically not a truck/wagon/prime-mover, the riders are still concentrated, and they are as exposed (and probably more so) as they would be in any other unprotected transport. So I think the +1 modifier does apply. To avoid writing out a special condition, just say 'yes'.
I would only counter-argue that Peter makes an argument for a home rule, but the rule (as written) does not apply: after all, if we simply invoke that AFVs are not technically trucks, wagons, or prime-movers, we can interchange rules at will for the two classes. I'm just saying that we need to maintain the distinction between what the rules actually state or intend and how we choose to modify them as home rules, particularly as - my point #2 - the specific rules for tank riders likewise do not mention a +1 bonus for BF.
I might be more in agreement with Peter's post had he said: "The +1 modifier ought to apply."
Maybe dealt with in 4th edition?
|
|
05-21-2014, 05:32 AM,
|
|
Poor Yorek
Sergeant Major
![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png) ![*](images/star.png)
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 51
Joined: Jun 2012
|
|
RE: Bombarding Tank Riders
(05-21-2014, 02:33 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: Those of us who have been gaming a while (in my case coming to my 45th year), tend to notice holes in rules and when games are inconsistent with history/reality.
As I've just come back from watching Godzilla 2014 I can make use of a line from that movie: "Is my jaw supposed to drop?"
I answered the OP as best I could understand the PG rule set presuming that was his interest in posting here at PGHQ, not according to the antinomian Peter-as-Pope-unto-himself rule set. If I missed something in the rules that pertains, please advise: I don't claim omniscience. As I conceded, if, in fact, APL intended your interpretation, then, in my view, they crafted the language of the rule poorly (not altogether unheard of).
|
|
|