4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Dean_P]

While I don't have many comments on the specific rules (one exception is the aforementioned rule on LOS being limited when on a hill and the target is on the same hill at the same level), I do want to comment on the presentation-related comments. I personally really like the way AP has the rules laid out. It's very easy to reference a rule, and with the annotated rules here, it's easy to crosslink. Adding visuals is a great idea, but don't change the format too much (my personal opinion)

[vince hughes]

I suppose I am asking for something akin to a hand-holder type thing to introduce new players into the ruleset. Wargames are really a tough nut to crack and they usually take someone with experience in playing them to learn how to play. A set of introductory scenario or something like what ASL did with their starter sets but on a smaller scale. You take the rules, cut out some of the more complex issues, and gradually build a new player up to the full ruleset. I got my hands on a copy of Battle of the Bulge and it has a very easy (or so I am told) first scenario that is good to start off with, but for someone with no wargame experience it is difficult to dive into.

Lessening the learning curve will encourage people who haven't play the game to play. Some people can jump in and in a game or two have the rules down pat and some people will need a whole campaign of games to get the most simple rules down. I suppose the suggestion is a Quick-Start Rule Set. A couple of pages of rules that are the bare-bones basics someone needs to play that a new player could use to slowly introduce themselves to by just plugging rules in as they feel comfortable.

I guess that is probably too much to ask, as I don't think this game is aimed at new players I don't suppose. Though the more interest you can build in the game by making it easy for people to get hooked, the more business it can generate. Like a drug dealer giving away samples of crack to get someone addicted... Well, maybe that isn't a good metaphor or at least not a family friendly one but I can't think of something more appropriate.

Nero,

There is also the offer of a game on skype using a simple scenario. The player you connect with will walk you through.

There are 4 or 5 here that will do that for you

[vince hughes]

7.63 Assault
I would apply the rule of the first and second editions: all AFVs are immune to "M" and "M #" results. They are only affected by "1", "2" and "3" results. Under the current rules AFVs are the weakest units in assaults: they do not take advantage of the leaders' morale modifiers and also suffer the effects of the small and portable AT arms (Panzerfäuste and bazookas)

This statement intrigued me so I went to my Battle of the Bulge rules (which is Second Edition) to look it up and I don't know if I am missing something here.. There is no specific rule that says that AFVs are immune in assault.

The rule says: " If a 1, 2 or 3 result is rolled on the Assault Table, the fire eliminates that many steps of personnel, APC or AFV units..." This sounds similar to the 3rd edition rules but it doesn't specifically say who is affected by "M" or "M#" rolls.

Also, under Rule 7.25 it states "AFVs and APCs are immune to all but an X or X# result on the Direct Fire or Bombardment Fire tables." It does not mention immunity on the Assault Table.

I think the 3rd edition cleared this up but I believe it was always intended to be this way.

I am not trying to start anything, like I said, this intrigued me.[/u]

Tony,

Look at the copy of the assault table that Enrique posted. I think it shows there his version. I have to admit, I am not averse to the idea.

[emperor_nero]

I suppose I am asking for something akin to a hand-holder type thing to introduce new players into the ruleset. Wargames are really a tough nut to crack and they usually take someone with experience in playing them to learn how to play. A set of introductory scenario or something like what ASL did with their starter sets but on a smaller scale. You take the rules, cut out some of the more complex issues, and gradually build a new player up to the full ruleset. I got my hands on a copy of Battle of the Bulge and it has a very easy (or so I am told) first scenario that is good to start off with, but for someone with no wargame experience it is difficult to dive into.

Lessening the learning curve will encourage people who haven't play the game to play. Some people can jump in and in a game or two have the rules down pat and some people will need a whole campaign of games to get the most simple rules down. I suppose the suggestion is a Quick-Start Rule Set. A couple of pages of rules that are the bare-bones basics someone needs to play that a new player could use to slowly introduce themselves to by just plugging rules in as they feel comfortable.

I guess that is probably too much to ask, as I don't think this game is aimed at new players I don't suppose. Though the more interest you can build in the game by making it easy for people to get hooked, the more business it can generate. Like a drug dealer giving away samples of crack to get someone addicted... Well, maybe that isn't a good metaphor or at least not a family friendly one but I can't think of something more appropriate.

Nero,

There is also the offer of a game on skype using a simple scenario. The player you connect with will walk you through.

There are 4 or 5 here that will do that for you

Yeah, Daniel and I are planning that. I was just suggesting this for people who don't find this community. I am not talking specifically for me, but from my perspective as a new wargamer and a new PGer. A way to improve the rules and drive up some more interest about the game. If you can go in and teach someone to play, or yourself to play in 30 minutes then you don't get the problem of new ruleset weariness. In video games and board games there is a line that is drawn between something that is "gamey" and something that is "simulationist". Games that are simulationist take a special niche of people to play and therefore usually have a much smaller community, but if you can expand past that niche by making a smaller set of beginner rules easier and quicker to grasp (more gamey) then you can bring in more people who might be on the fence.

Well that is just my two cents. No harm in throwing another perspective into the mix, eh?

[vince hughes]

"Well that is just my two cents. No harm in throwing another perspective into the mix, eh?"

Totally agree.

Also, Daniel will be good to take you through !

[campsawyer]

with regard to afvs in assault, Ottavio Ricchi has put forward another option which looks interesting. Giving AFV's first fire in an assault. My assumption would be that it would work like entrenchment first fire.

[emperor_nero]

I love mature communities like this. It is rare to find a community where a discussion doesn't dissolve into a flame war in three posts. Sorry to be off topic.

As far as specific rules goes I don't have a suggestion. Just the general idea of more illustrations/visual examples and the beginner ruleset.

[Matt W]

Let's try this:

12.43 When conducting an assault against dug-in or entrenched enemy units or enemy AFVs in non-limiting terrain, the defending units occupying those fortifications resolve their fire first...

If the hex contains defending units that are AFVs in non-limiting terrain, dug-in/entrenched AND defending units which are not...

[Matt W]

Let's debate this:

12.11...This is called "assault movement." They may do this only if they start their activation adjacent to the enemy-occupied hex they wish to enter, even if the hex is vacated due to other results during the current activation (EXCEPTION: Cavalry Charges, 15.31), and must stop moving once they've entered the hex. This initiates an assault (or reinforces an existing one).

The purpose of the proposal is to permit assault movement in the odd situation that an assaulted hex becomes vacant due to direct fire or whatever during the current activation.

[vince hughes]

Yes Matt,

Alan and I had this very thing happened when I -layed such a sly trick in the last turn of a game.

RAW does not prevent this anyhow