@RisingSun I had similar experience, I was big into the naval miniatures but couldn’t afford both. I bought a lot on ebay a year or so ago and have played a few games. It is not difficult to learn especially if you are familiar with the navy side, it’s pretty similar but includes facing. I think it’s a great game and wish I had collected it some when it was active.
Sideskirts
-
Because Artillery units are Soldiers…
-
This unit gets +1/+1 defense against units have the close assault ability.
I agree with Mot here
If resourceful hero has a CA then I guess his improvisation ability attks these units with sideskirts, they get +1/+1 on def. kinda cheesy but it sounds plain english to me…STUG G’S ARE NOW THE MOST DEVASTATING COST EFFECTIVE UNITS TANKS IN THE GAME.
-
Because Artillery units are Soldiers…
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
too much info let these guys get burned to learn this lesson… :evil: :evil: :evil:
the loophole has been exposed AARRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHhhh
-
No Turret cannot be ignored.
I’ll take a Panzer IV F2 (AKA Panzer IV G) for 3 pts more and get a turret and Extended Range unless I’m on a budget
-
kinda true, but with decent maneuvering and kamikaze like style, you could put 5 stug’s in a 100pt build.
or 4 Stug’s
1 SS Haupt or SS Panzer Gren
1 Grizzled Vet
3 Mauser’s -
Stug G @19 x2 =38
Brumbar @22 x1 =22
Elite Panzer IVD @18 x1 = 18
BMW @5 x2 = 10
Griz Vet @8 x1 = 8
96 pts…what do you do with 4 points?Upgrade one of the Stugs to a Panzer IV F2 or the EPzIVD inot another Brumbar?
-
Still no one answered my questions??? What about the fact that a Bar gunner now has a better attack against a tank with sideskirts than does a garand.
Please reread, I specify infrantry attack, not soldier attack… or they can specify exclude artilary just like they do with transports.
-
Still no one answered my questions??? What about the fact that a Bar gunner now has a better attack against a tank with sideskirts than does a garand.
Ummm, duh? :evil: :-P
I’d image that yes, at a 100 yards a BAR is gonna have more stopping power than a Garand.
-
Still no one answered my questions??? What about the fact that a Bar gunner now has a better attack against a tank with sideskirts than does a garand.
Ummm, duh? :evil: :-P
I’d image that yes, at a 100 yards a BAR is gonna have more stopping power than a Garand.
Well in the Axis and Allies world they have the same… that is until sideskirts is considered.
Maybe this is a bad example but your missing my point.
-
Please reread, I specify infrantry attack, not soldier attack… or they can specify exclude artilary just like they do with transports.
Yes you did say infantry, sorry. But the game doesn’t actually have a class of units called Infantry. It should though…it should split Soldiers into Infantry and Artillery and the attack grid on each card should have multiple catagories like those WAS cards. But they dont…
I think stating “non-artillery soldiers” would have been acceptable as well, but there isn’t much practicle difference.
-
I know a couple of units attack at “2” short or medium range and don’t have close range attack… How fair is it that a bar gunner can attack these tanks rear while disrupted at short range and get successes, but a garand can’t because it has close assault.
Your are right, I’m probably missing the point you are trying to make.
While its best not to try to map the rules too much onto reality, I guess conceptually it has more to do with how the units would have attacked? The Soldier unit would have guess trying to chuck grenades into the treads while the BAR is hoping via automatic fire to get some rounds through view-slots?
I don’t know why, but the fact that the BAR is slightly more effective at Med range as compared to a Garand doesn’t really bother me?
-
Very interesting discussion!
I agree that when it comes to WotC games, the rules/abilities text is taken literally over any possible realism and with that said, it is clear that the defense bonus is tied to the attacking unit having the ability not actually using it.
Part of the reason why I posted is that sometimes errata comes out that reverses some of these decisions, makes an exception or outright changes the rule/ability text. It seems there is none at this point.
-
I’m trying to stress out that a bar gunner and garand both have the same attack vs vehicles at short range. Rolling “2”. Both units would have an equal chance to score a hit on a disrupted/damaged german tank from the rear having a defense of 5/3. However, add side skirts and the garand no longer has the ability to do any damage from medium range because it’s basically penalized for have close assault.
-
I’m trying to stress out that a bar gunner and garand both have the same attack vs vehicles at medium range. Rolling “2”. Both units would have an equal chance to score a hit on a disrupted/damaged german tank from the rear having a defense of 5/3. However, add side skirts and the garand no longer has the ability to do any damage from medium range because it’s basically penalized for have close assault.
I’m confused here…
Doesn’t a Garand roll 0 dice at med range against vehicles, maybe 1 dice with stars and stripes.
I’m thinking M1 Garand rolls 2/0/0 or 3/1/0 with SnS.
Bar would stay as you mentioned above at 2/2/0
-
@Der:
I’m trying to stress out that a bar gunner and garand both have the same attack vs vehicles at medium range. Rolling “2”. Both units would have an equal chance to score a hit on a disrupted/damaged german tank from the rear having a defense of 5/3. However, add side skirts and the garand no longer has the ability to do any damage from medium range because it’s basically penalized for have close assault.
I’m confused here…
Doesn’t a Garand roll 0 dice at med range against vehicles, maybe 1 dice with stars and stripes.
I’m thinking M1 Garand rolls 2/0/0 or 3/1/0 with SnS.
Bar would stay as you mentioned above at 2/2/0
Corrected, its short range
Bar
2/2/0
Garand 2/0/0 -
Schurzen “side skirts” were added to protect against hollow or shaped charges. I would think the schurzen would be a help to an infantryman doing a close assault. If mounting the tank were necessary or preferred having the side as another angle of attack would be a plus. Without schurzen between me and the tread… f that. I’ve always been an anti - me getting mashed into a fine paste type of person. Besides what soldier carries around a shaped charge on his person.
BTW the Germans discovered late in the war using a heavy guage wire mesh worked as well as the steel plate they had been using.
-
my personally opinion is that the sideskirts ability should only work when the unit is using the close assault ability, which is the logical, if not explicity stated interpretation, and was likely the original intent. Basically, that sideskirt keeps a soldier who is right next to the tank from putting a charge or sticky bomb (I believe anything that Tom Hanks says in a movie) right onto the vulnerable treads. It really wouldnt protect the same way against a bazooka or panzershrecht attacking from far away, or in a building.
I will grant the fact that sometimes the “official” ruling is based on the explicity stated wording, though it seems just as often, the “official” ruling is NOT based on the explicity stated wording. Has someone yet figured out why it says in the ruleback that a unit attacking a tank directly from the side is, i quote “neither in front of nor behind” the tank. What does that mean? It doesnt help anyone! Yet the official ruling states that attacking a tank from the side counts as attacking the rear. The people writing the text for these cards are not infalllible and might not anticipate the extent to which gamers will dissect the minutia of the rules to gain any advantage. Additionally, they might not anticipate every single possible combination of other existing cards and abilities, or cards and abilities that dont exist at the time, in order to include every imaginable scenario to their rule text. (For example, the trucks that can carry 2 units essentially breaking the hex stacking rule everytime they do so).
Regardless, the only way to actually find the actual answer to the sideskirts question would be to ask Avalon Hill. Anything else would just be our opinions, and a waste of mental energy.
-
my personally opinion is that the sideskirts ability should only work when the unit is using the close assault ability, which is the logical, if not explicity stated interpretation, and was likely the original intent. Basically, that sideskirt keeps a soldier who is right next to the tank from putting a charge or sticky bomb (I believe anything that Tom Hanks says in a movie) right onto the vulnerable treads. It really wouldnt protect the same way against a bazooka or panzershrecht attacking from far away, or in a building.
I disagree. From what I understand of “shaped charges” and the like, the use of offset armour (like side-skirts or wire mess) is to force the detonation to happen farther away from the surface to defuse the plasma. I think the intent of the “Side-skirts” ability (in game terms) is to increase the vehicles armour VS non-artillery soldiers. And it acheives that just fine.
I will grant the fact that sometimes the “official” ruling is based on the explicity stated wording, though it seems just as often, the “official” ruling is NOT based on the explicity stated wording.
Mostly disagree. Whne the wording is present, they follow it. The problem is when the wording isn’t there…then it gets down to interpretations and opinions, which is trouble!
Has someone yet figured out why it says in the ruleback that a unit attacking a tank directly from the side is, i quote “neither in front of nor behind” the tank. What does that mean? It doesnt help anyone!
It matters for units with fixed guns, and I blame the Archer, which has a fixed rear gun for making it even more confusion to people. A siG cannot target units in its own hex becasue it has a fixed gun and it can therefore only target units “in front”. So it indeed does have a practical effect.
Yet the official ruling states that attacking a tank from the side counts as attacking the rear.
In the rules, you front armour and rear armour. Attacks from the front are versus front armour, and the big bucket of “everything else” goes against rear armour.
If I wrote the game, I’d have done Front, Side, and Rear or Front, Rear, Close. And I’d have had the “facing” be a hex corner, not a hex side, yeilding a front arc of two hex sides, a rear arc of two hex sides, and a side arc of one hex on the left and one on the right.
But I can see why they tried to simplify the system…
The people writing the text for these cards are not infalllible and might not anticipate the extent to which gamers will dissect the minutia of the rules to gain any advantage. Additionally, they might not anticipate every single possible combination of other existing cards and abilities, or cards and abilities that dont exist at the time, in order to include every imaginable scenario to their rule text. (For example, the trucks that can carry 2 units essentially breaking the hex stacking rule everytime they do so).
I’m sure they noticed that a vehicle that carries two units always break the stacking limit. But thats OK because they do have written rules to handle that situtaion. The trouble comes when you dont have written rules!
Regardless, the only way to actually find the actual answer to the sideskirts question would be to ask Avalon Hill. Anything else would just be our opinions, and a waste of mental energy.
If you say so. Its not an opinion that a Mauser has an Attack-score of 8 or that a Granad next to a commander gets a +1. Its clearly printed on the card. While you could double-check every printed word on every card, I usually reserve my efforts to things that are ambiguous. And I don’t see any ambiguity on side-skirts. It’s very explicit.
Mot
PS - I checked the rules forum/faq and there has not (yet) been any clarification/question on the topic.
-
“I disagree. From what I understand of “shaped charges” and the like, the use of offset armour (like side-skirts or wire mess) is to force the detonation to happen farther away from the surface to defuse the plasma. I think the intent of the “Side-skirts” ability (in game terms) is to increase the vehicles armour VS non-artillery soldiers. And it acheives that just fine.”
Possibly, but why specify the close assault rule, instead of saying “non artillery soldiers”. Also, while you might be right about the mechanism of the function of side skirts (I wikipedia’ed side skirts, and it confirmed your statement), why would it only work against a Bazooka and not an anti tank artillery, or a tank, or a mortar? If the purpose is ONLY to get the detonation to occur farther away, any munition with an explosive charge would be affected. I think they intended the rule to specifically affect units using Close Assault for this reason, also implying that they would be using the close assault ability when the sideskirt ability would have its affect. But… whatever… no game can be perfectly realistic, except for Risk, which accurately portrays the overwhelming dominance of a V when it attacks an I, but also its vulnerability when attacked in turn by the tougher X.
“It matters for units with fixed guns, and I blame the Archer, which has a fixed rear gun for making it even more confusion to people. A siG cannot target units in its own hex becasue it has a fixed gun and it can therefore only target units “in front”. So it indeed does have a practical effect.”
Is this true? Specifically, can tanks without turrets (or fixed turrents) NOT shoot at any targets in their own hex?
Regardless of those answers, here’s another unrelated question.
Can a tank with Overrun (I think thats the name of the ability, the one that disrupts an infantry unit when it enters its hex) disrupt a unit in a transport?
And before anyone starts mentioning hex stacking limits, a tank can move through a hex with a vehicle and temporarily break the rule, as long as it continues onward and ends its turn in another hex.
-
Upon re-reading my message, I feel it comes across a bit harsh and dismissive.
For that I apologize.
Mot
Suggested Topics
