Comments on 6-1 Rules

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by JLV

13.01.3: The second sentence states; "Place a Road Cut Marker." Since nowhere else is a "Road Cut" marker mentioned, I assume there isn't one. Recommend replacing the second sentence with the following: "Place an overlay showing the same terrain type, covering the road." Rationale: Accuracy.

Section 3.07 lists Stuck, Road Cut, and Bridge Out status markers.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by KevinR

Section 3.07 lists Stuck, Road Cut, and Bridge Out status markers.

I wonder why a road cut marker wouldn't be used when a unit specifically destroys a road then, instead of "placing a terrain overlay covering the road."

Seems to me that road cut markers would be redundant, and I'd personally rather have more terrain overlays anyway....

[offsides]

Originally Posted by JLV

I wonder why a road cut marker wouldn't be used when a unit specifically destroys a road then, instead of "placing a terrain overlay covering the road."

Seems to me that road cut markers would be redundant, and I'd personally rather have more terrain overlays anyway....

IIRC, it's possible to cut the road without damaging the rest of the underlying terrain, making separate markers a necessity.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by offsides

IIRC, it's possible to cut the road without damaging the rest of the underlying terrain, making separate markers a necessity.

Exactly, according to the rule regarding units specifically attacking the road in the hex with the intention of cutting it, the road is cut but the other terrain in the hex is unaffected. Which is why that rule tells you to "place a terrain overlay of the same terrain in the hex but covering the road." Which no longer exists, obviously. And which also seems like a more elegant solution than littering the map with road or rail cut markers.... ;-)

[offsides]

Originally Posted by KevinR

I think that you're misinterpreting overrun damage, so this probably is a good discussion to have. Let's quote the relevant rules:

(Note that your AP question is answered in 11.04.1.)

You are correct, my memory failed me. Question is withdrawn :)

Per 11.04.1, normal combat damage from a weapon is "twice its attack strength" in SPs.
In terrain, that is halved to "normal attack strength".
I omitted an example that MB causes 8 SP damage in clear but 4 SP damage in terrain.

Per 11.04.2, overrun combat damage is "four times the weapon's attack strength".
In terrain, that is halved to "twice the weapon's attack strength".

Neither of those rules affects the fact that all Ogre weapons are doubled in overrun situations, before any other factors come into play. Same with INF, which is why a fully loaded GEV-PC is murder on buildings...

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by offsides

Neither of those rules affects the fact that all Ogre weapons are doubled in overrun situations, before any other factors come into play. Same with INF, which is why a fully loaded GEV-PC is murder on buildings...

Got it. The x2 comes from 8.02:

8.02 Attack strength in overruns. Attack strengths of infantry and Ogre weapons, and of the AP weapons of Superheavy Tanks, are doubled in overrun attacks, whether they belong to the attacker or the defender.

So, a Main Battery has nominal attack strength 4, overrun attack strength 8, and thus causes 8x4=32 SP damage to a building in each fire round of an overrun. Then it gets a second round...

Steve -- there are a lot of moving pieces here. Maybe 11.04.2 would benefit from a numerical example or two (HVY overrunning structure, Ogre overrunning structure in forest).

[hcobb]

Call the two rule sections "Basic Overruns" and "Advanced Overruns" and fold in the OGRE rules about Ogres overruning infantry into "Basic Overruns".

How about reducing building SP damage to just the attack strength normally and doubled in overruns with a note that is on top of the doubled attacks that infantry and Ogres get.

So a platoon of infantry can then do 12 SPs per overrun round, times two shots per overrun, times two overruns per turn or 48 SPs damage per turn. Ogres are even worse of course, but not as cost effective.

[ru5150]

3.04 Typo? Change to :There are several types of Ogres.

11.01 Typo? Paragraph refers to CP's from Ogre and G.E.V. games. Are CP unit really coming from these games?

13.01.1 Not clear. Does the unit attack every turn and get a roll every other turn or does it attack every other turn and if so can it do anything on the other turns.

13.01.3 Wording. Change wording "Any unit may attack a road or railroad in the same hex..." because 'spending its attack" is odd terminology and perhaps unclear.

5.11.3 Wording. Change wording: "An infantry unit may not move on the turn in which it mounts or dismounts a vehicle. The vehicle's movement however is not restricted by infantry riding, mounting or dismounting. The vehicle must be in the same hex as the infantry unit in order for the infantry to mount or dismount. Infantry may NOT mount and dismount in the same turn.
Riding Infantry may fire normally on the turns it mounts and dismounts.

13.04 Question: Does a defender/owner of Mines have to reveal (ie roll for) mines or may the owner wait for a better target. Or perhaps there are 'dumb' mines and 'smart' mines. Dumb mines must roll whenever a unit enters. Smart mines are less likely to indentify a target as hostile but can be discriminatory - thus have a smaller chance of being activated but are not required to roll. (This can make mines a bit more interesting and does result in the funnel effect where all units run through the hole)

[JLV]

Originally Posted by ru5150

5.11.3 Wording. Change wording: "An infantry unit may not move on the turn in which it mounts or dismounts a vehicle. The vehicle's movement however is not restricted by infantry riding, mounting or dismounting. The vehicle must be in the same hex as the infantry unit in order for the infantry to mount or dismount. Infantry may NOT mount and dismount in the same turn.
Riding Infantry may fire normally on the turns it mounts and dismounts.

(Emphasis added.) I'd say that by definition the infantry is in the same hex as the vehicle if it is attempting to dismount.

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by JLV

(Emphasis added.) I'd say that by definition the infantry is in the same hex as the vehicle if it is attempting to dismount.

It might be good to clarify that infantry can't dismount into an adjacent hex (for those people who forget the scale).