Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

[Talorien]

Thanks for all those who commented on the previous drafts.

These should be almost-final.

Shout out if you find typos or anything game-breaking - thanks!

[Desert Scribe]

FAQ for 8.05.1, the answer to the second question has the British spelling of defenceless instead of the American spelling of defenseless.

[Talorien]

Originally Posted by Desert Scribe

FAQ for 8.05.1, the answer to the second question has the British spelling of defenceless instead of the American spelling of defenseless.

Thanks! I blame my British education!

[Talorien]

Please note this new entry which wasn't in the previous draft FAQ:

5.11.3 Can infantry mount or dismount a GEV (e.g. a GEV-PC) during the second movement phase?

Infantry may not mount or dismount during the second movement phase, except in an overrun (8.06.1).

I admit this was a late addition, which I'm now leaning towards the other way on:

5.11.3 Can infantry mount or dismount a GEV (e.g. a GEV-PC) during the second movement phase?

Infantry may not mount during the second movement phase. Infantry may however dismount during the second movement phase, provided they did not mount that turn.

Disallowing mounting during second movement is for gameplay reasons - it's a bother to have to keep track of whether the infantry moved or not before the fire phase.

The FAQ originally disallowed dismounting for the same reasons - it requires to track whether or not the infantry had mounted before the fire phase. However, that's easier to track ("did the infantry start this turn on the GEV-PC?") than the above.

And one of the purposes of GEV-PCs is to deliver infantry fast.

I'm very willing to be persuaded the current draft FAQ on this should be changed . . .

[offsides]

Originally Posted by KevinR

I think that dismounting during second movement is wholly justified, and actually would weakly argue for mounting as well.

For dismounting: on any vehicle except GEVs, infantry can ride along for two full turns of vehicle movement (suffering only one defensive fire while mounted). It seems appropriate to permit this for GEVs as well: the infantry can get two full turns of GEV movement for one defensive fire, although they are impeded slightly more that normal in the second turn's fire phase (*). I think this is covered by 5.11.3 and so this is more of a FAQ than errata (INF already can unmount in any hex of the vehicle's movement, but cannot move and cannot mount and dismount in the same turn).

I agree with this. INF can dismount at any time (assuming they didn't mount that turn), which should include GEV second movement. Not allowing them to dismount then doesn't make sense for either "real world" or gameplay purposes.

Originally Posted by KevinR

For mounting: noting the gameplay reasons, I still think it is appropriate that INF can be picked up in the second movement phase. If the INF are just standing around and firing, it seems plausible that a GEV could travel 5-6 hexes, pick up the INF, and then move another 1-2 hexes. Note that this is explicitly a change in 5.11.3, though: the INF need to expend their movement allowance to mount a vehicle, and they cannot spend their movement after the fire phase.

I mostly disagree with this. INF cannot move before they mount, and must spend their move to do so. Thus, INF should not be allowed to mount GEV-PCs that are "passing through" during the second movement phase, as INF are not permitted to move at that time. If they GEV-PCs are in the same hex as the INF at the beginning of the second movement phase, they were also there at the end of the first movement phase, and there's no reason why the INF shouldn't be required to mount then (since there's no difference to the fire phase, and if the GEV-PCs aren't moving there's no overrun considerations).

I admit that this does beg the question of "why can they dismount during the second movement phase, but not mount?" My answer is this - dismounting isn't movement per se, they're just essentially getting dumped. Mounting requires a coordinated rendez-vous (including INF movement), dismounting is as simple as letting go...

Originally Posted by KevinR

(*) -- I actually think INF is unaffected on GEVs but not hovertrucks. Can INF on two GEVs combine fire even though they are separate groups per the new FAQ/errata? And, can INF on one GEV separate fire as in 7.07.1? I think "yes" to both, so INF don't care whether they are standing on the ground or on a GEV for firing purposes. Being trapped in a hovertruck for the second turn fire phase is a disadvantage (5.11.1).

INF in hovertrucks are essentially fodder :) As to the combine/split fire question, it should be a non-issue. INF grouping is for defensive purposes only. Any INF 2 or 3 group can always split fire, and multiple INF groups can combine fire except against Ogre treads (and maybe the Ninja? I forget). INF riding vehicles shouldn't be any different, unless you think they should be able to "supergroup" to combine fire on treads from multiple carriers. Personally I think that's unnecessary - if your INF are in range to attack an Ogre, you don't want to be riding in smaller groups anyway.

Hmm... I just through of this question: Can INF riding GEV-PCs (or SHVYs) reconstitute "on the fly" without doing a dismount/remount? e.g., if I have 2 INF on 1 GEV-PC and 1 INF on another, can they become a 3 INF group on a single GEV-PC without going through a turn on the ground? My gut says yes, but that they should only be able to do that once per turn. Thoughts?

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by offsides

I agree with this. INF can dismount at any time (assuming they didn't mount that turn), which should include GEV second movement. Not allowing them to dismount then doesn't make sense for either "real world" or gameplay purposes.

I agree as well. And it matches the current rules. Having the infantry use its movement to get on a vehicle is a solid mechanical solution.

INF cannot move before they mount, and must spend their move to do so. Thus, INF should not be allowed to mount GEV-PCs that are "passing through" during the second movement phase, as INF are not permitted to move at that time.

That's an example of why we have a good solution. (Daniel, are you anticipating an INF unit with GEV movement? Maybe say that their jetpacks can prevent them from sitting on vehicles.)

Hmm... I just through of this question: Can INF riding GEV-PCs (or SHVYs) reconstitute "on the fly" without doing a dismount/remount? e.g., if I have 2 INF on 1 GEV-PC and 1 INF on another, can they become a 3 INF group on a single GEV-PC without going through a turn on the ground? My gut says yes, but that they should only be able to do that once per turn. Thoughts?

They can become a single defense group, but can't hop from one vehicle onto another. The consequences of hopping from one vehicle to another might be fun to contemplate, but will be unworkable. Your INF mount in your movement phase (5.11.3). You form defense groups in your opponents' fire phase (7.12.1). (And I guess you do it in your own fire phase if you want them to combine fire on an ogre's treads -- usually a mistake.) In my mind the defense grouping is more of an ECM thing, not hiding behind the tallest guy.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by dwalend

They can become a single defense group, but can't hop from one vehicle onto another. The consequences of hopping from one vehicle to another might be fun to contemplate, but will be unworkable. Your INF mount in your movement phase (5.11.3). You form defense groups in your opponents' fire phase (7.12.1). (And I guess you do it in your own fire phase if you want them to combine fire on an ogre's treads -- usually a mistake.) In my mind the defense grouping is more of an ECM thing, not hiding behind the tallest guy.

Except the update to 7.12.1 explicitly states that INF mounted on vehicles are restricted to grouping only with other INF on the same vehicle. Hence my question. I don't necessarily disagree with you about disallowing "vehicle hopping", I just realized that if it wasn't raised now someone would raise it later... :)

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by offsides

Except the update to 7.12.1 explicitly states that INF mounted on vehicles are restricted to grouping only with other INF on the same vehicle. Hence my question. I don't necessarily disagree with you about disallowing "vehicle hopping", I just realized that if it wasn't raised now someone would raise it later... :)

Missed that. What problem is it solving? An INF on an LT wasn't particularly formidable before that. Target the LT at 1:1 and nick the INF at 2:1. Why nerf the Inf to D1?

Maybe something softer -- "Infantry mounted on the same vehicle must be in the same defense group. Other infantry in the hex may join that group" if they feel lucky.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by KevinR

One problem may be 5.11.2 -- that deals with fire on "vehicle + infantry" combinations by noting that the result is applied to "all the infantry" mounted on the vehicle. There is also some absurdity that arises from 7.11 and 7.12.1 with cross-vehicle grouping.

That's quite a knot. I generally interpret ambiguity to favor Infantry and soften spillover, maybe for too long. Consider that a spillover D will kill lone infantry. If you don't let the infantry form a group, think about just how deadly that spillover fire will be.

I've always read it as targeting the vehicle delivers the same die roll to the infantry mounted on the vehicle -- regardless of how they are grouped. So a strength 2 attack on the LT at 1:1 delivers a 2:1 to the riding infantry (with the same die roll) and delivers spillover to the rest of the infantry group. For example, the 6 result would X the LT and that one Inf but the rest of the group would get spill over (at D2, although that's my reading again).

When a superheavy or GEV-PC gets zapped, the INF can form a D2 or D3 group for that attack. (The old rules said you could regroup whenever. This adds a wrinkle for the newest rule.)

More absurdly, if this is 3 INF squads on 2 trucks (and say A2 against the 2-INF truck), this would result in the heavily-armored passengers of one truck being killed while the truck continues on merrily.

I'm less bothered by that. A mission kill on INF (drones, ducted fans, weapons, ammo, suits, and soldiers) is different from a mission kill on a truck (engine block, drive train, crazy driver). What stops one may leave the other unharmed.

There also is some potential oddity from spillover fire (7.12). There should be spillover fire on all the other vehicles in the hex, which (per 5.11.2) should result in identical-roll spillover fire on all the infantry mounted on those other vehicles. This would seem to imply that a cross-vehicle INF group should be subject both to direct fire (at the target vehicle+INF) and spillover fire (at the other vehicle+INF) from the same shot.

Ah. I read "the vehicle + infantry combination is fired on" from 5.11.2 as untrue for spillover -- you didn't fire on it -- so 7.12 just spills onto the grouped infantry.

[Talorien]

The most illuminating conversation I've had about this with Steve is that, thematically, grouping literally represents "these guys are together over here, and those guys are together over there" in the 1.5-km wide area.

So the FAQ pretty much just clarifies what I think has been Steve's intent all along:

- All the guys on a certain vehicle are one group (they don't have a choice - this is made clear by the fact that they all share the same die roll as the vehicle).

- All the guys on vehicle A are not a group with all the guys on vehicle B (because the infantry have no control over where vehicles A and B are in the hex. They could literally be at opposite ends).

- All the guys on a vehicle are not grouped with other guys not on any vehicle, for the same reason as above (i.e. they are highly unlikely to be at the same spot during incoming fire)

Put another way: guys forming a group represents infantry tactically working together, hence the ECM overlap. Being mounted instantly nullifies that tactical option (except that everyone mounted together gets the ECM overlap anyway, just from proximity).

I know there's the potential objection "groundpounders and tanks have always worked together! So the infantry not on a vehicle could be next to the infantry on them!".

I think that this is where we say, that, at this scale, the commander has lost the overall option to do that (i.e. to get that granularity, the rules would have to track how fast the vehicle is moving each turn. By forgoing that level of bookkeeping, we also forgo the tanks-at-infantry-pace defensive grouping option).

------------

The clarification, to my mind, makes a lot of sense:

- Thematically, it works (see above)

- Gameplay-wise, it is simple and clear to resolve (it avoids the kinds of rules tangles involving 5.11.3 which Kevin has brought up)

TLDR: I'm pretty sure that Steve never intended infantry not on the same vehicle to be able to group defensively