Hey!
I am currently playing the Normandy expansion and found out that after the errata the StuGIII and the Panzer IV have the exactly same attributes?
So whats the deal?
Just different Models to have some variety for the eye?
StuGIII vs. Panzer IV
In game terms they are identical.
One thing I would like to see is concealed StuGIII's...
That would be interesting.
Maybe that could also distinguish the both tanks as the StuG can get a special rule which states: " In terms regarding concealment a StuG is treated as it were a squad"
diseased said:
Hey!
I am currently playing the Normandy expansion and found out that after the errata the StuGIII and the Panzer IV have the exactly same attributes?
So whats the deal?
Just different Models to have some variety for the eye?
use this houserule: the stug gets 5 armor but cannot be activated by a "fire and movement" order (the stug had no turret...). we apply this houserule although to the jagdpanzer. this simple houserule is quite effective...;-) greetz!
diseased said:
Hey!
I am currently playing the Normandy expansion and found out that after the errata the StuGIII and the Panzer IV have the exactly same attributes?
So whats the deal?
Just different Models to have some variety for the eye?
I got an easy answer for you
I've been working on the new RCD file, and as a result, I had a chance to chat with Bill Jaffe who designed a lot of the scenarios in the expansion. Here is what he said about the Stug:
Q1: Sometime ago a few of us TOI players had tried to petition FFG to officially change the stats for the Stug and Jagdpanzer so that these tanks were not permitted to perform a "Fire and Movement" action. In fact, we had suggested that all tanks without turrets should not be allowed to perform a "Fire and Movement" action (makes perfect sense considering there is not facing in TOI). However, another member on BGG had mention he had talked to you, and you had originally used this rule of no Fire and Movement for the Stug and Jagdpanzer. Is it supposed to be that the Stugs and Jadgepanzers are not allowed to perform a "Fire and Movement" action? Also, what do you think of the armor rating for the Stug and Jadgepanzer? Should it be 4 or 5? (Also see added information #1 at the end of the document.)
A1: Yes, the Stug III G and the Jadgepanzer IV/70 should have an armor of 5. Also they should not be allowed to perform a “Fire and Movement” action, and I did play them this way. In this case, lack of turret hinders the sight lines. (Official answer from Bill Jaffe.)
The above, of course, was added to the new RCD along with some other clarifications. The new file will be uploaded to BGG soon; D-Day is June 6th, so look for it then. However, I'm not sure how long it will take for the admins to clear it. They get very busy because they do a great job at keeping the site going.
Once again, good work Ray. You're like a reporter always seeking out the inside scoop
I really like this solution:! No fire and movement/move and fire and +1 armour thanks to their low silhouettes. Actually the 5 armor is already on the offcial statcards, so only the "no fire and move" needs to be remembered! Should enhance gameplay and they aren't identical to the panzer IV anymore! Great job!
Since they seem to be doing errata anyway, I hope they'll also consider having another look at hedgerow terrain: A tank with brushcutters ( a card) can -in one move- cut several such hexes LENGTHWISE and possibly still fire as well. An additional result is that all of a sudden the hex is considered clear terrain (?!) and no more cover is granted. Wouldn't the following make a lot more sense?
When a tank with the brushcutters ability cuts through a hedgerow, it must immediately end its movement. Cover in such a hex is reduced by one (place one of those breech counters, as normal).
I mean, they did go to the trouble to distinguish between ballistc fire (mortars) and regular fire. Against the former there's no cover. Makes perfect sense. So why don't the rest of the hedgerow/brush rules at the moment?
Instead of immediately ending movement, I suggest comming up with a reasonable movement cost to cut through. Similiar and consistant with rules already in place like the extra movement cost to move into entrenchments. Lets say it costs 3 per brush you cut through, then at most only 2 hedgerows can be cut down.
I realy realy enjoy the version of StugIII/Jagdpanzer presented in this thread. No movement and fire actually do make them better in defense than in ofensive
And if the senario designers played them that way, why did they change?
I would also like to see the opposit for fitting tanks: give them full (or almost full) dices when fireing and moving.
Agree Lebatron regarding hedgrows.
Hedgecutters: +3 move to cut, which leaves a breach. Cover is unaffected by breaches. Should be plenty og Hedgerow/earthworks left for units to hide in.
Not that I like the full hex Hedgerow rules much in the first place. But that may be ASL talking.
Kingtiger said:
Since they seem to be doing errata anyway, I hope they'll also consider having another look at hedgerow terrain: A tank with brushcutters ( a card) can -in one move- cut several such hexes LENGTHWISE and possibly still fire as well. An additional result is that all of a sudden the hex is considered clear terrain (?!) and no more cover is granted. Wouldn't the following make a lot more sense?
When a tank with the brushcutters ability cuts through a hedgerow, it must immediately end its movement. Cover in such a hex is reduced by one (place one of those breech counters, as normal).
I mean, they did go to the trouble to distinguish between ballistc fire (mortars) and regular fire. Against the former there's no cover. Makes perfect sense. So why don't the rest of the hedgerow/brush rules at the moment?
I agree, there should have been more to the hedgerows. I know TOI is supposed to be simple, but it can still be simple but have more depth without going overboard. Lebatron and Hefsgaard have some good ideas.
Unrelated, but Kingtiger said Ballistic fire... I know it is because the TOI rules book uses this term, but it still cracks me up. The proper military term is "Indirect Fire". But fantasy gamers tend to use "Ballistic Fire"... maybe the green figures were supposed to be Orcs, and the gray figures Night Elves
Sorry if that offended anyone.
Hefsgaard said:
Hedgecutters: +3 move to cut, which leaves a breach. Cover is unaffected by breaches. Should be plenty og Hedgerow/earthworks left for units to hide in.
Not that I like the full hex Hedgerow rules much in the first place. But that may be ASL talking.
This I´d personally sign.
Hefsgaard said:
Hedgecutters: +3 move to cut, which leaves a breach. Cover is unaffected by breaches. Should be plenty og Hedgerow/earthworks left for units to hide in.
Great idea!
RayGuns said:
I agree, there should have been more to the hedgerows. I know TOI is supposed to be simple, but it can still be simple but have more depth without going overboard. Lebatron and Hefsgaard have some good ideas.
...Ballistic fire... I know it is because the TOI rules book uses this term, but it still cracks me up. The proper military term is "Indirect Fire". But fantasy gamers tend to use "Ballistic Fire"...
LOL. No offense taken... It might be a British military term.
Ray it just struck me that perhaps you should be adding in these extra rules into the RCD you made. Since the TD's lack of fire and movement comes strait from one of the scenario designers and people seems to like my idea of just making hedgerow cutting cost +3 to move perhaps these two items could be added as "suggested optional" rules. There are a lot of other more extreme optionals proposed but they probably do not belong in the RCD, but I feel perhaps these two suggestions do.
RayGuns said:
Kingtiger said:
Since they seem to be doing errata anyway, I hope they'll also consider having another look at hedgerow terrain: A tank with brushcutters ( a card) can -in one move- cut several such hexes LENGTHWISE and possibly still fire as well. An additional result is that all of a sudden the hex is considered clear terrain (?!) and no more cover is granted. Wouldn't the following make a lot more sense?
When a tank with the brushcutters ability cuts through a hedgerow, it must immediately end its movement. Cover in such a hex is reduced by one (place one of those breech counters, as normal).
I mean, they did go to the trouble to distinguish between ballistc fire (mortars) and regular fire. Against the former there's no cover. Makes perfect sense. So why don't the rest of the hedgerow/brush rules at the moment?
I agree, there should have been more to the hedgerows. I know TOI is supposed to be simple, but it can still be simple but have more depth without going overboard. Lebatron and Hefsgaard have some good ideas.
Unrelated, but Kingtiger said Ballistic fire... I know it is because the TOI rules book uses this term, but it still cracks me up. The proper military term is "Indirect Fire". But fantasy gamers tend to use "Ballistic Fire"... maybe the green figures were supposed to be Orcs, and the gray figures Night Elves
Sorry if that offended anyone.
I know it's called indirect fire. Used ballistic, indeed because the rulebook does it as well.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make that if they think we should be able to differentiate between those two types of fire (rightfully and logically so!), if players should be able to handle the relatively complicated rules regarding LOS (Compared to memoir 44 and AAM, for instance), if people are expected to understand the rather complicated assault rules (actually they're pretty straightforward, but they are very clumsily described), then a little more realism regarding hedgerows is also in place!
Oh and while they're at it: some hills offering cover (forested hills, for example) would be a welcome addition to the game as well!
Lebatron said:
Instead of immediately ending movement, I suggest comming up with a reasonable movement cost to cut through. Similiar and consistant with rules already in place like the extra movement cost to move into entrenchments. Lets say it costs 3 per brush you cut through, then at most only 2 hedgerows can be cut down.
Fair enough. I could definitely live with this and it is indeed more in the spirit of the general rules.Anyway, we sure agree on the most important point which is that the rules as written concerning hedgerows are completely off target....
Lebatron said:
Ray it just struck me that perhaps you should be adding in these extra rules into the RCD you made. Since the TD's lack of fire and movement comes strait from one of the scenario designers and people seems to like my idea of just making hedgerow cutting cost +3 to move perhaps these two items could be added as "suggested optional" rules. There are a lot of other more extreme optionals proposed but they probably do not belong in the RCD, but I feel perhaps these two suggestions do.
That's actually a good idea. Maybe add a section to the RCD called "Popular House Rules" or something like this. Or even create a whole new complete document just about some of the more popular house rules TOI groups use. I never really thought of it, I guess it's because the group I play with tend to play TOI without any modifications (no house rules). I guess that way everyone is on the same page sort of speak.
Hefsgaard said:
Not that I like the full hex Hedgerow rules much in the first place. But that may be ASL talking.
ASL or no ASL, I agree that hedgerows would have been better represented as hex-side features.
with regards to the StugIII/Jagdpanzer I think not being able to move and fire is too restrictive in game play terms. These tanks could move and fire, but due to the fixed gun they had to manouvre into the direction they were firing at, so yes it was difficult for them but not impossible. I would say it would be better to increase the movement penalty for a move and fire action rather than prohibiting it. Lets say something like a StugIII/Jagdpanzer can only move 2 hexes if executing a fire and move action, (i.e losing 4 movement points)
The Thing In The Attic said:
with regards to the StugIII/Jagdpanzer I think not being able to move and fire is too restrictive in game play terms. These tanks could move and fire, but due to the fixed gun they had to manouvre into the direction they were firing at, so yes it was difficult for them but not impossible. I would say it would be better to increase the movement penalty for a move and fire action rather than prohibiting it. Lets say something like a StugIII/Jagdpanzer can only move 2 hexes if executing a fire and move action, (i.e losing 4 movement points)
As far as I know it's an "official" rule change (Bill Jaffe's). The best solution would be to introduce advanced rules in which facing comes into play which would disallow non-turreted vehicles to fire anywhere outside their front arc. As long as such rules don't exist (officially), I think not allowing move and fire / fire and move actions are a good alternative. It keeps things simple while it still differentiates between non-turreted and turreted vehicles.
Kingtiger said:
The best solution would be to introduce advanced rules in which facing comes into play which would disallow non-turreted vehicles to fire anywhere outside their front arc. As long as such rules don't exist (officially), I think not allowing move and fire / fire and move actions are a good alternative. It keeps things simple while it still differentiates between non-turreted and turreted vehicles.
Amen to that! Sir...you are my hero! Facing rules do not need to be complicated and if implemented (officially) I strongly advocate against any for of turret facing (sorry FoW fans).
Bazookajoe said:
Facing rules do not need to be complicated and if implemented (officially) I strongly advocate against any for of turret facing (sorry FoW fans)
.
I agree. Turret-facing is far below the "resolution" of ToI (or FoW, for that matter).
hi
many good suggestions on this thread on how to make mobile AT different from tanks.
1) a AT cannot take the move and fire action, is a good rule I like that.
Historical fact: Some veteran crews of the german tiger tanks, did not move the turret in order to get a target. instead they would swing the entire tank around by making each of the tracks to go in opposite direction of each other. In this way the tiger tank would "spin on its heel" without moving forward or backward. This was often faster than turning the turret, but could be dangerous since the tracks could be damaged.
2) Facing Rule. No thank you, I prefer my game simple. I like the somewhat abstract rule perspective of TOI.
And now my contribution to this interesting thread:
Prepared Ambush trait
What about giving them a +3 bonus when firing from OP? or a similar mechanic, like one die (or two) can always be changed to a six?
Most ATs where designed for defensive operations, their low silhouette makes them perfect for staging ambushes. They would shoot and then and change posistion if needed.
What do you think of the Prepared Ambush trait?