Mal Reynolds said:

1. I think the prepared ambush idea has great merit. Are you suggesting it for a card?

2. Facing...check out the facing rules in the rules for FFGs forthcoming "Battles of Napoleon". If 18-19th century musket loaders can do it then certainly Patton and Rommel can. )

3. Great moniker BTW...long live Serenity!

Don't know about the rest of you, but personally I think facing rules are or at the very least can be very simple (See CoH or even Axis and Allies miniatures!) Besides, as I mentioned before, I think they should be added as optional/advanced rules. The standard rules could remain as they are, so players can decide for themselves which ones they want to use.

More advanced rules might also include:

* Offensive bonus while attacking a unit from a higher elevation and/or minus when attacking a unit from below ( i.e. range penalty-+1 hex from actual distance- or perhaps even better- an x number of hits are automatically converted to misses.

* Alternate hedgerow rules 9which i think should be an erratum, by the way, because the way they are now is plain silly, if you ask me.

* front and rear defense vallues for vehicles.

* ? (Any more suggestions?)

Bazookajoe said:

hi

1. not neccesarily as a card but as a trait to be added to all ATs like the Stug, to simulate their defensive roles. When in OP they will get some bonus either to firepower, or precision (like the ability to change one or two 2 dice to a 6). The Prepared Ambush Trait will definitively set them appart from tanks, as it will completely change their tactical role, especially if they can`t use the move and fire action as many has suggested that they shouldn`t be able to use.

2. I be sure to check out Napoleon. I`ve been giving it some thought, and if FFG or some others make the facing rules fairly simple and easy to use, I think it will work fine by me.

3. thanks and long live Serenity. Firefly was a great show, too bad it didn`t last

Good gaming

Ya Firefly was awesome. So was Buffy. But at least Buffy got a long run. Firefly's pulling was about as huge of an error as NBC canceling the original Star Trek.

Anyway before I shed more tears, back to the topic.

Ok first of all stop confusing me;) AT are anti-tank guns. When referring to jagpazers, jagpanthers, ect. use TD for tank destroyers without turret. Now that that is cleared up, on with the optional rule discussions.

Love the Prepared Ambush trait. I see it as a one time modifier to the attack dice. Say 1 or 2 extra die. In addition, in order to get this one time bonus the TD must be concealed. Logical so far? I also love the earlier idea of combining op-fire with the concealment making it unnecessary to place an op-fire token on the TD. This can be incorporated into the Prepared Ambush trait like so

Prepared Ambush: As an action, a concealed TD may take a one time shot, as either an op-fire or concentrated attack, at +2 die to its vehicle attack strength.

This, of coarse, goes hand in hand with the semi-official new rule that TD's, without a turret, can't do a fire and move action. Since that was taken away, prepared ambush is a good replacement that makes sense to me.

Super simple facing rules. A unit is surrounded by 6 hexes. The front 3 hexes are frontal, and the back 3 hexes are flank. At all times a vehicle must face a hex side. No corners. In the arc of the front 3 hexes a vehicle may fire without penalty. To fire outside of this arc a vehicle must either turn or rotate its turret. If the vehicle rotates its turret to fire it suffers a -1 die penalty to its concentrated fire attack roll. If the vehicle must turn to fire it suffers a -2 die penalty to its concentrated fire attack roll. When performing a fire and move action (reminder turretless vehicles may not fire and move) the vehicle will not suffer any penalties because it is assumed the various effects are already simulated in halving the firepower. When supporting a lead unit in a combined fire attack the above penalties of -1 or -2 are taken into effect if the supporting vehicle has to fire outside of its frontal arc. Subtract the penalties first, then halve to determine attack strength. A turreted vehicle may choose to turn in all cases, instead of rotating its turret ,with the intent to change its facing for future attacks.

Attacks originating from outside the frontal 3 hex arc are considered hits to the flank of a vehicle. When hit in its flank the vehicle suffers a -2 armor penalty.

Lebatron said:

1. Maybe FFG could create a Firefly board game! Of course...facing rules would be a must have in order to effect a Crazy Ivan. )

2. I like this prepared ambush trait. and will incorporate it into our games. I also prefer "traits/characteristics" for units vs. cards.

3. An alternate hex facing system would be to use the hex corner as the orienting point. The hexes to either side of the corner would be the vehicle "front"; the back to corner hexes would be the rear and the "side" would be second hex side from the orienting front corner. That would then allow flanking and rear shots with commensurate armor degradation penalties (this is the sme system used in BoN for orienting unit formations). You've put a lot of thought into the firing arc idea and it is much more realistic than the current model (360 degree)...well done. That said, in order to garner more support and acceptance for facing rules I would keep the firing arc as simple as possible (use the basic game firing rules).

This is another great brainstorming thread!

Hi

Sorry about the confusion Lebatron, I meant ofcourse TDs (tank destroyers, turretless) and not ATs. My mistake. I love your take on facing rules, its def worth a try. Well, after reading your comments I have considered this:

TD Tank destroyers
Tank destroyers cannot take the Move and Fire action
Tank destroyers lack a turret, which in turn reduces their offensive capabilities. a TD is primarily used for defensive operations.

Prepared Ambush Trait:
a vehicle with this trait get a +2 bonus to fire when using the OP action.
Most Tank Destroyers where used in the role to fire upon advancing tanks from prepared defensive positions, sacrificing mobility for accuracy.
(I was tempted to give them a +3 bonus, but was afraid that it could be to much and to unbalancing.)

Low Silhouette Trait:
This vehicle is considered to be concealed when operating in terrain that provides cover bonus. The concealment ability only applies if the vehicle is in OP. It loses its concealment once it moves even if the vehicle moves on to another terrain that provides cover.
Tank destroyers where designed to have a low profile in order to stay of sight, so it could open fire upon unsuspecting tanks.

hmm maybe the Low Silhouette Trait would be better as a part of the Prepared Ambush trait? And giving TDs concealment even in this limited way can be too unbalanced. Its definetively has to be game tested.

Ps: Yeah I loved Buffy as well, I am a big fan of Joss Whedon (the creator of Buffy and Firefly and Serenity)

A Ferdinand tankdestroyer, could hardly be considered low profile. ;-)

Some of you seem to be misinformed about TD's in general. They do not all have low profiles only those based on small tank chassis did. Jagtiger was pretty much just as tall as the King Tiger. Germany did not make TD's to reduce the size of tanks, they made TD's to reduce construction time. They could manufature 3 TD's compared to 2 regular tanks by ommiting the turret. That's a 50% increase to production output. Russian tanks outnumbered Germans by so many German high command opted for this shortcut to increase production. Russia also did the same to increase output, but not that they really needed too.

I like the theory that is being developed here as a means to make the TD unit feel different. For the sake of game play and flavor, TD's need to have features that make them stand out. I think we have really created a beautiful sweet spot and I doubt FFG could have done any better.

Some more thought may have to be given to the Prepared Ambush trait. My version of it gives a +2 bonus once, while the original suggestion I think said +2-3 when shooting in op-fire. The difference in the original I believe would be overpowering to get to use over and over again. It would make regular tanks jealous.

Not only increase production time, but also reduce the cost of building one. It further allowed them to recycle older obsolete tank designs, and thus productionslines. The reduced weight, allowed for more front armor and a larger gun.