$20.00
$15.00
$5.00
$30.00
Darth Hidious
Singapore
flag msg tools
Is a Prof. check needed if the tank fires without moving? I think not be is of the list on the player aid card.
Or prof checks required only for firing after moving and op fire?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Berg Asklev Hansen
Denmark
Vejle
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Prof check is only required if any of the modifiers apply (even the +0).
If none of these are relevant then no check is needed
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Hidious
Singapore
flag msg tools
Thanks but , do these range modifiers apply to normal fire, op fire or both?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron A
United States
Coronado
California
flag msg tools
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet-Gen. Mattis
mbmbmbmbmb
Kesavanss wrote:
Thanks but , do these range modifiers apply to normal fire, op fire or both?


Rule 17.4/20.4 (old/new numbering system) Traits for Both Vehicles and Guns
Vehicle and Gun Proficiency

See the player aid card for all of the situations and modifiers. If more than one case applies, only one check is required, but all modifiers are cumulative and are added to the die roll.

Seems to clearly imply that range modifiers affect all fire, even Op Fire.

NB: I think there is a typo in the rules. It says that modifiers are added to the (proficiency) die roll. However, looking at the latest player aid card (PAC) all the bad modifiers are negative numbers. Given that to pass a proficiency check you need to roll proficiency or LESS, bad modifiers should be positive.

I know that all the modifiers were changed to make them the same in all cases, I think here that the rules need to be changed to reflect this change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, they apply to both.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hoyt
United States
Durango
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
adding a negative modifier to a base number results in a lower chance

It is correct to speak of adding modifiers, regardless of the sign of the modifer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Hidious
Singapore
flag msg tools
I like this system very much but parts of the rulebook need to be rewritten.
There are several important features that are not clearly pointed out.
I spend up to 4x more on this rule set than COH and I still don't feel that I am playing the game "as the Designer intended".

And I believe I am of normal intelligence........
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron A
United States
Coronado
California
flag msg tools
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet-Gen. Mattis
mbmbmbmbmb
Look, I don't want to get into some big flame war over semantics, but the rules and PAC are not in agreement. I agree that adding a negative modifier to a base number reduces the chance, but that is NOT what the rules tell you to do, the rules say to modify the die roll.

Read the rules, read the PAC. The rules say modifiers are added to the die roll. Fine, let's look at the PAC and see how that works out.

My firing unit has a Proficiency rating of 6, so I have to roll 6 or less to pass my PF check. To keep this simple, we'll just use 1 modifier, we'll say the range > 30 hexes, so a -3 modifier is applied, per PAC.

If I go by the rules, -3 is added to the DIE ROLL. Let's say I roll an 8. Normally, that would be a failed Prof check, since I need a 6 or less to pass the PF check. However, 8-3 =5, which is less than 6, so I PASS my PF check.

Which is wrong. The rules should tell you to add the modifier to the Proficiency rating.

Am I missing something?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I like this system very much but parts of the rulebook need to be rewritten.


Darth, it actually was rewritten. This last go around we rewrote sections, added the glossary and index, reorganized it, etc. In doing so, we looked at and tracked all the feedback that we had received from Ghost Panzer on.....so, we thought we had nailed it. However, as the game expands, we will continue to track feedback to make it better.

Quote:
Which is wrong. The rules should tell you to add the modifier to the Proficiency rating. Am I missing something?


Nope. That one line in the rule book is wrong. All modifiers now modify the value. There was a big push from fans to make it consistent and, after some misgivings about the work and the possibility of introducing a mistake, I agreed.

Grrr.....I wanted this to be a perfect set. I can not tell you how much work I, and others, put into trying to make this rule book perfect.

The example directly underneath it is correct.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Sturk
United States
Hudson
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:
Quote:
I like this system very much but parts of the rulebook need to be rewritten.


Darth, it actually was rewritten. This last go around we rewrote sections, added the glossary and index, reorganized it, etc. In doing so, we looked at and tracked all the feedback that we had received from Ghost Panzer on.....so, we thought we had nailed it. However, as the game expands, we will continue to track feedback to make it better.

Quote:
Which is wrong. The rules should tell you to add the modifier to the Proficiency rating. Am I missing something?


Nope. That one line in the rule book is wrong. All modifiers now modify the value. There was a big push from fans to make it consistent and, after some misgivings about the work and the possibility of introducing a mistake, I agreed.

Grrr.....I wanted this to be a perfect set. I can not tell you how much work I, and others, put into trying to make this rule book perfect.

The example directly underneath it is correct.


We appreciate all the effort that went into the project (and rulebook). Even with a mistake in the rulebook, I'm very happy with the consistent modifiers and am glad you took a chance on it.

I'm so pleased with everything, top notch and was worth the wait.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Hidious
Singapore
flag msg tools
Goes without saying.
I respect wargame designers highly
The effort and research going into a wargame is more often than not at par with a Masters thesis or a PhD.
It's our privilege to support this genre.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Hidious
Singapore
flag msg tools
Ouch.....my T34 needs to roll < 5 just to fire
Then another roll to hit
No wonder the Soviets lost the first part of the War.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Ouch.....my T34 needs to roll < 5 just to fire
Then another roll to hit


Not exactly.

The T34 only needs to roll a 5 or lower if there is a condition that requires a Prof Check. What this means is that a T34 that is firing during the Russian Operations Phase, at a target within 5 hexes, usually does not have to take that Prof Check and so gets to skip that step.

What this leads to is the very historical behavior of T34s closing to within a couple of hundred yards and trying to trade shots. It also leads to the historical behavior of the Germans changing positions far more often than is normal in most tactical games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron A
United States
Coronado
California
flag msg tools
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet-Gen. Mattis
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:

Nope. That one line in the rule book is wrong. All modifiers now modify the value. There was a big push from fans to make it consistent and, after some misgivings about the work and the possibility of introducing a mistake, I agreed.

Grrr.....I wanted this to be a perfect set. I can not tell you how much work I, and others, put into trying to make this rule book perfect.



Jim, software developers fight this battle all the time. One study estimates that between 15-25% of bug fixes introduce new errors. You have to perform risk analysis to decide if the fix is worth the possibility of introducing new errors. In this case, I think most everybody would agree that the fix is very much worth one line in the rulebook being off.

The PAC doesn't mention die rolls at all, so if a player just goes by the PAC, the chances are that they will get the numbers right.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hoyt
United States
Durango
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Ron. I was one of the most adamant about going to consistent modifers, and Jim gave me the opportunity to do the changes if I felt that strongly about it. I'm really sorry I missed this one... I also wanted perfection

But I think the rulebook is a LOT better in that at least the intent is consistent, and (maybe/hopefully) this is the only instance I missed (and I couldn't begin to tell you how many changes were required or how many iterations Jim and I both went through...)

Good catch. It seems to be a law of nature that things just jump out at to a fresh pair of eyes that have become invisible to people making their umpteenth pass...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron A
United States
Coronado
California
flag msg tools
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet-Gen. Mattis
mbmbmbmbmb
blockhead wrote:
Thanks Ron. I was one of the most adamant about going to consistent modifers, and Jim gave me the opportunity to do the changes if I felt that strongly about it. I'm really sorry I missed this one... I also wanted perfection


Ha ha, I was going to say 'don't get me started,' but it's too late for that. This is one of those areas where I can apply some of my knowledge from 27 years in the software industry. Of course, paper boardgames are not exactly a mirror of software, but there are some similarities.

It seems that all over BGG, and especially in the wargame forums, the subject of rules errata is always good for a multi page thread with plenty of ranting. The thing is, there are costs and tradeoffs to achieve zero defect work. Some argue that zero defects are impossible to achieve. Here is a blog entry that discusses some of the challenges of zero defects.

One especially relevant challenge is, 'how do you know when you've found every defect?' We might still be waiting for Texas Arrows while another X iterations were made through the rules and charts. At some point in time you have to trust in the work you've done and say 'ship it.'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
beresford dickens
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
blockhead wrote:
Good catch. It seems to be a law of nature that things just jump out at to a fresh pair of eyes that have become invisible to people making their umpteenth pass...


It's an unfortunate feature of the human brain that when doing that umpteenth pass your eyes just skate over the text without taking any of it in. When I think of all those times I've come back to a game I haven't played for a while and some obvious flaw in the rules just leaps out at me... A common place is that 'Definitions' type stuff in the front of most rulebooks that you don't bother to read because you think it is so elementary.... and then several modules on you suddenly notice that a lot of it has been superseded a while ago.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.