Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles» Forums » Rules

Subject: Questions and comments on Rules Part 2 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
beresford dickens
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
1. It doesn't seem to say anywhere that a Vehicle can turn within a hex to Fire or Op Fire.

2. Move Marker: Typo 'executes it action'.

3. Vehicle and Gun Proficiency: Presumably the 'firing after turning within its hex' modifier does not apply if the Vehicle moves.

4. Vehicle and Gun Proficiency: Why does the 'special case' not apply if a Vehicle attempts to Op Fire against Infantry or a Gun attempts to Op Fire against anything?

5. Guns and Vehicles v Infantry or Guns: Should say 'Fire Modifiers Other'.

6. Guns & Vehicles vs Vehicles: If a Vehicle or a Gun turns in order to fire, is it considered movement for the purposes of Op Fire? (cf the second para of 'Infantry vs Guns').

7. Close Assault: Can a Vehicle fire at an assaulter who starts in an adjacent hex (cf 9.0) despite the fact the the assaulter is not 'attempting to enter into a Melee'.

8. Close Assault: A Vehicle cannot fire into its own hex (Guns & Vehicles vs Infantry or Guns) so the only fire in the hex (apart from Artillery) must come from other units outside the hex. But 'Fire Restrictions And Effects' (p3) says that you cannot fire into a hex containing friendly units.

9. Close Assault: Can an infantry unit enter a hex containing an enemy Vehicle and a Gun?

10. Vehicle and Gun Stacking; If an enemy vehicle moves through infantry, there is no provision for them to Close Assault. Is it correct that they also cannot fire SATW's because of 'Fire Restrictions And Effects' (p3)?

11. Vehicle and Gun Stacking; If an adjacent enemy vehicle trys to move through infantry, can they fire SATW's at the Vehicle in its initial hex despite the fact the the assaulter is not 'attempting to enter into a Melee' (cf 9.0)?

12. Artillery Support: How can Op Firing Artillery count against a player's Operations Range?

13. Artillery Support: Can the planned area of effect include your own units?

14. If an enemy unit starts adjacent to one of your units and is about to move into its hex, can you drop Artillery on it in its initial hex (cf 9.0)?






2 
 Thumb up
3.00
 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...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
1. It doesn't seem to say anywhere that a Vehicle can turn within a hex to Fire or Op Fire.


Right under the list of modifiers for the proficiency check.

Quote:
2. Move Marker: Typo 'executes it action'.


Got it

Quote:
3. Vehicle and Gun Proficiency: Presumably the 'firing after turning within its hex' modifier does not apply if the Vehicle moves.


Correct

Quote:
4. Vehicle and Gun Proficiency: Why does the 'special case' not apply if a Vehicle attempts to Op Fire against Infantry or a Gun attempts to Op Fire against anything?


I included the special case only against moving vehicles because of the importance of armor factors in that case.

Quote:
5. Guns and Vehicles v Infantry or Guns: Should say 'Fire Modifiers Other'.


Capitalize "other" - got it.

Quote:
6. Guns & Vehicles vs Vehicles: If a Vehicle or a Gun turns in order to fire, is it considered movement for the purposes of Op Fire? (cf the second para of 'Infantry vs Guns').


No. I need to move this rule under a different heading. so that it is clear that it applies to all cases. Turning in a hex does NOT trigger Op Fire (either guns or vehicles).

Quote:
7. Close Assault: Can a Vehicle fire at an assaulter who starts in an adjacent hex (cf 9.0) despite the fact the the assaulter is not 'attempting to enter into a Melee'.


Yes. It also says - if the first hex it would enter is that of an enemy unit. That is an example of where the extra explanatory note about melee is adding confusion.

Quote:
8. Close Assault: A Vehicle cannot fire into its own hex (Guns & Vehicles vs Infantry or Guns) so the only fire in the hex (apart from Artillery) must come from other units outside the hex. But 'Fire Restrictions And Effects' (p3) says that you cannot fire into a hex containing friendly units.


Tricky...yes, I am changing that from "cannot fire into a hex containing friendly units" to "cannot fire into a hex containing friendly infantry or guns." You CAN fire at enemy units in the same hex as a friendly vehicle. The reason for the distinction is that you should be able to fire at the enemy troops without harming your vehicle. For example, I can visualize nearby friendly infantry firing at enemy infantry attacking a friendly vehicle.

Quote:
9. Close Assault: Can an infantry unit enter a hex containing an enemy Vehicle and a Gun?


Wow. Thank you. That is a good question that is missed by the rules. I have never placed Guns in the same hex as a Vehicle, but the rules don't forbid it. They will now. Only one Gun or Vehicle in a hex.

Quote:
10. Vehicle and Gun Stacking; If an enemy vehicle moves through infantry, there is no provision for them to Close Assault. Is it correct that they also cannot fire SATW's because of 'Fire Restrictions And Effects' (p3)?


Correct. They can not close assault. This is not an overrun. It is considered that the vehicle is moving at speed.

Also correct. They would have to fire when the vehicle is adjacent (on either side of them). Basically, once the vehicle leaves their hex, if they have a SATW, they will have a rear shot. Thematically, maybe they actually shot the vehicle in the hex, but game wise we can resolve the combat in an adjacent hex to the same benefit and avoid a special rule.

Quote:
11. Vehicle and Gun Stacking; If an adjacent enemy vehicle trys to move through infantry, can they fire SATW's at the Vehicle in its initial hex despite the fact the the assaulter is not 'attempting to enter into a Melee' (cf 9.0)?


Yes (see my explanation above), but, again, it would make more sense to fire at it on the way out.

Quote:
12. Artillery Support: How can Op Firing Artillery count against a player's Operations Range?


It can't. I reread the section and I think you misunderstood it. Whenever you want to use your artillery, you must pass a proficiency check. There is an additional modifier to this check if it is Op Fire.

Quote:
13. Artillery Support: Can the planned area of effect include your own units?


Yes. There is actually a real possibility of this happening in scenario 12.

Quote:
14. If an enemy unit starts adjacent to one of your units and is about to move into its hex, can you drop Artillery on it in its initial hex (cf 9.0)?


Yes. See above. Op Fire is allowed in the starting hex whenever your first hex of movement is entering that of an enemy unit.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
beresford dickens
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Right under the list of modifiers for the proficiency check.


Do you mean the 'special case'? I still think that it needs to be clearer than that, possibly under 'Vehicle Traits - Movement'.

Quote:
I included the special case only against moving vehicles because of the importance of armor factors in that case.


1. And armor factors are not important if an infantry unit with an SATW is trying to flank an AFV?
2. If it doesn't apply to Guns then after I fail my first Prof Check I am now facing the target. Does this mean that I now get to make my second Prof check against that target without a modifier for turning?

Quote:
It can't. I reread the section and I think you misunderstood it. Whenever you want to use your artillery, you must pass a proficiency check. There is an additional modifier to this check if it is Op Fire.


... and then it goes on to say that regardless of success or failure Artillery Support counts as THREE units against the player's Operations Range. My point is that this cannot apply if the Artillery Support is used as Op Fire.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
beresford dickens
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
1. And armor factors are not important if an infantry unit with an SATW is trying to flank an AFV?
2. If it doesn't apply to Guns then after I fail my first Prof Check I am now facing the target. Does this mean that I now get to make my second Prof check against that target without a modifier for turning?


Jim, I just want to 'bump' this because I don't think you addressed these two points about the 'ballet tank' rule, and from the 'thumb' at least one other person is interested in the answers.
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...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Beresford, I'm glad you bumped this because I somehow missed it. After seeing this last night, I have thought about it -

Quote:
2. If it doesn't apply to Guns then after I fail my first Prof Check I am now facing the target. Does this mean that I now get to make my second Prof check against that target without a modifier for turning?


Yes

Quote:
1. And armor factors are not important if an infantry unit with an SATW is trying to flank an AFV?


Of course they are.....(awkward silence).....

Actually, in both of those cases that you mention, it logically makes sense that the gun or tank failing the proficiency check should not be able to turn to face the firer. The rules currently allow them to face the firer in those cases and that is how I've been playing. However, I'm not completely sure why the rules allow it to happen. I don't remember the reasons why or if I had a specific reason and I don't have anything in my notes about it.

I have an idea why I did not include one of the above cases. If I am right about it then it was an oversight as part of a rules tweak about a year and a half ago.

I probably should change the rule to apply in both of those cases. It would not be a big deal to make the change. It makes logical sense and would not impact scenario balance in any real way.

Let me think about this for a couple of days to make sure that I am not missing anything.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey Smith
United States
Bel Air
MD - Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:
Beresford, I'm glad you bumped this because I somehow missed it. After seeing this last night, I have thought about it -

Quote:
2. If it doesn't apply to Guns then after I fail my first Prof Check I am now facing the target. Does this mean that I now get to make my second Prof check against that target without a modifier for turning?


Yes

Quote:
1. And armor factors are not important if an infantry unit with an SATW is trying to flank an AFV?


Of course they are.....(awkward silence).....

Actually, in both of those cases that you mention, it logically makes sense that the gun or tank failing the proficiency check should not be able to turn to face the firer. The rules currently allow them to face the firer in those cases and that is how I've been playing. However, I'm not completely sure why the rules allow it to happen. I don't remember the reasons why or if I had a specific reason and I don't have anything in my notes about it.

I have an idea why I did not include one of the above cases. If I am right about it then it was an oversight as part of a rules tweak about a year and a half ago.

I probably should change the rule to apply in both of those cases. It would not be a big deal to make the change. It makes logical sense and would not impact scenario balance in any real way.

Let me think about this for a couple of days to make sure that I am not missing anything.

I'm glad to read this update. It was a question I had as well after playing a few scenarios involving tanks and SATW. This is how I was trying to justify the differences in the "special rule" for vehicle Op Fire in my own mind:

A tank moves faster than a squad, or a SATW team, so it should be easier for a tank to outflank another tank than for a squad. So failing the Proficiency against a vehicle meant that the tank crew didn't even have time to turn toward the threat let alone get off a shot. While failing Proficiency against a SATW meant that the tank could not be positioned quickly enough for a shot, but was at least able to turn toward the threat. If it failed twice it was used in either case and would be outflanked.

While this argument may be historically sound (I have no idea), it also seemed a little strange that a tank could automatically turn to face an approaching SATW threat, and seemed to encourage the ballet tanks that the rules were supposed to eliminate (or at least significantly reduce.)

We've been playing according to the current rules, but I don't know how easy it actually was for a tank to respond to SATW, or if the automatic change of tank position was simply an easy way to "bake-in" the difficulty of taking out a tank with a bazooka. It's not much of an issue for the Panzerfaust; those things are deadly no matter which way the tank is facing.
 
 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...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like keeping things simple and clean. The more I think about it, the more I think I should make it so that a gun or vehicle will retain its original facing if it fails an Op Fire Proficiency check, regardless of the target.

Thoughts?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey Smith
United States
Bel Air
MD - Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like that. Gun or vehicles wants to Op Fire, roll required morale and proficiency checks. If it fails, nothing happens. If it passes, turn gun or vehicle to face Target and roll to resolve fire.

The only significant impact I can see is a slight improvement in bazooka capability, but I think that's a good thing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Up Front fan, Cats were once worshipped as gods and they haven't forgotten this, Combat Commander series fan, The Raven King (game publisher) ... that's me!, Fields of Fire fan
badge
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:
I like keeping things simple and clean. The more I think about it, the more I think I should make it so that a gun or vehicle will retain its original facing if it fails an Op Fire Proficiency check, regardless of the target.

Thoughts?


I think I like this as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:
I like keeping things simple and clean. The more I think about it, the more I think I should make it so that a gun or vehicle will retain its original facing if it fails an Op Fire Proficiency check, regardless of the target.

Thoughts?


I like your proposal.
2 
 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.