For those of you who follow the FoW forums, you might have seen my rule question. What happened was that during a game on Saturday, I played a long-time and successful player. I knew the game was going to be a tough win for me or my opponent. All good there.
As we were in the middle of the game, there was a situation that was similar to the one below:
What happened is that my opponent grabbed some dice and rolled them all at once, scoring two hits. I started to put both hits on Sherman C and he said I could not do that because you have to maximize hits. I knew this, but since he grabbed the dice I said "how do you know the hits came from Panzer A or B? I think they came from C." I agreed that I will need to spead the hits out, but we did not know where the hits came from. And this is when the yelling at me started. My opponent claimed that shooting is platoon to platoon. His platoon scored 2 hits, so place the 2 hits on valid targets. Since all my teams are a valid target to at least one of his teams, they can all get hits. I disagreed. His voice raised again. I still disagreed. By this time, we had called Joe over and Joe's first reaction was to calm the situation down. Joe "ruled" that in the situation that we had (I have changed the example and the units due to my attempt to keep the exact situation and player a bit confidential), either way of looking at it would have resulted in hits going on two teams. I agreed with that, but I did not and still do not agree on the belief that my opponent was "selling." In the game, we were able to keep playing and even had another rules issue that was incredibly esoteric. In that last example, we spoke and worked together. Joe came over and all three of us were saying "I have never seen this before." We worked out a ruling that we all could agree with and I think it was the correct way to go - even though it adversely affected my position. So what had me scratching my head was why the bombastic attitude in the first example and then such a turn around on the second? At the end of the game (1-3 draw to my opponent), we shook hands and my opponent apoplogized for the first interaction. Turns out he was on the receiving end of the same situation some time ago and lost his "appeal." Since then, he has been feverishly defending his new view.
Well, turns out I am right. He should have rolled Panzer C separately since that unit has different valid tartget.That makes me feel better about the situation. But I have to admit that if I played this person again (that is basically guaranteed), I will have this experience going in the back of my head. Maybe in time I will "build a bridge and get over it."
On to Wednesday:
We played a 1,350 LW force, using Blind Domination from I-95 group. We have another tourney coming up in Novemeber that will be split into 2 events. The first is Blind Domination, Domination, Blind Domination again. All mobile battles. 1,350 LW. Fast and furious gaming!!
So Joe and I went at it. My list (and I feel really good about it) is US 3rd Armored. The tourney rule allows for only one combat platoon. Here it is:
HQ - 2 Shermans
Combat Platoon # 1 - 4 76mm Shermans
Platoon #2 - 5 Stuarts
Platoon #3 - 4 Stuarts
Platoon #4 - Armored Rifles (full)
Platoon #5 - Armored Mortars (3, 2 with .50 cal MG upgrades)
Platoon #6 - Armored Recon (1 Section)
Based on my reading and confirmed with our game, mobility is key. Plus anything you can get as recon is at a premium in Blind Domination.
Joe put up German pios:
Pio Platoon
Pio Platoon
Heavy Mortars (KG'd with 2iC)
3 Brumbars
3 Tigers
Summary:
I was able to grab 5 points and have a hold on them until the end. I was able to run 1 Pio platoon and the mortars. I was also able to kill 1 Tiger (at long range with a 76 Sherman!!). But the pesky Brumbars kept him in the game by contesting the last 3 point objective (if I get the objective, I win). We timed out after 7 turns, with me at a 3-1 draw. Joe realized he needed mobility and will be re-working his list. My issue is that I can get points and hold, but I cannot withstand sustained fire being Trained. I need fast games. Longer games will ruin me. But I strongly recommend those missions - they are a blast!!
Next Wednesday is another go!!
Technically you are right. Hits are done team by team. Technically he should have asked if he could roll them all at once. or at least use different color dice for that back tank.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER...
A lot of people play rolling the same dice if they are shooting the same weapons. Including myself.
This greatly speeds up the game.
And the chances are far better that 2 different tanks will have scored the hits, then that back tank scoring both hits itself.
Spreading the hits out works out more often then not.
Although, I do see why you would have wanted this. Only 1 tank could have been destroyed. But as I said the chance that back tank rolled both hits are slim. So you'd have to spread them out anyway.
And you pretty much never need to know which tank is shooting, as long as you are rolling for all the same weapons.
using the situation above.
#1 - you only use the easiest target to hit. lets say Sherman A and B are over 16" to panzer C. Panzer C still needs the same to hit Shermans A and B because sherman C is within 16"
#2 - the +1 for armour saves is ONLY if ALL shooting teams are over 16". So if 1 shooting team is with in 16", even if you did the hits by team, and a team over 16" applied the hit...you would NOT get that armour bonus.
So, even though shooting is 'technically' team by team, I can see why your opponent would think its platoon by platoon.
A lot of the rules are dependent on the platoon as a whole.
You are correct in the 16" rule - which we did both agree. Our example was beyond 16" and the "to hit" was identical. But you have seen dice come up with weird numbers. While low, it is possible to get two hits from Panzer C. Just like me not ranging in smoke (with rerolls), needing a 3+ twice in one game! FYI - 0.01% chance of that happening (3% that it happens once in a game).
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea of speeding things up. In fact, 99% of the time, you grab your dice and roll and it does not matter. But as Joe commented on the FoW site, how about this example:
1 T-34 is 20" away from a platoon of 5 Panzers. The 1 T-34 can see all of them. There are 9 T-34s that can see 1 and only 1 of the Panzers and they are 22" away. Do you grab your dice then? In that case, it matters - right? You would have to assume (statistics) that if 4 hits are recorded, then 3 of those came from the back 9 tanks. And those hits can only be applied to the 1 valid target. If you just grabbed and rolled, you would allocate hits to 4 Panzers. And that is correct??
The real issue that we had was:
1) There are times when rolling separately matters. Speed dice only works when both sides agree (says as much in the rules).
2) When one player does not believe he needs to roll separately and refuses to do so after being asked, the wheels fall off the game.
3) When that same player starts raising their voice and accuses the other of not knowing the rules and says very loudly / yells: "Why are you arguing with me!!" - that is no fun.
So in this case, I will take the "technically you are correct." I agreed that placing 2 hits on the one tank was not approriate, but his reasoning for why it was not appropriate was simply wrong.
Same situation with your T-34's, yes you would just roll them all.
ReplyDeleteLet the defender put them where he wants. Just know that you can only apply a max of 2 hits to the other 4 tanks (assuming Full RoF), and the rest go to 1 tank.
So if there are 4 hits to divy up. the defender could put all 4 on the 1 tank.
Or
2 hits between the other 4 tanks
(max of 1 hit each)
and 2 hits on the 1 tank.
You save a lot of time, and argument if you just do it this way.
And odds are if you did it by individual tank, more often then not, it will be close to the same outcome.
Plus giving the defender a bit more choice this way takes 'some' of the luck away.
Ya, he was totally incorrect, and shouldn't have flown off the handle. Doing this way is a save time, and works out anyway.
Sounds like he was getting all pissy thinking he knew the rules when he really didn't.
But you and I have discussed many times, the "Egrish" of the rules. Its written so poorly, more people get the rules wrong then get them right.
B I N G O
ReplyDeleteWe have a winner.