Blast!

[Uncle_Joe]

OK, from the Q&A, it is currently ruled that Blast affects all units in the hex including those being transported. While that doesnt make as much sense for halftracks, it makes a good deal of sense for 'riders' on the back of tanks. The latter is FAR FAR FAR more common in the game than the former and without it, leads to more power for the KV/Cossack/Spotter combo.

It now appears that the ruling is 'under review'. What are other peoples' thoughts on it?

For me, I think they should keep it where the Blast hits everything BUT errata Fighting Platform to include "and the transported unit is not subjected to the Blast SA". Its already beyond stupid that the riders on tanks are immune to outside fire while apparently still able to command or call for fire etc. Giving them COMPLETE immunity to all fire (including 'area' fire) makes it even worse.

So, if the hang-up is that halftrack mounted units are suffering from the ruling, then I say so be it. They are rarely used anyways whereas I see units riding tanks every game I play the Russians. Anything that keeps down the little cheese combos is a good thing IMO. And I define cheese combos as things that defy reality but have a telling effect in game (like Angriff and BMWs or Cavalry in Jeeps etc).

Finally, if Blast is ruled not to be able to effect units being transported, then I would be OK with that IF units transported cannot use their SAs (unless in a Fighting Platform). That would allow for tanks to carry immune troops (dumb, but OK), but it does not allow those troops to abuse the immunity as much.

Anyone else have opinions to submit to help WotC make the call?

[Mr_G]

Blast should hit everything, even units in halftracks. If a unit is in a half track an is hit by any current unit with blast as of now, it's dead wether it's immune to blast or not : halftracks have 2 defense and most units with blast have enough AT values to destroy it, ergo destroying the rider. Making an errata for it would be a pointless add of rulings.

As for the riders on the tanks, I don't mind them being immune while riding and still being able to use their SA since it might represent them taking cover behind said tank.

[shadowhooch]

Blast should hit everything, even units in halftracks. If a unit is in a half track an is hit by any current unit with blast as of now, it's dead wether it's immune to blast or not : halftracks have 2 defense and most units with blast have enough AT values to destroy it, ergo destroying the rider. Making an errata for it would be a pointless add of rulings.

As for the riders on the tanks, I don't mind them being immune while riding and still being able to use their SA since it might represent them taking cover behind said tank.

Ahhh, the mighty Cossack striking fear into the enemy by hiding behind the tank. Seems reasonable :D

[Mr_G]

Ahhh, the mighty Cossack striking fear into the enemy by hiding behind the tank. Seems reasonable :D

LOL well, almost all SAs... still, if I knew cossacks were coming at me behind mountains of steel, I'd still be scared

[Uncle_Joe]

Blast should hit everything, even units in halftracks. If a unit is in a half track an is hit by any current unit with blast as of now, it's dead wether it's immune to blast or not : halftracks have 2 defense and most units with blast have enough AT values to destroy it, ergo destroying the rider. Making an errata for it would be a pointless add of rulings.

I concur. Its not a situation that is going to happen often (at all) anyways and changing the ruling is worse for the far more common situation.

As for the riders on the tanks, I don't mind them being immune while riding and still being able to use their SA since it might represent them taking cover behind said tank.

Then why cant a spotter hide in a BUILDING and call for fire with immunity? Surely that would be better cover than behind a tank. And he has to be riding it to move at tank-speed which does not leave a whole lot of cover.

There is no other place on the entire field where a unit can be and be immune to fire. But on the back of a tank, thats OK? Sorry, that just makes no reality sense to me and it makes no game sense to me either (the only place on the board you can put your leader to not be able to be hit by aircraft is on the tank... :rolleyes: )

[fifleche]

If a tank rider cannot fire his SMG while on the back of a tank, why the heck could he triangulate some coordinates, do the calulations, report them on a map & make a call on the radio, speaking over the roar of the engine/weapons, tell me?

:confused:

Nah, I'd say it must go. It's the same thing about a comissar's SA. I mean, he can't fire his gun at the enemy, but he can still pistol-whip with 100% accuracy any ally within 100 yards and be sure of a kill. Dumb & unrealistic.

[fifleche]

LOL well, almost all SAs... still, if I knew cossacks were coming at me behind mountains of steel, I'd still be scared...of the mountains of steel, that is. Not the guy with a briefcase/map case/notepad/whatever.

[Mr_G]

...of the mountains of steel, that is. Not the guy with a briefcase/map case/notepad/whatever.

Well that's gotta be some powerful papers to have attack values of 8/5! Ouch on that papercut! :D

[Mr_G]

If a tank rider cannot fire his SMG while on the back of a tank, why the heck could he triangulate some coordinates, do the calulations, report them on a map & make a call on the radio, speaking over the roar of the engine/weapons, tell me?

He doesn't reveal his position since he doesn't fire on the enemy. A group of men firing some rounds on an enemy will draw fire, not some guy who points his head from behind a big-ass tank for 5 seconds...

Nah, I'd say it must go. It's the same thing about a comissar's SA. I mean, he can't fire his gun at the enemy, but he can still pistol-whip with 100% accuracy any ally within 100 yards and be sure of a kill. Dumb & unrealistic.
If you're hiding behind a tank with a commisar, maybe your biggest concern isn't him threatening you with his pistol anyway :D

[Pasalades]

If a tank rider cannot fire his SMG while on the back of a tank, why the heck could he triangulate some coordinates, do the calulations, report them on a map & make a call on the radio, speaking over the roar of the engine/weapons, tell me?

:confused:

Nah, I'd say it must go. It's the same thing about a comissar's SA. I mean, he can't fire his gun at the enemy, but he can still pistol-whip with 100% accuracy any ally within 100 yards and be sure of a kill. Dumb & unrealistic.

The SA for the commisar could just means he could order a soldier to shoot himself or his buddy. ;) Oi that's weird.

[Colonel_Coo]

The real problem is Fighting Platform should allow everything (spotters, attacks, Defensive fire, Command abilities Blast effects) while things like ordinary Transport should be "as if he is not on the map". That would allow initiative bonus's but stop crap like Itemidation and if Germany get's one, things like ANGRIFF and the H'Furher removing disruption.

Fighting platform should allow it all, and transport without fighting platform should take it all away.

[Y2UAsk]

Here are the issues that are being wrestled with (and the reason why we're considering whether the original ruling was in error).

First, based purely on the semantics of the rules --

1. Blast and Transport are both special abilities.
2. Where special abilities conflict, can't trumps can.
3. Blast can affect every unit in the hex, but units on transports can't be attacked.

Second, from a game design standpoint, allowing Blast to affect riders also puts riders in double jeopardy. They can be killed directly by the Blast, and they also can be killed indirectly if the transport Vehicle is destroyed by the attack. This is an undesirable effect -- a single attack shouldn't get two chances to kill the same unit.

Third, it creates an unintended situation where a passenger can be disrupted (and frozen on the Vehicle) while the transport is not disrupted or damaged.

All of this tends to lead us back to the original interpretation that transported units shouldn't be affected by Blast.

That doesn't even begin to address real-world considerations, where there are clearly two different classes of transport -- halftracks and everything else. We're considering whether there's a way to differentiate these based on Fighting Platform that is simple, elegant, and doesn't require so much rewriting of rules and ability descriptions that it constitutes a 2nd edition of the game.

Steve :confused:

[TomServo]

Steve, have you seen the Exposed Transport SA that HHR came up with?

[Irish]

IMHO (and as I said in another thread), the Blast SA should interact with soldier units in transport with the exception of units in transport on Fighting Platform SA "equipped" vehicles. My reasoning for this is that an soldiers riding on top of a tank or sitting in a jeep would be highly vunerable to any nearby 150mm shell or rocket detonations. The halftracks were designed for two primary reasons, one- give infantry the ability to keep up with the armored formations, and two-to do so while providing them with some protection against small arms fire and shrapnel.
In game terms, I repeat, in game terms the small arms protection is provided by the fact that "most" Soldier units cannot attack vehicles outside of range 1 and in most cases would only be able to disrupt an undamaged halftrack at range 1. However, if soldiers riding "inside" a halftrack are subjected to a separate attack under the Blast SA, this totally negates one of the primary the purposes of using an APC. The halftrack can still be targeted, and more than likely will not fare too well considering the stats of the units that have the Blast SA, but by using the Fighting Platform SA as an exception to Blast, this will remove the possibility of the even "wonkier" situation of the halftrack surviving but the soldier unit inside being destroyed separately.


Well said Steve....

[Uncle_Joe]

Or just leave it such that transported units are immune to attack but cant use their SAs (if desired, change Fighting Platform such that it allows them).

To me, that is best that can be hoped for within the current framework. It prevents any potential rules problems and closes loopholes on some of the extremely gamey combos that will have no direct counter otherwise.

[Irish]

Or just leave it such that transported units are immune to attack but cant use their SAs (if desired, change Fighting Platform such that it allows them).

To me, that is best that can be hoped for within the current framework. It prevents any potential rules problems and closes loopholes on some of the extremely gamey combos that will have no direct counter otherwise.

Joe I'll repspectfully disagree with you on this one, I see no reason why a guy riding on a tank etc. couldn't talk on a radio and direct an airstrike in on a target or walk an artillery barrage on to one. I also don't see why a commander could not "lead" his troops from on top of a tank or riding in an opened top vehicle.
However, if they add submarines to the game I'm with you 100%. :D

[Uncle_Joe]

I dont see a logical reason why they could not either. But then again, I find no logical reason why they cant be attacked either. So, in this case if you are going to grant them immunity, then in the name of game balance, they should not be able to use their abilities.

I'd far prefer your suggestion above, but they dont want to muddle the rules. I'd just as soon leave it as is and make units a Fighting Platform immune (and I believe that is gist of your suggestion, right?). But if we cant have that for whatever reason, then immune soldiers should not have the ability to influence the battle with SAs IMO. Its not realism, its game balance.

[Y2UAsk]

Steve, have you seen the Exposed Transport SA that HHR came up with?Yep. Something similar is on the table ... along with a slew of other things.

Steve

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep. Something similar is on the table ... along with a slew of other things.

Awesome. Now that would be cool.

Personally, all I ask is that gameplay be considered first on issues over 'special abilities', combos, and 'cool' factor.

[MektonZero]

As for the riders on the tanks, I don't mind them being immune while riding and still being able to use their SA since it might represent them taking cover behind said tank.

Shrapnel is an area effect weapon, you can't easily hide behind something the size of a vehicle to avoid it because the next round might go off behind the vehicle and you can't run back around to the front at several thousand feet per second to outrun the fragments.

[MektonZero]

Yep. Something similar is on the table ... along with a slew of other things.

A slew you say.

Come on, at least give us poor grunts a hint or three. Feel free to use weasel words like maybe, might and possibly so that if things change you can alway say it wasn't set in stone. :D

In any case, keep plugging them holes as best you can. :)

[Richter von Manthofen]

Y2UAsk:

Here are the issues that are being wrestled with (and the reason why we're considering whether the original ruling was in error).

First, based purely on the semantics of the rules --

1. Blast and Transport are both special abilities. right
2. Where special abilities conflict, can't trumps can. right
3. Blast can affect every unit in the hex, but units on transports can't be attacked. Please tell me where in the Blast SA is the word can???

Second, from a game design standpoint, allowing Blast to affect riders also puts riders in double jeopardy. They can be killed directly by the Blast, and they also can be killed indirectly if the transport Vehicle is destroyed by the attack. This is an undesirable effect -- a single attack shouldn't get two chances to kill the same unit.

The comfortable position helps against most attacks only a few units with blast have achance... so I see no doulbe jeopardy...

Third, it creates an unintended situation where a passenger can be disrupted (and frozen on the Vehicle) while the transport is not disrupted or damaged. Easy: Mounting and dismounting should be no movement just made instead of movement.

All of this tends to lead us back to the original interpretation that transported units shouldn't be affected by Blast.

That doesn't even begin to address real-world considerations, where there are clearly two different classes of transport -- halftracks and everything else. We're considering whether there's a way to differentiate these based on Fighting Platform that is simple, elegant, and doesn't require so much rewriting of rules and ability descriptions that it constitutes a 2nd edition of the game.

Steve :confused:

So please keep the Blast affects ALL units interpretation.

RvM

[NorthernRommel]

Shrapnel is an area effect weapon, you can't easily hide behind something the size of a vehicle to avoid it because the next round might go off behind the vehicle and you can't run back around to the front at several thousand feet per second to outrun the fragments.

People behind a tank or on a tank should get basic cover on '6'. Tanks were often used as a form of cover -- with infantry following close behind them. Thats why some tanks like Shermans had phones on the rear end so the officer outside could talk on the tank intercom to the tank commander.

Those using an exposed tank for transport should get no cover.

Not allowing infantry on the back of tanks to get hit is just plain silly.

[Mr_G]

Shrapnel is an area effect weapon, you can't easily hide behind something the size of a vehicle to avoid it because the next round might go off behind the vehicle and you can't run back around to the front at several thousand feet per second to outrun the fragments.

...and paratroopers cannot beam down with scalpel precision but in this game it is explained as "hidden until revealed"

troops immune to fire while on a tank with transport could be hiding behind, they cannot be attacked because they do not reveal their position by firing, all we see is a big tank.

Also, if you look closely at the other pages, you can see that I'm actually FOR Blast to affect the rider... I'm just explaining away lame-o reasons why this could work one way or another for flavor purposes only, god I need to get a life! :cool:

[fifleche]

troops immune to fire while on a tank with transport could be hiding behind, they cannot be attacked because they do not reveal their position by firing, all we see is a big tank.Yes, they run at speed 4 behind those t-34's... :rolleyes:

[Y2UAsk]

No tank driver with any brains would stop under an artillery barrage to 'give cover' to infantry. He'd drive through as fast as possible, knowing that getting out of the kill zone is the best way to protect both his passengers and himself.

Steve

[Y2UAsk]

As a hint -- right now, the force of opinion seems to be leaning toward the letter of the rules, which would mean passengers are unaffected by Blast. But the decision is not yet final. Why? Because only a small fraction of AAM players read this forum, and only those who do would get that information. We'd essentially wind up with two different rulesets out there, which would cause much confusion at official tournaments.

As others have pointed out, tournament organizers are free to impose their own restrictions. They just can't relax any DCI regulations.

Steve

[Uncle_Joe]

As a hint -- right now, the force of opinion seems to be leaning toward the letter of the rules, which would mean passengers are unaffected by Blast. But the decision is not yet final. Why? Because only a small fraction of AAM players read this forum, and only those who do would get that information. We'd essentially wind up with two different rulesets out there, which would cause much confusion at official tournaments.

But thats why you have official errata. Only those people who are concerned about such things bother to check errata or official site, that is true. But THOSE people are your hardcore players who are spreading it to other folks. If they are 'ignored' as too small of a minority, the game takes a hit.

Really if you want to leave it with the letter of the law, thats fine. Just amend Transport to 'units being transported cannot use their SAs'. That removes the loophole created by the transport which is the whole reason people want Blast to hit riders in the first place.

Allowing unrealistic and cheesy combos to rule the roost just because only a small minority might read the changes is not a good precedent to set. I think the demographics of this game are much different than many CCGs and/or other collectible games (based on polls and my own experience). If the game becomes a hunt for the right exploits and cheese combo rather than relying on light tactics and sound force contruction, I believe the core of your market for it will begin to dry up. Official changes are needed because without that, it makes it difficult to play with people you dont know and that makes it less likely to spread the game.

[Colonel_Coo]

Part of the problem is targeting rules.

To shoot at anything you have to have a valid target. To me the Blast (like Rocket Salvo) allows you to attack everything in the area by hitting a valid target. This includes hidden snipers and units outside of LOS.

The tank is the valid target. The unit under transport is not. Shoot the tank and you get a free "non-targeting attack" against every unit in the hex. If targeting applied you couldn't attack your own units. The Blast SA goes around targeting and everything that restricts it. The transport just stops targeting.

Go by the card and the unit that is being transported gets whacked. This is historically accurate for 20mm cannons to take out a Soviet tank. They did routinely.

In this game you'd think Germany lost in about 8 weeks after foolishly starting a fight with the USSR. You'd also swear that Germany had to have made 100,000 tanks to have any left in 1944 and the Americans loved to engage in tank on tank engagements.

[tragicmishap]

Here's the HHR SA Exposed Transport:

This unit can carry one Soldier. A friendly non-Artillery, non-Cavalry Soldier can board or dismount this unit instead of moving during the movement phase. Soldiers carried by this unit may be attacked. Soldiers that receive a disrupted counter dismount instantly.


So, I like the dismount instantly thing, but I think they should at least get a cover roll of some sort. Perhaps at a -1. And "non-Motorcycle" should be added to the restriction as well.

[Mr_G]

No tank driver with any brains would stop under an artillery barrage to 'give cover' to infantry. He'd drive through as fast as possible, knowing that getting out of the kill zone is the best way to protect both his passengers and himself.

Steve

Then please explain why troops transported on a tank are immune to attacks in this game?
I know there isn't an awnser, but I was only trying to make one anyway. it's all just for fluff so it really has no impact on the game; infantry still remains invulnerable to attacks and I still step in dog poo when I walk out at this time of year. :(

[Aries]

I remember reading somewhere that better trained or experience infantry would tend to stay away from friendly tanks during an attack as they are large targets that draw a lot of fire.

Additionally, if the tank was taken out it tended to have bad consequences to anybody standing too near it (much less to anyone on it). This brew-up and collaterial damage is only modeled if the infantry are on the tank in AAM.

If you were to say the infantry are not really riding the tank but walking behind it for cover then you must also reduce the speed of the tank to that of the infantry.

[Mr_G]

And for the tanks providing cover, well I was pointing out that it works for MGs, and regular fire (not mortars or artillery). In fact, my grandfather's brother used a sherman for cover against enemy soldiers in Italy, since he survived to tell this, I am guessing that it worked.

[Y2UAsk]

It worked reasonably well against small arms coming from a point source, such as an MG. It's less effective against fire that's coming from a wider front and next to useless against indirect HE, such as mortars and howitzers. You're better off just lying down in those cases. And any tank that stops in the field of fire is going to attract artillery fire of every type and caliber.

However, when interpreting the published rules, these real-world considerations have to take a back seat to the letter of the law. Aside from issuing errata, which has drawbacks of its own (as noted above), we are constrained by what has been published.

Steve

[MektonZero]

...and paratroopers cannot beam down with scalpel precision but in this game it is explained as "hidden until revealed"

Elite enemy troops managed to surprise the enemy enough in WW2 by appearing where it should have been impossible for them to appear that I can live with it as a SA.


troops immune to fire while on a tank with transport could be hiding behind, they cannot be attacked because they do not reveal their position by firing, all we see is a big tank.

And when I'm firing on a tank from both sides, where exactly is the troop hiding then? :D

Also, if you look closely at the other pages, you can see that I'm actually FOR Blast to affect the rider... I'm just explaining away lame-o reasons why this could work one way or another for flavor purposes only, god I need to get a life! :cool:

I'm not questioning which side your on, we're just kicking stuff around until we can start tearing into the previews for Set 4. It beats trying to get a life. :cool:

[Mr_G]

I'm not questioning which side your on, we're just kicking stuff around until we can start tearing into the previews for Set 4. It beats trying to get a life. :cool:

hmm previews... the old bait and chomp weeks... can't wait :D

[Y2UAsk]

Here's the resolution ... (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=133567#post133567)

Steve

[Colonel_Coo]

Here's the resolution ... (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=133567#post133567)

Steve
Yeah! Bravo!

Hello mr. cossak, say hello to my sIG!

[fifleche]

Death to the KV-1/Cossak combo!

Woot!

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, not the ideal solution, but it still works in the framework of the game. Its certainly better for the game in the long run IMO. At least if there is going to be cheese, there is a chance for a counter to it.

I still think too much time/effort is spent on interpreting the exact wording of rules/SA rather than on what it OUGHT to be by common sense and game balance. I believe that is the reason for the stupid things like the Rhino/SS issue as well...its the wording not the common sense/game balance that is being used.

[MektonZero]

I still think too much time/effort is spent on interpreting the exact wording of rules/SA rather than on what it OUGHT to be by common sense and game balance. I believe that is the reason for the stupid things like the Rhino/SS issue as well...its the wording not the common sense/game balance that is being used.

Common sense left a long, long time ago.

"Common sense is a poor guide when playing games. Apply the rules exactly as they're written." - the offical WotC rules answer guy Y2UAsk

[Uncle_Joe]

Common sense left a long, long time ago.

"Common sense is a poor guide when playing games. Apply the rules exactly as they're written." - the offical WotC rules answer guy Y2UAsk

Yeah, I read that before and it was disturbing then. I guess its kind of hard for WotC to get Magic out their veins. When I remember playing Magic, you practically had to have a legal degree to either compete or even just be able to figure out all the wording.

[Y2UAsk]

That's the difference between a game intended for casual play (which does not imply 'not intense') vs. one that must hold up in a tournament environment. Competitive players will bend every loophole to their advantage, and those with strong personalities will run roughshod over their meeker (? -- more meek?) opponents and judges. It's important for there to be as few loopholes as possible. Players who aren't versed in TCGs find the rigor of the language disconcerting at first, but you get used to it. Once players adjust, it settles more arguments than it causes.

Steve

[MektonZero]

That's the difference between a game intended for casual play (which does not imply 'not intense') vs. one that must hold up in a tournament environment. Competitive players will bend every loophole to their advantage, and those with strong personalities will run roughshod over their meeker (? -- more meek?) opponents and judges. It's important for there to be as few loopholes as possible. Players who aren't versed in TCGs find the rigor of the language disconcerting at first, but you get used to it. Once players adjust, it settles more arguments than it causes.

Steve

Either way the rulings go, my hat's off to you Steve, as the front man for WotC you put up with more than your share of abuse and I'd like to thank you for your enduring professionalism in the face of sometimes extreme provocation. :D

[DocD]

I like the ruling. Makes sense to me. Blast on!

[WotC JW]

Either way the rulings go, my hat's off to you Steve, as the front man for WotC you put up with more than your share of abuse and I'd like to thank you for your enduring professionalism in the face of sometimes extreme provocation. :D

Hear hear!
/roundofapplause

[Mr_G]

I was hoping that Blast would be ruled this way; this will counter some cheesy combos. yay :cool:

[Richter von Manthofen]

Blast em away ;)

I like the ruling.

And units are still save on transports If you have no unit with Blast...

[scorpnoire]

Blast 'em!

If a HE round really should hit a halftrack, belive me, the passengers won't stand a chance anyways.

And yes, it evens out some cheesy combos.

[XAos]

If passengers on halftracks & russian tanks (and the easy-8, but who plays that...)
have 2 sets of attack rolls to be killed by "Blast" (once for the transport & once for the passenger) No one would ever play those units. The KV-1 & T34/76 are barely playable with the transport rules as they are.

[tragicmishap]

Uh, I think only one. One roll, the actual attack, goes against the vehicle. The other roll, the Blast SA roll, goes against the passenger.

[tragicmishap]

A couple things:

The hidden until revealed explanation for paratroopers if fine, but then why didn't they make the player write down which hex the paras were in and keep it secret? I suppose because that would be too complicated. You'd have to number every hex then, or at least every hex you wanted your opponent to think the paras where in. But the way the game works, the player with paras can decide where to put them whenever he wants. There's a difference between that and the 'hidden until revealed' explanation. With the 'hidden until revealed' thing, the paras should be there before they know how the battle is going to shape up. Maybe a house rule is in order?

On Transport and cover behind vehicles: I think that as infantry you'd want to be behind tanks if you were fighting only infantry. If your tanks were fighting other tanks, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near ANY tanks. Maybe for a house rule infantry could get cover behind tanks only from other infantry? Perhaps the tank could block LOS completely but if the tank gets destroyed, the infantry have to get rolled against for shrapnel or something. Anyway, that's a question for house rules.

[XAos]

Uh, I think only one. One roll, the actual attack, goes against the vehicle. The other roll, the Blast SA roll, goes against the passenger.
But if the vehicle is destroyed, then so is the passenger. So either attack roll could kill the passenger.

[tragicmishap]

Yes, that's true. But the units with Blast don't have great AV stats. Only the Sherman 105 has more than a 6 unless you count the Brummbar/siG's close range attack. I suppose that would blast the heck out of jeeps and halftracks, but the Russian tanks and the Easy 8 should not be afraid of that. Anyway, don't you think it makes sense that if the vehicle is destroyed the passenger would be too?

edit: The Sherman 105 actually doesn't have Blast. Perhaps this is the reason why it doesn't?