General de Brigade

[DCRBrown]

All,

Any thoughts on the below:

The 8-9 Result on the Destroyed Morale Test table would be:

AFV IMMOBILISED = The AFV has taken an immobilising hit and requires the player to immediately take a Retreat Morale Test to ascertain if the crew to stay with or more likely abandon the AFV. If they do pass they remain with the vehicle and may continue to fire but not move or pivot in any way for the rest of the game. (Turrets may traverse however.) An Immobilised marker should be placed on or next to the AFV. If they fail (Suppressed or worse result), the crew will abandon the AFV and it is considered destroyed. Any subsequent Immobilisation result will always immediately convert to a Destroyed result.

Opinion at the moment is that is not worth the added complication as crews staying with immobilised vehciles was rare in the extreme, which I'm inclined to agree with.

DB

[alanmccoubrey]

Dave, I agree with you here, I don't like the idea of crews staying in disabled vehicles. If you happen to be gaming the only instance I've ever known to be historically proven then allow the KV crew to fight to the last but most other crews had the sense to run away. Alan

[DCRBrown]

A,

Agreed, I can only recall a couple of instances throughout the war, (though there was a particularly heroic and poignant one about a crew stuck in a surrounded immobilized panzer in Stalingrad, I think).

Another player has suggested that this should really be a scenario special rule rather than a general rule, which I think is the way to go.

DB

[BillyS]

So why bother with an immobilise result, just class as destroyed/out of action. ? IMHO

[Alexb83]

I would say - on a damaged roll, throw a 1d6 and allow a chance for it to be immobilised (as well as the standard effects for damage).

Currently damage only amounts to a -1 to shooting? Mix it up a bit. 50/50 it reduces their speed by one category when damaged, the other 50% of the time it effects their firepower?

Might be overcomplicating it a bit, as each model isn't one tank.

[eoghan_mor]

I don't think this is necessary, for the reasons already given above. My preference is to keep it simple. Fair point for scenario based special rules.

Euan

[DCRBrown]

A,

Have given this a miss for BG-PG 2nd Ed - mainly for the reasons above.

Alex - Your idea has some merit but would this also mean that slow AFV's don't move if immobilised?

DB

[sgtsteiner]

Hi Dave

Yes keeping things simple/streamlined probably best.

These sorts of rules can always be 'published' here as Optional kind of deal ? maybe a PDF or similar if there are others ?

Still looking forward to Edition Deux

Gary
_________________
Gary Barr
N.Ireland UK

"Merry it was to laugh there, where death becomes absurd and life absurder. For power was on us as we slashed bones bare, not to feel sickness or remorse of murder."
Wilfred Owen

[Alexb83]

DB,

Seems harsh for the slow AFVs, doesn't it? Perhaps rather than reducing by one category, halve their movement (so there will always be /some/ mobility before destruction)

So your tank either suffers a reduction in firepower, or a reduction in manouverability (50/50 chance of each)

There are so many different ways to damage a tank that the -1 to shooting doesn't seem to encompass them all - though in the scale that the game plays at, it does well to represent a group of tanks with diminished effectiveness.

[Cacadores]

Crews might well stay with a dug-in tank though, since it's situation hasn't materially altered.
Or has it?

[Alexb83]

Well, there's a difference between a dug-in tank and one immobilised in the open - I think in the latter they would abandon it rather than sit in it waiting to get finished off.