Aplogies if this is the wrong forum or location for some rules questions that have cropped up while I have been digging my way through the Modern rules system. Im sure I will have more as I work more through the rules.
1) In the example given for creating a force for a scenario on page 109, it lists the Soviet T-62A as 173 points each, yet the actual charts list the T-62A as 163 each. Which is correct?
2)MP's 07.02.07D-What is the reason behind a stand with an attached MP being allowed to fire either its normal weapons or the attached MPs and not both? Or am I reading the paragraph wrong?
3)Overruns 08.06.06-A failed Cohesion roll for the defender is made on the +6 Colomn of the CRT and the a failed cohesion roll is for the attacker is made on the +2 Colomn of the CRT correct? Im going to guess that if the cohesion test is passed for both sides then there is no effect. And after the overruns are done are the survivors on both sides now engaed in Close assault?
4)What was the resoning behind laying out the weapon and equipment charts by type rather than by nationality? Seems a bit time consuming to have to flip through several pages to get the info on 1 nations equipment. Guess thats just a personal prefrence of mine. Nothing stopping me from laying out a spreadhseet with all the stats for any nation I want to run.
Thats all Ihave for now. Im sure I will have some more crop up over the next few days as I get more of thew rules read and hopefully I will be able to get a game in very soon.
Thanks for all and any assitance!
Devin
GHQ Modern rules questions
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Steelwhip
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:47 am
- Location: Seattle Wa
GHQ Modern rules questions
Member of the StuG Appreciation Society-Real men dont need turrets!
-
Whistle Beek
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:26 am
Hey, Devin, I think I cxan help here:
1] I'd go with the table.
2] I've always assumed the presence of a Man-Packed anti-tank or Anti-aircraft weapon team merely changed the firepower value of the parent stand. I don't thinlk I like the idea of allowing stands with man-packed teams assigned to be allowed to fire more than once per turn if they are Tech-level 2 or lower. My read of the intention wasn't to allow stands to fire more often. If that were the case, the author would have allowed separate attacks for each weapon on a vehicle. For example: a tank stand where each tank has one cannon and two machine guns is not allowed to fire three times each phase. Its firepower number represents the cumulative effect of all weapons mounted on it. In the end, I think the question should be left up to you and the other players in your group, but beware of overcomplicating things.
3] That's correct. And the way I always game it. Yup. We've taken to calling it a 'non-event' when both forces pass the cohesion tests. Nope, vehicle stands may perform overruns, but may not Close Assault. Personnel stands can Close Assault, but cannot perform Overruns.
Personnel stands that survive overruns may Close Assault next turn.
Since Overruns take place before Close Assaults (as part of movement), any stand attempting to Assault is automatically caught on the move by the overrunning vehicles before the assault takes place. Hence, the overrun sort of 'short-circuits' the assault.
4] I really don't know, but would guess that in the modern rules, many countries make use of imported weapons. When putting the charts together, it might have been simpler to do all the tanks at once, then all the anti-tank weapons, etc.
One last thing. I know a lot of this stuff because I ask my questions directly to the author. You can do the same thing. In
future, simply address your questions to:
GHQWargames@Yahoo.com
John has always gotten back to me, and I understand the game system better because of this handy service.
Whistlebeek
1] I'd go with the table.
2] I've always assumed the presence of a Man-Packed anti-tank or Anti-aircraft weapon team merely changed the firepower value of the parent stand. I don't thinlk I like the idea of allowing stands with man-packed teams assigned to be allowed to fire more than once per turn if they are Tech-level 2 or lower. My read of the intention wasn't to allow stands to fire more often. If that were the case, the author would have allowed separate attacks for each weapon on a vehicle. For example: a tank stand where each tank has one cannon and two machine guns is not allowed to fire three times each phase. Its firepower number represents the cumulative effect of all weapons mounted on it. In the end, I think the question should be left up to you and the other players in your group, but beware of overcomplicating things.
3] That's correct. And the way I always game it. Yup. We've taken to calling it a 'non-event' when both forces pass the cohesion tests. Nope, vehicle stands may perform overruns, but may not Close Assault. Personnel stands can Close Assault, but cannot perform Overruns.
Personnel stands that survive overruns may Close Assault next turn.
Since Overruns take place before Close Assaults (as part of movement), any stand attempting to Assault is automatically caught on the move by the overrunning vehicles before the assault takes place. Hence, the overrun sort of 'short-circuits' the assault.
4] I really don't know, but would guess that in the modern rules, many countries make use of imported weapons. When putting the charts together, it might have been simpler to do all the tanks at once, then all the anti-tank weapons, etc.
One last thing. I know a lot of this stuff because I ask my questions directly to the author. You can do the same thing. In
future, simply address your questions to:
GHQWargames@Yahoo.com
John has always gotten back to me, and I understand the game system better because of this handy service.
Whistlebeek
-
Steelwhip
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:47 am
- Location: Seattle Wa
1)Kinda figured...just wanted to make sure=)
2)That does make sence now that I look at it in the way you presented it, and yes, overcomplication is a bad thing=)
3) Ahhhh ok....I hadnt read to indepth to the overrun/assault procedures. Looks like I didnt make the connection and coralation.
4)Ahhh thats true to. Had not thought of it that way.
If I have further questions I will will contact the source directley-probey wait until I have a bunch of them next time=)
now to just get a game or 2 in
thanks for the response!
Devin
2)That does make sence now that I look at it in the way you presented it, and yes, overcomplication is a bad thing=)
3) Ahhhh ok....I hadnt read to indepth to the overrun/assault procedures. Looks like I didnt make the connection and coralation.
4)Ahhh thats true to. Had not thought of it that way.
If I have further questions I will will contact the source directley-probey wait until I have a bunch of them next time=)
now to just get a game or 2 in
thanks for the response!
Devin
Member of the StuG Appreciation Society-Real men dont need turrets!