RFCM

Rules => AK47 Republic => Rules FAQ and official clarifications => Topic started by: Tony on September 20, 2017, 11:03:07 PM

Title: Rules Query - Unit Composition
Post by: Tony on September 20, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
Dear All,

looking for help and a, I suspect, easy rules clarification on unit composition. I am definitely not a rules nazi, however coming back in to the game after some time away and with the new rules I have found a discrepancy which I would be grateful if someone could answer. On page 15 in para 11.1; point 10 states there may be no more than 3 heavy weapons per unit. Point 11 in the same list defines heavy weapons as RCL, missiles, mortars and HMGs and states there may be no more than 10 in an army including those on vehicles again including technicals.

However on page 19 in para 11.3 Sample Armies  Unit C of the People's Popular Front Army has 4 HMG technicals.

Simple question which is right? I would like the latter to be right as grouping heavy weapons into support companies feels right but I will live with whatever the answer is.

Tony
Title: Re: Rules Query - Unit Composition
Post by: Leslie BT on September 21, 2017, 06:12:07 PM
In my humble opinion the army is incorrect on page 19. The composition restrictions is correct.

Martin may have another opinion.
Title: Re: Rules Query - Unit Composition
Post by: Colonel Kilgore on October 01, 2023, 10:14:18 PM
Sorry to resurrect this one thread but, as I look to put forward a couple of forces for possible service at WWW, I have exactly the same question as Tony did here.

Can we have a ruling please, Martin?

Simon
Title: Re: Rules Query - Unit Composition
Post by: martin goddard on October 02, 2023, 07:40:41 AM
I will try to sort this out Tony. Sorry I missed it.
I am out of the planet fora couple of days then I will do it.
Sorry for the 6 year delay. Thinking takes a lot of time. :'(


martin :)
Title: Re: Rules Query - Unit Composition
Post by: Colonel Kilgore on October 02, 2023, 08:21:53 AM
If you want to make this an easy one, Martin, I think Les is probably right  ;)

Much easier to find that the example is not quite right than it is to somehow make an exception to the rule as written, I think!

Simon