RFCM

I'm a turret turner.

Thanks Martin. Of course it means assaults. That's obvious now you've said it!! 😀

I checked through the shooting chapters for any other reference to removing a firing dice, but found none.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the reference on p52?

I've read the rules many many times so imagine my surprise when flicking through this evening I read something I hadn't noticed before!

P52 Scenery Effect
Woods & buildings on foot

-1d6 when targeted within it

I guess just being five words out is easy to miss. Ive never played removing shooting dice when firing into wood or building.

Is this meant to be remove 1d6 per action point of firing? Or 1d6 from the total per base (as per BAR)? Is number of HE firing dice reduced or just small shooting?

As a play tester it is a bit embarrassing to ask. But ive not noticed this before.

Tbh Martin he did smile when we discovered he wouldn't retire off table.

But then became somewhat frustrated. I did the gentlemanly thing and went to the kitchen to put the kettle on. I did my celebration dance there, out of sight.

He's my long standing gaming mate and a good guy. He took it all in good spirits once he had a fresh cuppa in his hand.

I spent last Friday enjoying five back to back PBI games. One of which gave a memorable moment 😀.

I brought a veteran Soviet Recce company (first time used), mounted in half tracks. No tanks or guns... risky! Faced an average Heer coy with two Stugs.

Anyways, long story short.

I send a mounted platoon all the way down the table to defender row 2 on GT 1.

Causes opponent some worries but seeing i have no anti-tank he brings on two Stugs arriving on his base edge road in square facing my mounted platoon. Yikes!!

My turn. Thinking i'm russian, i'm not running away. I decide to dismount and assault as i was confident I'd have enough dice to win the assault and thought the stugs would then fall back off-table and be lost.

I get enough action points, dismount four SMG bases and charge madly into an open square containing two STUGs.

I lose one base to here they come.

Assault sees me get four hits to his none(lucky!!!).

Each Stug gets two hits allocated and we check the rules. Now i discover that if target is on table edge then the fall back is to left or right, not off the table. Ive cocked it up, he'll still have two stugs facing my inf platoon!! I should have run for cover.

But then

He throws to save the stugs. Two rolls each. He says out loud those dangerous words that should never be said "so, I need anything but a one" and rolls....

Stug one - 5,1
Stug two - 6,1

BOOM. BOOM.

Funny thing is that if i'd checked the assault rules first to see fall ball was to left or right i wouldn't have done it.

Going back to the casualty removal question.

How do you guys manage action points when a foot base moves into a square containing a casualty and other foot bases. The square with the casualty has not been activated yet.

Can the base that moves in expend 2 of their action points to remove the casualty leaving the other bases who were already in that square free to be activated without the 2AP needing to be spent on casualty removal.

I've played that as yes. PBI being sequential so the foot base activated earlier has dealt with the casualty so when the square is then activated subsequently there isn't a casualty so no deduction of 2APs.

Asking because of the reference to the whole square having to pay the 2APs. I agree with that if the casualty is in the square at the time that square is activated.  But the reference to whole square made me question how I play this when a base moves into a yet to be activated square and removes the casualty.

Way I play desant is...

While carrying troops tank is effectively a transport so max four foot bases.

My desant foot platoons are small, just 8 bases, usually veteran.

So two tanks required per platoon.

In new edition of rules there is a problem in that the whole company has to be in transports, or none. But there is a limit on tanks to one unit of four.

You can either ignore that (I do) and have a company three platoons with two tank units of three each. Or put one platoon on unit of two tanks and put the rest in halftracks or Lorries.

Note any support weapons (mortars / MMG) can't be put on a tank. They are in a lorry or half track.

Great. Thanks Martin.

I'm happy because that was my view. My central point being "you can't win if all your bases are lost!"

Quote from: martin goddard on March 01, 2025, 04:10:11 PMSounds bloody and nail biting.

martin

I'm finding pretty much every game is nail biting with PBI25.

We played four games and the biggest VP difference was 17!

It certainly was nail biting!!

The defending platoon was still in good strength.

I don't use the optional die hard rule.

The 3 attacking bases - all that was left of a platoon - won the assault two kills to one. But that took them down to two surviving bases and instant removal.

There was one surviving defender base in the target square. The discussion centred on whether the target lost assault outcome should still be applied to the defender when there were no assaulting bases left to occupy the square.

I enjoyed a day of PBI last week. Four games, all close.

We had an assault result that I hadn't seen in 15 years of PBI. And it led to an extended debate.

Situation.

Attacker launched a close assault with the last three bases of a platoon against an objective with three opposing bases in it.

Assault result.....
Assaulter rolled two '6s'
Defender rolled one.

This meant that the assaulting platoon being down to two bases is 'removed instantly it doesn't get to finish what it was doing' rule 35 p78

However, the assault result was assaulter inflicted 2 kills v target's 1. So the target had a base remaining in the target square but had lost the assault.

P114 assault outcomes states 'target always wins unless assaulter achieves more kills or wipes rather out'

So the debate centred on whether the surviving target base having lost the assault should withdraw. Or, as the assaulter bases had been 'instantly removed' the target would remain.

After much discussion we applied the assault outcome as written. So both things happened.... The surviving target base withdrew, and fall back dice rolled, and the attacking platoon removed as down to two bases.

Question for this wise group is should the defending base withdraw because assaulter had inflicted more hits. Or does the assaulter being removed override that?

Made me think that there could be a result which sees the assaulter wiped out but still inflicting more kills on the target. Can you win an assault if assaulters are all removed? Or are the defenders so 'shocked'. by the kills received they retreat irrespective of there being no assaulters left.

I have no problem with templates. I use them in all games. Obvs in PBI they are all 12" x 6" rectangle. But work just fine for me.

Quote from: Sean Clark on January 19, 2025, 10:46:58 AM

Quote from: martin goddard on January 19, 2025, 10:45:50 AMIt can be very nice to go from 7 to 36 in one step.


martin

Not so nice to go from 35 back to 7 though.

There is the cursed thought "Just one more roll". As soon as those words enter your head you are doomed.

Also useful if you are defending and choose to hold all three objectives from the start.

This means that one will be distant from the PC.

And the isolated one will usually attract the attackers attention from the start.

Being able to give that square 5 APs cs an opponent reroll makes it a tough nut to crack.