AK People's Edition Rules Queries

[Sean Clark]

Dex

Traditionally in other RFCM games, partials can't go onto templates other than hills. Effectively, partials are there to give cover o  exposed, open squares amd are really useful on things like hills. Jungles and buildings already give +2 to saves so serve no purpose.

They can be used quote tactically when set up... but I've no idea what those tactics are 😁

[martin goddard]

I have made an error there Dex (first time ever). Partials cannot be on any template except hills. The amount of scenery needs to be present without either player having the choice to minimise it.

Partials Tactically
1. Put them in your arrival zones to give some cover.
2. If defending, avoid placing them  in contact with jungle or solid buildings so that any assault would be hard work. Opposite for attacker.
3.Make path with them leading from an arrival zone to any good cover.
4.Do not give any to that attacker side of the table. Make them expose themselves!
5. Partials can be very useful on rough hills, as combined with taking cover, they are  safe locations from which to shoot or be shot at.
6. Place them near a minefield, so that a quick dash across the mines can end in some sort of cover.

martin

[Dex13]

Thanks guys.

That resolves the apparent contradiction in the text. The tactical use seems the next challenge; got a game on tonight. Will report back.

[Dex13]

Terry and I had a good game last night. Some more queries and observations. Just spent an hour writing them up here for the system to log me out! So you'll have to wait until this evening!

A small defender win. Played nine turns over three hours and got the countdown to nine (delayed a bit by rules referencing and had to packup at club end).

[martin goddard]

Well, first of all the table looks great Dex.  That is one of the key criteria of AK. ie It needs to look good.
I look forward to your thoughts Dex.
If I ever do longer reply I copy it so that it is not lost work. That can be very annoying. Text also gets lost of someone else posts at a similar time. It just disappears (sad face).

Thanks for doing the work Dex.
Maybe AK will be done by Christmas (got that from all those war predictors).

martin

[Dex13]

Take Two!

Okay, as noted, it was a good game was we actually understood some concepts and the turns flowed faster as the evening progressed. However, there were still a few aspects where we scratched our and, despite referencing the rules, still had some uncertainty over the Rules As Written (RAW), version R.



Bonus Tokens and Battle Points:
We had skipped this in the previous game. The allocation of dice was straight forward enough, as was the method. However, we had a bit more discussion around the outcomes. We weren't sure whether each success itself generated a bonus or whether it was only the winning player who would walk away with bonuses. So, in 'The Leader' Terry rolled one success and I got three. We read this as me having two net successes and therefore I would get two bonus counters and two battle points whereas Terry would get none at all. This felt a bit of a departure from Reloaded in that only one side would ever had bonuses of a particular type. That might be deliberate in design. We did wonder whether an alternative reading, whereby I would get three bonuses and Terry one, with or without battle points, would create more in game action.

I made some chits to track the bonus tokens. However, I renamed 'The Equipment' to 'The Gear' as this took up less space.

We ran through the rest of this, each winning two bonus rounds and managed to end up with a tied result for battle points. The re-rolling on page 43 seemed clear but we were not sure whether the five re-roll attempts should be attempted with a new, single dice throw, or whether we would be re-rolling the same number of dice we had allocated to the random event.

In the end, we used a single dice. Terry won, the difference indicated a Sirocco, and he chose to attack.
That brought us on to deployment.

The table on page 45, Units on Table, bearing in mind we originally had a tie of battle points, does not have an option for Zero excess battle points. I am presuming that winning the tie dice off is counted as having another battle point to take you up to one? However, this didn't seem explicit.

Deployment/ Units on Table:
Although the name of the table gives the game away (on re-reading), on quick scanning during play we questioned whether the reference to foot and vehicle mean individual bases and individual elements or units of foot and vehicles. The re-reading, to me, now confirms it is units but maybe the table needs to specify this (e.g. on 1-2 Excess battle points the attacker places 2 foot units and 2 vehicle units).

Pinned and Return/Opportunity fire:
Re-reading RAW today, we played elements of pinned and return fire wrong (for example we didn't allow pinned elements to return subsequent return fire in same turn they were pinned – I see this was wrong). We also allowed units to be pinned through return fire which I see, RAW, was wrong. This restriction, on page 85, was not something we noticed so it might be one to highlight in the shooting / result tables.

Artillery:
 I was lucky enough to get this two or three times. We both really liked the process. Simple and effective. I did, however, feel a little gamey when I targeted the artillery on a empty square to catch two different units which were in the two adjacent squares. I wondered if it might be fairer to require the centre square to actually be occupied with a target?

Action Points and Movement:
We got this in the end I think but there were questions. We weren't sure, once the dice was allocated, whether different elements / bases, doing the same thing, would share the cost. For example, I want to move three bases out of an open square, that would cost 1 AP instead of three, if they all moved to the same square. However, if they each moved to different squares that would cost 3AP? What if they all fired from the different squares; would that be another 1 AP overall or 1 AP each?

Terry also suggested that, maybe, militia elements should be restricted to all doing the same thing.

The Scirocco:
We both liked this as a random 'thing' and it's process(ion) was straightforward enough RAW. However, I did query whether elements could fire or move into the squares covered by the Scirocco. We played as not. RAW didn't specify.

Overall:
We both enjoyed the game. We had a bit of a discussion as to whether taking territory is objective enough or whether the game should still have some specific objective locations. Our jury is still out on that. Basically as defending I deployed forward into good terrain and managed to avoid being evicted and, as such, that won me the game.

However, I am now looking to see what special terrain element I make. Terry has acquired a lovely Buddha statue for his. And I've nicked a technique from Sean Clarke on making templates...All good!

[John Watson]

When an army can buy an extra unit for 10 points, can it be any class of unit (prof, reg or militia) or is the army restricted to an extra unit of what they are normally entitled to?
John

[Colonel Kilgore]

John, the quoted maxima of each unit "class" per army need to be respected.

Simon

[Sean Clark]

The Colonel has it. Once you've decided on your 3 on table units, the 4th can be whatever is allowed from your list to stay within the min-max of each type.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Dex13,

You had it correct re. the bonus tokens and battle points: you get two of each and poor Terry gets none.

The "units moving out of a square" thing is fairly standard to many RFCM games and may need an example to those less familiar. But the cost (1AP) is the same if 3 bases go from the motivated square to the same square or to 3 different squares. If they still have points remaining, then all can fire (from one or several squares). While noting that each firing may provoke return fire, so probably not a good idea to shoot with a solo base

I hope that this helps, rather than the opposite!

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

As an aside, it's interesting that some (including the rules) say "Sirocco" while others (including me) say "Scirocco".

Both are apparently acceptable in the English language (since the word comes from Arabic anyway). But I always hankered after the VW...

Simon

[martin goddard]

I am not sure about sirocco. The VW Scirocco is good to say.


martin

[Smoking gun]

But I always hankered after the VW...

Simon

I had 3 over the years all the late 80's / early 90's GT2 models. Nice to drive, and fairly practical cars, easy to repair too.

Best wishes,
Martin from a village near Grimsby

[Sean Clark]

As an aside, it's interesting that some (including the rules) say "Sirocco" while others (including me) say "Scirocco".

Both are apparently acceptable in the English language (since the word comes from Arabic anyway). But I always hankered after the VW...

Simon

The things you learn on this forum!