Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

TommyThor
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:08 pm

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by TommyThor »

Archdukek wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:53 pm
Hi Thommy,
The army lists have evolved to some extent since the core rules were published. So while your first statement is generally true there are now some exceptions to that rule in later lists as Big Rich has responded to comments from the community. You'll find lengthy discussions on the topic if you wade through early Forum threads.

As TT has pointed out this sometimes means a degree of inconsistency from the relevant KSTN.

You will also find a lengthy debate about how many dice a Top Mounted MG should get for a number of reasons, including those you've mentioned. There seems to be a consensus around treating it as a standard vehicle MG with just 6 dice, though some prefer to give it 8 dice, in both cases with a single crewman.

John
And wouldn't the game benefit from an oficial interpretation that settles the matter on such issues. Especially with such parameters as damage from a gun it should be a very simple matter (though obviously we, the gamers, seem to find some pleasure to change the rules to our own style and ideas). I will try to wade through the pletora of threads concerning this. Thank you for the heads up on this.

Archdukek
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Archdukek »

That's not the Lardy way! 😊

The author has set out his preferred approach in the rules, but is happy for players to adjust the rules in agreement with their opponent(s) to fit their historical understanding and preferences. The Forum provides a vehicle to discuss possible options and seek wider views.
Applying some common sense and knowledge of the period will generally let you resolve any ambiguities without detriment to the game which is very robust and immensely enjoyable.

John

Cyrax
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:36 am

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Cyrax »

Q: Now we are faced with the question of halftrack mounted machine guns. If a two man MG42 crew is reduced to one man, it fires at reduced effectiveness. How is that handled with a halftrack mounted MG42? Would it not be considered a tripod mounted gun at that point?

Also, he wanted to take a .50 cal HMG team and mount the 50 in his halftrack. We agreed that he could buy an HMG team for full support points and mount the gun on the vehicle, but put a normal infantry squad in the vehicle instead, with the HMG being fired by one of his riflemen. How many dice would the HMG be firing for?

I understand that many rules are left open for interpretation, but some things really need to be clarified for continuity, if nothing else.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Seret »

Cyrax wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:46 pm
Q: Now we are faced with the question of halftrack mounted machine guns. If a two man MG42 crew is reduced to one man, it fires at reduced effectiveness. How is that handled with a halftrack mounted MG42? Would it not be considered a tripod mounted gun at that point?
This is essentially the argument for halftrack MGs only having 6d6 like all other vehicle MGs. You're talking about a gun operated by only one man, probably using drum mags. One man operating an MG42 on foot spits out 5d6, so 6d6 for the same guy operating the same gun seems fair, and he even gets a bit of a boost due to the steady mount.
Also, he wanted to take a .50 cal HMG team and mount the 50 in his halftrack. We agreed that he could buy an HMG team for full support points and mount the gun on the vehicle, but put a normal infantry squad in the vehicle instead, with the HMG being fired by one of his riflemen. How many dice would the HMG be firing for?
HMGs produce 10d6, no matter where you put them. The rulebook doesn't really give you a good way of putting a 50cal on a halftrack. If you do it by combining a halftrack from the support list with the 50cal from the support list you're looking at a whopping 8 support points, at which point you're far better off getting something like a M4 105mm or an M7 HMC.

if you use the CoCulator you can work out the cost of a halftrack with an integral 50 cal manned by the track crew: you're looking at about List 5 which is much more reasonable IMO. Basically for 5 support points you can either get the 50cal dismounted (vulnerable to small arms, but can only be killed by sustained enemy fire) or mounted on the half track (invulnerable to small arms, but very vulnerable to being one-shotted by AT weapons).

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7906
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Truscott Trotter »

FWIW I agree with Tommy it is time for a revamp of the vehicle rules for transports to bring some consistency to them.
I suspect it is a job of the Consolidated Arsenal and CoCulator.

I think the existing rules are based upon the British penny pinching WWII model where BYO Bren for some Bren Carriers fit but I do not believe it is appropriate for LW German, US or Soviet vehicles.

For example the US should have the following options
M3 with pulpit 0.30 cal MMG
M3 with pulpit 0.50 cal HMG
M3 MG carrier with 0.50 cal Pulpit mount and 2 x 0.30 Cal dis-mountable MMG on side/slides
M3A1 Scout car with same as above. etc etc.

For the Germans its a little more problematic.

From my reading of the LW KtSN (same period as main rule book lists) the Panzer Grens had 11 men in a section.
1 NCO, 1 driver, 1 gunner and 2 teams of 4 men each with 2 riflflemen and a 2 man LMG team.
9 men dismounted and 2 men remained with the carrier.

One of the sections LMG's could be mounted on the carrier - in the rear AAMG mount.

Now the MG34/42 used in the vehicles (or on the attack when dismounted) did indeed have a mobile feed mechanism - it was a drum with a 50/70 round belt coiled in it.

It is not equal to a Bren or other box fed LMG - it is still an MG 34/42!

Nor does it only use 1 man in the vehicle it is still 2 men if needed- either when the crew is in there or when the driver assists the gunner (in CoC an unloaded halftrack can either move OR fire).

Nor has it limited visibility as in a tanks internal MG which was why they are reduced to ROF 6

It should still retain ROF 8

The Sustained fire role Mg 34/42 was mounted in the halftracks of the heavy support section and way warrant retaining the ROF 10 when mounted but thats debatable

Cyrax
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:36 am

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Cyrax »

Just had another question pop up. The StuG was assault gun kit comes with a top mounted Mg42, but in the German arsenal, it doesn't specify it having any LMGs.

Would appreciate some feedback on that one.

siggian
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Windsor area, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by siggian »

Personally, I'd rate it like any other vehicle MG: 6D6.

If you know a vehicle has a certain weapon, and your opponent is agreeable, I don't see any problem with overriding the arsenal.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Seret »

siggian wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:44 am
Personally, I'd rate it like any other vehicle MG: 6D6.

If you know a vehicle has a certain weapon, and your opponent is agreeable, I don't see any problem with overriding the arsenal.
This.

If the model has the gun on it, I can't see any opponent having a problem with it. You're not really overriding the arsenal anyway. Top-mounted guns are usually omitted from the lists, as they were often AAMGs. In the StuGs case though, it was intended as a self-defensive weapon.

JimLeCat
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:57 pm
Location: Durham, England

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by JimLeCat »

Which Stug are you referring to, the III or the IV?

Assuming you mean the more common III, it started off with no mgs (although one was actually stowed inside the vehicle for emergency use), then got one mounted on a gunshield by the loader's hatch, which was later replaced by a top mounted gun remotely operated by the loader from inside the vehicle, and finally got a coaxial mg added in the final versions.

If you have the version with the remote mg on top (easily distinguished from the earlier one which has a large rectangular gunshield), then there is a very good chance it also has a coaxial mg (the two were introduced at almost the same time).

The only codicil I would add is that since it was the loader's job to fire the top mg, requiring him to position himself half out the hatch in the earlier version, then firing it would impact on firing the main gun. For simplicity, I would say either fire the main gun or the mg. If it is a late model with two mgs, then both could be fired if the loader and gunner are so ordered.

Cheers,
Jim

Cyrax
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:36 am

Re: Ongoing Rule Clarification Thread

Post by Cyrax »

Can a tank with a turret lmg and hull lmg fire the main gun, turret lmg and hull lmg all in the same phase? Or is he limited to main gun + hull mg or only one of the three?

Thanks

Post Reply