Armoured vehicle forced off table

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6707
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:13 pm

What about all the other issues?
Really needs another page of rules

Jiefu
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Jiefu » Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:44 pm

I’m pretty sure he mentions it in one of the beasts of war videos and says that the vehicle is lost if forced off table.

User avatar
JOHN BOND 001
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:58 am

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by JOHN BOND 001 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:05 pm

Richard Clarke's response in Red
3.
New ERRATA page 21
Fire against vehicles.
Q: If a vehicle retires off the table due to being obliged to reverse off the table edge, is it removed from the game completely.
A: Yes, it is as with any unit leaving the table.
Questions
• After noting a comment of facebook in regards to this situation have you changed your mind?
• Can the vehicle redeploy or just back up to the table edge and move no further if hit again and required to reverse again?
I’m actually in two minds about this. It is a bit harsh to say that an AFV just reversing a few inches is actually leaving the table. On reflection, I think that it would be fairer to allow it to remain on the table edge.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6707
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Truscott Trotter » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:15 pm

Wow major change.

Not that I disagree with it but you will then have people question why other causes of leaving the table result in destruction.

Needs to be consistent one way or the other IMHO.

batesmotel34
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by batesmotel34 » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:14 pm

Making the vehicle immune to the reversing effect when it hits the edge seems wrong. At a minimum I think it should be removed from the table and at least be forced to redeploy onto the table, probably within 6" of where it left. That way there is some effect from the requirement to reverse.

Chris

User avatar
Capt Fortier
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:49 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Capt Fortier » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:25 pm

I agree with TT and Chris - its unclear why this would be different from other unbroken units forced to withdraw off a table edge (see the debate re: routing from close combat with 4x dice). I would think this also opens up issues about whether an AFV could voluntarily leave the table and then return? I like Chris's suggestion that at least it requires some impact re: forced to redeploy, and I'd even suggest with some risk of not doing so (similar to pre-game barrage) or lost if not returned by turn end.
Capt Fortier

“Un optimiste, c'est un homme qui plante deux glands et qui s'achète un hamac.” - Jean de Lattre de Tassigny

User avatar
JOHN BOND 001
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:58 am

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by JOHN BOND 001 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:31 am

A vehicle that reverses does also accumulate one point of Shock.
If it does reverse

C
apt Fortier wrote
I agree with TT and Chris - its unclear why this would be different from other unbroken units forced to withdraw off a table edge (see the debate re: routing from close combat with 4x dice). I would think this also opens up issues about whether an AFV could voluntarily leave the table and then return? I like Chris's suggestion that at least it requires some impact re: forced to redeploy, and I'd even suggest with some risk of not doing so (similar to pre-game barrage) or lost if not returned by turn end.
Unbroken Infantry units like the situation in Close Combat having to flee away from the enemy due to its x 4 dice , may indeed have a chance of moving off the table edge and causing a BTH roll, Richard is making an allowance with the vehicle for stopping on the edge for gaming purposes and the flow of the game.
No there is no suggestion in the rules for a vehicle to be able to voluntary move off table, once deployed it must remain on the table.
Chris wrote
Making the vehicle immune to the reversing effect when it hits the edge seems wrong. At a minimum I think it should be removed from the table and at least be forced to redeploy onto the table, probably within 6" of where it left. That way there is some effect from the requirement to reverse.
Chris don't forget each time the vehicle has to reverse it also accumulates 1 point of Shock.
Having the vehicle reverse again and stop at the edge of the table means it is at a disadvantage in that it will be continually be targeted by whatever is hitting it and causing to reverse.
This would force the hand of the player of the vehicle to use his Command Dice asap to get the vehicle to move out of harms way.
Having it leave the table as has been suggested to be redeployed again in the future is actually a big advantage for the vehicle in that its can avoid the danger and now choose when and where to deploy which would could give it a advantage in targeting the threat, or deploying in blocking terrain.

T
T wrote
Wow major change.
Not that I disagree with it but you will then have people question why other causes of leaving the table result in destruction.
Needs to be consistent one way or the other IMHO.
Infantry unit leaving table = BTH
vehicles stopping at the tables edge = also is a bad thing , and eventually if it does not move or destroy the threat it too will have BTH roll.

Anyway my thoughts ;)
Last edited by JOHN BOND 001 on Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6707
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Truscott Trotter » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:38 am

IIRC
In Bolt Action no troops can neither involuntarily or voluntarily move off the table
In CoC all troops can involuntarily but not voluntarily move off the table edge but count as lost.
Now my OCD says if CoC is going to change then it should be consistent.

User avatar
JOHN BOND 001
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:58 am

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by JOHN BOND 001 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:05 am

TT I can't see why it needs to be the same,
if Richard as ruled that a vehicle is allowed to stop at the table's edge when forced to reverse , while making a ruling that in the case of infantry , if they reverse off table they get a BTH.
;)

User avatar
Quackstheking
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cheshunt, Herts

Re: Armoured vehicle forced off table

Post by Quackstheking » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:10 am

Ah but troops only involuntary leave the table if broken - the tank is not broken just reversing a touch!

However, there should be some penalty for not reversing off the table - I still think the tank should not be allowed to activate again in the next friendly phase. That way it can’t advance to make sure it doesn’t happen again and is a sitting target to whatever hit it first time!

I don’t think lt should be a BTH as that would be too punitive and if applied in this situation it would have to be applied across the whole battlefield! Tanks reverse frequently to get into better positions!

Don

Post Reply