Over watch and panzerfausts

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Emilio
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:43 pm
Location: Cee, Galicia, Northwest Spain
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Emilio » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am

Then why in the pint campaigns say otherwise?

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6706
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Truscott Trotter » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:10 am

Pint sized campaigns often have different rules that only apply to that campaign as far as I am am aware.

The stuff that applies to the rules went into the FAQ and errata from questions people had asked over the previous 5 years this obviously jad not come up.

There was no FAQ or errata done for the PSC at Richs choice.

User avatar
Greg Bradfield
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Greg Bradfield » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:11 am

I would go one step further and say if you put a section on overwatch and they fire at an infantry target I will not include the faust carrying man in the fire fight as he would have readied himself with a faust just in case an armored vehicle should arrive.

Alternatively state at the point you put the section in overwatch that the all rifles are in overwatch or 1 faust and the rest of the rifles are in overwatch.
We must remember that the action taking place is in seconds and to ready a faust when all had rifles ready takes more time and the opportunity may be missed.

So what i'm getting at it keeps realism to the game playing the era and not the rule but just state the conditions clearly beforehand.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 3934
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Seret » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:30 am

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:51 am
I do not beleive you need to use a CI to fire a section AT weapon against a vehicle.
Yes you do, section 4.5.3.

Although I agree that the rules are a little unclear about this in some places, I think Rich has been clear about what he intended in subsequent PSCs.

User avatar
Emilio
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:43 pm
Location: Cee, Galicia, Northwest Spain
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Emilio » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:38 am

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:10 am
Pint sized campaigns often have different rules that only apply to that campaign as far as I am am aware.

The stuff that applies to the rules went into the FAQ and errata from questions people had asked over the previous 5 years this obviously jad not come up.

There was no FAQ or errata done for the PSC at Richs choice.
So you are saying that the need for spending CI to shot a PF only applies in the Pint campaigns? Sorry, but I don´t understand the reason why a panzergrenadier platoon in a pint camapign must to act diferently from a platoon from the core rules, or viceversa, on something like this. And I think that this issue has been asked before.

User avatar
maerk
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:05 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by maerk » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:26 pm

Emilio wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:00 am
(...) I think that the wording in 9.3.2 is wrong, and the "other than" is a typo.
I don't think it is a typo, Emilio. See the FAQ on paragraph 9.3.2. There Rich clearly states:
"When infantry AT weapons, such as a bazooka, PIAT, Panzerfaust etc., are used against tanks this is doing what they are designed to do, so the Team can activate on a 1. If you want them to take on infantry targets, they will only do so when activated by a Senior Leader using a Command Initiative."

So: using a PF against a vehicle is standard procedure, no need for an activation by a senior leader. Meanwhile using a precious PF against enemy infantry must be ordered by a senior leader.

my two cents,
Maerk

Captain W Martin
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:35 pm

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Captain W Martin » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:54 pm

Ive been mulling this overnight....

I think its fine, when triggering the overwatch you can elect to use the squads normal firing or the Pzfaust but not both, either uses up the overwatch marker.

Id probaly only allow one Pzfaust to be used even if the squad as several.

User avatar
Emilio
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:43 pm
Location: Cee, Galicia, Northwest Spain
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Emilio » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:38 pm

maerk wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:26 pm
Emilio wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:00 am
(...) I think that the wording in 9.3.2 is wrong, and the "other than" is a typo.
I don't think it is a typo, Emilio. See the FAQ on paragraph 9.3.2. There Rich clearly states:
"When infantry AT weapons, such as a bazooka, PIAT, Panzerfaust etc., are used against tanks this is doing what they are designed to do, so the Team can activate on a 1. If you want them to take on infantry targets, they will only do so when activated by a Senior Leader using a Command Initiative."

So: using a PF against a vehicle is standard procedure, no need for an activation by a senior leader. Meanwhile using a precious PF against enemy infantry must be ordered by a senior leader.

my two cents,
Maerk
Interesting. What you do think about "the team can activate on a 1"? Panzerfaust are section weapons, not AT teams like bazookas, AT rifles or panzeschreck. Or do you think that the full rifle team activates on a 1 to shoot a PF? I think not. The wording in 9.3.2 is strange, because of the "other than when used against vehicles... is commanded by a leader using a CI" and then "for a non vehicle target this must be a senior leader". So, the "other than when used against vehicles" is the same as "for a non vehicle target", isn't it? So, why to specifically tell "must be a senior leader" in the second part? Why not to say in the first part, so you didn't need a second part? This is what makes me think that there is a error, and the "other than" is wrong. But english is not my language, and I may be missing something. Furthermore, I think that bullet three in 4.5.3 precludes to use a PF in overwatch.

Munin
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Munin » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:57 pm

Seret wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:30 am
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:51 am
I do not beleive you need to use a CI to fire a section AT weapon against a vehicle.
Yes you do, section 4.5.3.

Although I agree that the rules are a little unclear about this in some places, I think Rich has been clear about what he intended in subsequent PSCs.
I would agree with this if it weren't explicitly contradicted by 9.3.2.

FWIW, I would love for all units in CoC to have the equivalent of the "Oui, Caporal!" rule from CoC Abyssinia, where activating a unit on a 1 or a 2 effectively gives that unit a single CI that can be spent on anything (including a normal activation like "fire!"). So if a leaderless unit really really REALLY needs to fire a panzerfaust or toss a smoke grenade, it can do so at the cost of not being able to fire or move or do anything else. It would also mean that leaderless units that get pinned or broken have at least some recourse rather than being an end-of-turn honey-pot gamble for your Senior Leaders.

Maybe CoC 1.2 will be written this way and these problems will no longer be an issue.

User avatar
Emilio
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:43 pm
Location: Cee, Galicia, Northwest Spain
Contact:

Re: Over watch and panzerfausts

Post by Emilio » Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:10 pm

Munin wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:57 pm
Seret wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:30 am
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:51 am
I do not beleive you need to use a CI to fire a section AT weapon against a vehicle.
Yes you do, section 4.5.3.

Although I agree that the rules are a little unclear about this in some places, I think Rich has been clear about what he intended in subsequent PSCs.
I would agree with this if it weren't explicitly contradicted by 9.3.2.

Well, Munin, may be that 9.3.2 is explicitly contradicted by 4.5.3!! In fact, I believe that 4.5.3 is correct.

Post Reply