Pre Game Sequence

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6330
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Truscott Trotter » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:08 pm

I wouldn't use anything in the vids as justification for a ruling.

Better to ask Rich in writing if you are concerned.

Personally John's method of just taking the Stukas out of sequence works OK too.

User avatar
john de terre neuve
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by john de terre neuve » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:49 pm

Seret:
If the German player wants to Stuka the board up, do that before the patrol phase, play the patrol phase as normal, then make your support picks like normal.
This was my reasoning. The Stuka bombardment does two things: destroys buildings and causes shock on deploying enemy troops. It is expensive at 4 points. If there are a lot of buildings on the table it becomes more valuable. Of course the defender also has to make a choice before he knows if a Stuka attack is going to happen. He has the ability to select AA artillery to diminish the effect of the Stukas.

I think though I must of had a couple of drinks last night when I replied as I clearly have not done this. Lesson do not post on forum after a long night in the ED followed by drinks. So the version we play is as follows:
Modified Sequence for 1940 Rulebook
Place Patrol Markers and make free moves, if any
Dice for Force Morale
Dice for and select supports
Play Stuka Attack if any
Play Patrol Phase
Place JOP's
Place fixed defences.
Adjust Engineer section/squad if any selected
Throw Command Dice
My apologies,

John

ps the OP Steve had it exactly as we play it

Munin
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Munin » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:11 pm

OldNick wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:35 am
These [wire, minefields, roadblocks] need to be declared by the defender before the attacker selects support, and it always seems to make sense if they are placed before the patrol phase, especially if the provide cover, and therefore may affect JoP positioning.
Wait, what? That is absolutely NOT the case. You don't place static defenses until after the Patrol Phase is complete, nor do you have to inform your opponent which ones you're taking before they choose their supports. If they don't want the road blocked, they'd better plan on taking a demolition team regardless of whether you plan on choosing a roadblock or not. That's one of the benefits of the Engineering Section, as you get to pick the specific team types after the static defenses have gone down on the table. You are essentially paying a premium for the flexibility to adapt to your opponent's strategy. But if your opponent chose no fixed defenses, well, you just wasted points - just like you would have had you taken AAA when your opponent opted to forego the Stuka attack.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6330
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Truscott Trotter » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:58 pm

Not wasted IMHO you choose flamers

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Seret » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:32 am

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:58 pm
Not wasted IMHO you choose flamers
Flamer. Choosing two in an engineering section is super cheesy.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6330
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:49 am

Seret wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:32 am
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:58 pm
Not wasted IMHO you choose flamers
Flamer. Choosing two in an engineering section is super cheesy.
Why?
Cos its not historical?
Or
Its costed incorrectly
Or
Flamethrower rules are not realistic?

I might answer
1. No definately not.
2. Depends on 3
3. Most certainly.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Seret » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:03 pm

2.

It's clearly exploiting a loophole in the support system. If you want two flamethrowers, pay the support points for both of them.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6330
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:12 pm

But them you also lose the advantage of choosing you team.

You are quite happy to change the rules about the points but not to change the weapon rules to make them more realistic?

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Seret » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:43 pm

Personally I'd like to do both. I think flamethrowers are way too good in CoC. If you were going to play super competitively you'd always take one.

IMO they should be great at dealing with structures and fortifications, and a bit rubbish in a stand-up fight.

I don't think it's a case of "changing the rules", more one of "don't use a loophole just because there isn't a rule against it". After all, there's no rule against paying for both flamethrowers either and it's clearly the fairer thing to do. No rule change required.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 6330
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Pre Game Sequence

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:21 am

I would put the double flamethrower eng sect as a separate option at 5 or 6 points and no swapping out its an assault section chosen days ago.

Rule chages for f/t
1.) No moving and shooting thats for vehicle f/t
2.) Range 6"
3.) No shooting moving targets.
4.) No moving at run ever - they weigh 50-70kg.

Post Reply