George

correct.

Because Ambush changes to a Fire! order when activated not an Advance.

So this is the same as v2 (both wording and how it works)

When you target a unit, it has a footprint area.  In order to have moved far enough away from that area no model can be within 2″ of it after its move.

Now this means most vehicles will have advance forwards as a reverse of 4.5″ wont be enough for the front to be 2″ further back than the…[Read more]

It is absurd that you mount it on a trailer and it gets 24 dice. But fix it to a PARKED halftrack and it gets 12 dice.  Just another half-baked nonsense from V3.

Yep its a trailer… but as its a trailer its not a vehicle (cant move on its own) so its under the artillery section.

its classified as a heavy gun for moving (so cant be man handled 6″ on a run order)

oh they haven’t classed it as vehicle mounted? But wasn’t it normally fired stuck on a  trailer? That is going to be popular then.

[Not seen 3rd ed rules yet.]

Its upto 5 in a platoon

Its a heavy gun so can only move with a TOW

Its artillery so is 4 guys who are wounder as per their expeirance level…

3rd edition vehicle MMGs get half the number of shots.

Yes – its a massive change.

Basically if its firing indirect and not inexperience or a multi-launcher then it can draw LoS for ANY/ALL spotters or Observers (no distinction between air or artillery).  You need to loose LoS from ALL possible spotters (or just receive an order by any means other than FIRE!) to reset the range in score.

We apparently should here something in mid December (adepticon)!

There’s been a few articles about industry names joining the K47 writing team over the last few months (3 or 4 IIRC).

hmm…

The generic platoon structure of v3 is actually easier to create actual historical TOEs for more nations than the v2 one did.  Its a generic ones size fits all starting point.

Where the v2 TLs fall down is the attachment of units that werent placed under infantry command as regularly as BA shows it.  Yes there was cases were a single t…[Read more]

If  you are interested in more historical realism—in as much as that is possible on a tabletop game—then just use the existing Theatre Selectors and any associated rules. The “lego” platoons, old and new,  are better suited for competitive play.

However they included the Dutch(!)  I’ve seen Australian & Canadian armies … heard of Chinese lists but never heard of someone making  / seen pictures of a Dutch army…. <shrugs>

Also yeah… I preferred it as cover as a shooting mod…

Perhaps they felt those omissions were too rarely used to be included?

But for me, any game that has this sequence has lost credibility anyway:

Step 1:  I have hit you

Step 2:  I have killed you

Step 3:   You are ‘unkilled’ because you are behind a wall and ‘saved’. But that means I didn’t hit you because the wall got in the way…

You can sa…[Read more]

yes the ball WAS dropped with campaign units and equipment… the impression we got was they were going to be folded into the core rules 🙁

It seems that people think that they’ll be included in the armies of … books – I think thats a bit silly as they’ll be back to repeating rules in different books which increases the chance of differeing…[Read more]

M18 in the RB – yes, but no…. its an downgrade (armour) to the M10 with the option to take recce

Has fast – Nope

Is the M18 Hellcat in the basic book? That’s just about the fastest WW2 tank, so if that doesn’t have FAST, then I don’t know what would.

Some play testing is being conducted on a proposed change to flights.

Then it needs to be submitted to WL for a green light, so until we hear from them it might not go ahead.

Ok… rabbit hole time… Rules (even house rules) have to be playable or be the difficulty setting of a scenario.  Also VaS is at its core a historical system so any rules need a grounding in historical fact.

Now forget Hollywoods visuals of minelaying.. its a LOT more complicated than just chucking a mine off the back of a moving ship.  It b…[Read more]

So….
A) – VaS is a simple game not a simulation .. therefore I’d go like Depth Charges, a single profile for all mines.

Now a startings of a nice easy approach..
laying mines in combat isnt something you’d do… its too risky! you cant anchor them well enough and they become a risk to you… so to that end.

Ships that carried mines get a new…[Read more]

So checked and updated the SHIPS 1.5 costs, this meant double checking a lot of the Rulebook entries – so another Wardroom Errata

As before, nothing about flights or carriers,

Noting about scenario ships (Dutch ships from the battle of Java Sea) or the expanded RNN or VMF lists – they’ll be done at a later time.