Buildings and extra protection

[Steiner]

Dear Developers,

I don’t get why the extraprotection rule has been removed in the 3rd Ed. It seems that buildings are useless now.

Can you explain the reason behind this decision?

Thanks

• This topic was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Steiner.

[Peter]

The reason is, that the rules are BS! The original V2 building ruels were really good and then WLG started the chaos until the point that they deleted the extra cover rules for buildings.

It’s sad that they have no ideas for good rules.

[Mike]

Our group also thinks the building rules are broken at the moment.  In the current version they are a bit of a death trap.  They become even dumber when being targeted by something like a Nebelwerfer where every unit within 6″ of building comes under potential fire instead of within 6″ of the target (so, a single model (a spotter) in a 12″ square building expands the potential targets to a 24″ circle.  At least that is our understanding.  We are moving towards treating all template structures as rubble but allowing units to operate out of upper flaws including in actual rubble with second story floors.

The one feature we do like is the ability of building to “collapse”, but that should be offset by providing slightly better cover than rubble.

[Kar98k]

Another idea is to use second edition building rules, or a combination of third and second edition. They were not all that careful when they went with third edition, and I think that’s why the building rules got the way they are.

Overall, there are a few good things about the third edition, but the rules team 1) should had carefully read the FAQ and Errata from second edition, 2) should had been less haphazard with their “Cut and Paste” from older documents, and 3) should had double checked certain details.

As a whole, at least 60 percent (or more) of the issues could had been avoided if the team taken more care at what they were doing because writing rules is not an easy thing to do, and certainly something that should have had more focus.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Kar98k.

[Steiner]

After many games now, I really miss the extra protection rule. Buildings are now even worse than ruins, and especially if you are fired with a HE round …

Is there any possibility of reimplementing this rule in the v3 rulebook in a future errata or a future 3.5v???

• This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Steiner.

[Kar98k]

After many games now, I really miss the extra protection rule. Buildings are now even worse than ruins, and especially if you are fired with a HE round

I too miss the extra protection rule for the same reasons. However, because of a simple oversight or maybe because the shooting mechanic was changed (roll to hit, roll to damage, and now roll to save), Third Edition designers probably worried that buildings might be too strong. However, I disagree because buildings are still HE magnets.

Your gaming group should try using the EXTRA PROTECTION rule from Second Edition (see page 124) and determine if it is right for you. If everyone in my group agrees, we tend to use the EXTRA PROTECTION rule for our Third Edition games.

EXTRA PROTECTION: When targeting infantry or artillery units that are inside a building, the die roll an enemy requires to score damage for a hit is increased by +1. This means that inexperienced troops are damaged on a 4+, regulars on 5+, and veterans on 6+. This die roll is modified by the penetration value of the weapon in the usual way. The rule has no effect in close quarters or against hits from HE and flamethrowers.

If you use EXTRA PROTECTION, yes, buildings (if hard cover) would be very good places for infantry units to hang out if there is no HE lurking about. Let’s say you have a squad of ten men (with 1xLMG, 2xSMG, and 7xRifles) shooting at a veteran infantry unit in a building. You will get to roll fifteen dice needing 4+ to hit (provided you have no pins or did not move). Now, the target reacts and goes DOWN. You roll your dice to hit, then you roll to damage (needing 6+ because of EXTRA PROTECTION), and then the defending unit rolls for cover saves (needing 2+ because DOWN in hard cover). However, if at point-blank range (a.k.a hand grenade range), the +2 modifier for DOWN is completely negated.

To me, this seems reasonable, so I hope that they officially re-implement EXTRA PROTECTION sooner than later. Until then, players (if all are in agreement) can simply carry over the EXTRA PROTECTION rule from the First and Second editions of the game.

• This reply was modified 1 week ago by Kar98k.

[Steiner]

I completely agree with you. I will try in my next game.

[Steiner]

I’ve been thinking about how to improve the buildings without the Extra Protection Rule.

The solution would be to have Cover Saves in Direct HE and maybe even in Indirect HE. IMHO, the cover save should be higher than hard cover, maybe a +3 (to simulate the extra protection rule).

What do you guys think?

[Kar98k]

The solution would be to have Cover Saves in Direct HE and maybe even in Indirect HE. IMHO, the cover save should be higher than hard cover, maybe a +3 (to simulate the extra protection rule).

What do you guys think?

If you ask me, and you did (insert wink here), I think the EXTRA PROTECTION rule from Second Edition (see page 124) is the most simple and easiest method. Also, unless you change the rules, there is no cover saves: “When hit by HE, units inside a building receive no cover saves at all, even if the unit is DOWN, though the number of hits suffered  is halved…” (page 156, BA3E)

[Author]

Posts