huh, phil rulings

View previous topic View next topic Go down

huh, phil rulings

Post  Diragi on Wed May 15, 2013 3:14 pm

http://forum.wwpd.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7918

AA weapons shooting at an AOP do so immediately before the AOP observes since that is its form of attack.

Since Transports cannot be on the table without passengers (with very few exceptions), there would be no point in saying that Transport teams cannot contest objectives if their Passenger teams could. Hence, Passenger teams cannot contest objectives.

Note: German half tracks are considered tank teams
avatar
Diragi

Posts : 1981
Join date : 2012-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Mike_A on Wed May 15, 2013 4:05 pm

Sounds like allot less of a big deal then bazookas can't shoot! hah.

Thanks;
Mike

Mike_A

Posts : 75
Join date : 2013-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Diragi on Wed May 15, 2013 4:11 pm

Well there is a lot of gnashing of teeth on wwpd but the first one always seemed to me like one of those "it should" be like that and the second one really never comes up.

edit: I suppose, now that we have official errata, these Phil-isms should be ignored until that doc has been updated.
avatar
Diragi

Posts : 1981
Join date : 2012-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Mike_A on Wed May 15, 2013 4:46 pm

The only thing I can think is that it helps prevent those turn 1 or 2 objective wins that can happen in some missions if you don't deploy right. So probably not a bad idea to stop that. I never used an AOP before and have only fought against them a few times so really just don't care about that, and your right that the transports thing won't come up much since besides German Halftracks they are very rarely used.

The WWPD forums used to be good but I find it has turned into just a big pile of complaining and I just can't bother to read it anymore. Plus haven't been playing FoW much lately so that doesn't help either.

Thanks;
Mike

Mike_A

Posts : 75
Join date : 2013-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  CA$H on Fri May 24, 2013 8:57 am

So here is the thing with these "rulings".......

How can you have intervention if one of the parties decides that Phil's input is just that - input? How does that solve anything?

Either his statements are codified into the rules via errata or they are just insight. But insight won't solve anything if I think you can't shoot my AOP until AA is fired (clearly stated in the rules) and you think the AOP can be shot before I attempt to range in (clearly not in the rules - there is no form of "overwatch").

So you point to Phil's post and then you expect what to happen? That I will see the light? That I will agree?

With the advent of official errata, it has now rendered the Rules Forum moot. That is what folks are saying...


So...... I just don't feel I have to engage/track on every topic posted there to "stay up" on the rules now. The errata will encapsulate what is significant enough to emerge as a correction or clarification from the Rules forum discussions.

So everyone is clear going forward: In any event I am TO of I will only reference the erratas and FAQ that are published. Not forum postings that a small percentage of players even read.
avatar
CA$H

Posts : 2815
Join date : 2012-03-08
Location : Kanata

View user profile http://www.dicedevils.com

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Diragi on Fri May 24, 2013 9:08 am

Diragi wrote:I suppose, now that we have official errata, these Phil-isms should be ignored until that doc has been updated.

/agreed.
avatar
Diragi

Posts : 1981
Join date : 2012-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Panzerkommanduer on Sat May 25, 2013 11:25 am

Is that to say though that people will not oppose things clearly against the spirit of the game?

does anyone really think a limbered GOW battery should contest with its transports?

Panzerkommanduer

Posts : 85
Join date : 2013-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Twinlinked on Sat May 25, 2013 2:34 pm

If you have a transport team towing a gun,

The transport team is in range to contest the objective but the gun is not do you contest the objective?

The comment that transport teams cant be on the is a bit simplistic..

A.

Twinlinked

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2012-04-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Panzerkommanduer on Sat May 25, 2013 3:02 pm

If im not mistaken a limbered gun counts as a passenger team, ergo It cannot contest. Some people are bending this somehow when using a GOW battery with 12 M3 50.cal trucks.

Panzerkommanduer

Posts : 85
Join date : 2013-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Matt Varnish on Sat May 25, 2013 9:22 pm

Limbered gun is actually part of the transport team according to the rules, so they wouldnt be able to contest if they werent unlimbered. I dont mind the ruling at all, because it just feels not right to say "Alright men, we're going to go over there and take that town... no no dont get up, we're to do it sitting in the beds of our lorries"
avatar
Matt Varnish

Posts : 3005
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: huh, phil rulings

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum