Jump to content



Photo

New Scenario at Brummbar44.com - Bridgehead Bretteville


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:52 AM

 Visit Brummbar44.com to get this standard Tide of Iron scenario (does have 6 pdr. guns and Panthers…cards included).

The battle depicts the 12th SS panthers attacking at night with little infantry support against the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division.



#2 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:55 PM

This sounds like a smal fun scenario.  The canadians has the benefit of defensive position, more spesilitions, more troops and concealed AT guns. But the germans panthers are nasty, espesially with no combined fire. I like it :)

 

I did notice that division two only have AT guns, and no troops. Is this intensional?   An option is to include three troops for the AT guns, but state that when the AT guns fire, the troop is also fatigued. Gnerally I would enjoy that better than the current rule that you get to fire both the AT gun and the troop, which seems sligly strange to me.

 

Once I get the time and oponents I will try this scenario out.



#3 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 02:45 AM

Grand Stone said:

I did notice that division two only have AT guns, and no troops. Is this intensional?   An option is to include three troops for the AT guns, but state that when the AT guns fire, the troop is also fatigued. Gnerally I would enjoy that better than the current rule that you get to fire both the AT gun and the troop, which seems sligly strange to me.

 

Once I get the time and oponents I will try this scenario out.

 

Yes, only AT guns for Division 2 was intentional.  This was originally designed to be part of a campaign so troops from Div. 1 will need to man the guns.  

I would agree that the original AT gun rules should have come with gunners instead of other squads…but that's another story.

 

Either way, feedback is appreciated.

 



#4 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:06 AM

Just one quick question then. Concealed AT guns? Is it suppose to conceal both the AT gun AND the gunner, or only one of them?



#5 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

 The squad with the AT would normally be concealed but in theory, the AT wouldn't (if I'm not mistaken).  Of course in designing the scenario, I didn't want the AT to easily be fired on so I amended the rule to make the AT gun concealed as well as the squad with it.  

If either the AT gun or squad does anything to come out of concealment (ie. fire) then the concealment marker is lost regardless of which of the units fired (so even if the squad fires but the AT gun doesn't, neither are concealed any longer).  Hope that helps.

 

 



#6 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:59 PM

I agree 100% that a concealed AT gun is a fun and logical concept. And that if one of them fired, both of them are revealed is also kind of logical. However it was unclear wether the gunner and the AT gun could benefit from the same concealed marker, since only division two has concealed markers. :)



#7 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 01:05 AM

Thanks for sharing the scenario!



#8 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 05:01 AM

KlausFritsch said:

Thanks for sharing the scenario!

 

Cheers!  Hope everyone enjoys…would still like to get the campaign out there one of these days.



#9 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 05:06 AM

Grand Stone said:

I agree 100% that a concealed AT gun is a fun and logical concept. And that if one of them fired, both of them are revealed is also kind of logical. However it was unclear wether the gunner and the AT gun could benefit from the same concealed marker, since only division two has concealed markers. :)

Ahhh…I understand where you are coming from now.

I think the most awkward part of the AT gun rules is simply the fact that they don't have their own crews.  It would've been much better to have made the guns like squad bases with perhaps 3 spots for crew members.  It could then be a more like a proper unit.  I don't mind how they are set as equipment though, it just requires some work arounds.

Thanks for the questions though, I'm sure it will help clarify for others interested.



#10 VolksCamper

VolksCamper

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 07:39 PM

Good idea of the AT gun having its own base, with  2 or 3 slots for crew figures. Then the whole unit counts as one unit and the unit is attacked together, with the AT gun providing addtional cover.  And then you can just load the AT gun unit as like another full squad would be loaded, onto halftrack, and transport it like a squad. Just add rule to reflect that AT gun unit is not a typical squad, thus cannot fire or move itself in that same turn it is unloaded, but is placed in OP fire mode and may conduct OP fire in the opposing players action phase if enemy unit moves in its LOS.

IMO an AT gun unit should be classified as a non armored unit with added cover of +2 from shield, so that Tanks/SPGs, would have to use their non armor attack value to engage this type unit. This is probably more accurate, since AT guns would not be damaged by AP shot unless the round actually hit the gun carriage. HE rounds would be more effective, by damaging both gun and injurying killing crew members.

Regarding the scenario, the concealment of units could be a recurring effect related to spotting, which is not a TOI rule, but works in other games. Any unit which begins a new turn,which is in cover like woods or building, and is not adjacent to an enemy unit, is considered "unspotted", and may only be fired upon at half attack value by any enemy unit which has LOS to the hex the unit occupies. Only if the unit becomes spotted, by firing, or moving, while in LOS of an enemy unit, during that current turn, can it be fired upon at full attack value during the enemy players next action phase, or by OP fire while it is moving. 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 



#11 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:03 AM

VolksCamper said:

Good idea of the AT gun having its own base, with  2 or 3 slots for crew figures. Then the whole unit counts as one unit and the unit is attacked together, with the AT gun providing addtional cover.  And then you can just load the AT gun unit as like another full squad would be loaded, onto halftrack, and transport it like a squad. Just add rule to reflect that AT gun unit is not a typical squad, thus cannot fire or move itself in that same turn it is unloaded, but is placed in OP fire mode and may conduct OP fire in the opposing players action phase if enemy unit moves in its LOS.

IMO an AT gun unit should be classified as a non armored unit with added cover of +2 from shield, so that Tanks/SPGs, would have to use their non armor attack value to engage this type unit. This is probably more accurate, since AT guns would not be damaged by AP shot unless the round actually hit the gun carriage. HE rounds would be more effective, by damaging both gun and injurying killing crew members.

Regarding the scenario, the concealment of units could be a recurring effect related to spotting, which is not a TOI rule, but works in other games. Any unit which begins a new turn,which is in cover like woods or building, and is not adjacent to an enemy unit, is considered "unspotted", and may only be fired upon at half attack value by any enemy unit which has LOS to the hex the unit occupies. Only if the unit becomes spotted, by firing, or moving, while in LOS of an enemy unit, during that current turn, can it be fired upon at full attack value during the enemy players next action phase, or by OP fire while it is moving. 

 

 

Good points, some rule reform wouldn't be a bad idea in some areas.  But I can live happily with how they are written now.

'Unspotted' is also a good idea.  I've always thought that practically all units should start out hidden until spotted.  It would make recce units a valuable aspect of the game that is currently missing.  I've written a scenario on that theme that might come to light one day (if I get more playtesting in).

I'm really disappointed FFG doesn't support this product more!  So much potential.

I still haven't ruled out doing some self-publishing…just not sure if the potential legal hassles would truly be worth the efforts…shame really.



#12 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 09:29 PM

AT guns should be infantry units, not vehicles.



#13 freddieyu

freddieyu

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 01:50 AM

 Which was one change Conflict of Heroes did recently…

 



#14 dutchy124

dutchy124

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:53 PM

A good scenario Brummbar. I have played this with Ray T Guns and we have found it to be very enjoyable. Maybe a few tweaks with the strategy cards are called for, but in the main good fun. Concentration needed, because you take your eye off the ball and you have lost.

 

As for a campaign, I look forward to it if you get the time to publish one. If you are looking for playtesters I am more than willing to have a go. I have not done this with any other game, but I think I know the mechanics of TOI well enough to do this.

 

With regard to a scenario book, Ray and I are also very dissapoointed that FFG seem to have shevled the idea. Perhaps you two could publish more scenarios here and one BGG. I am trying to get one together myself, but needs a lot of work yet.lol



#15 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:04 PM

freddieyu said:

 Which was one change Conflict of Heroes did recently…

 

Isn't the front considered blue defense (vehicle) and the rear red defense (infantry)??



#16 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:59 PM

Brummbar said:

'Unspotted' is also a good idea.  I've always thought that practically all units should start out hidden until spotted.  It would make recce units a valuable aspect of the game that is currently missing.  I've written a scenario on that theme that might come to light one day (if I get more playtesting in).

I have been getting into lock n load a lot lately and a lot of the rules can be used in TOI (its the sort of rules i would have like to have seen in TOI) with not too much trouble, the way the lock n load system deals with spotting is pretty effective yet simple to follow. There is a demo of the game with some of the core rules on the lock n load website.



#17 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:23 AM

dutchy124 said:

A good scenario Brummbar. I have played this with Ray T Guns and we have found it to be very enjoyable. Maybe a few tweaks with the strategy cards are called for, but in the main good fun. Concentration needed, because you take your eye off the ball and you have lost.

 

As for a campaign, I look forward to it if you get the time to publish one. If you are looking for playtesters I am more than willing to have a go. I have not done this with any other game, but I think I know the mechanics of TOI well enough to do this.

 

With regard to a scenario book, Ray and I are also very dissapoointed that FFG seem to have shevled the idea. Perhaps you two could publish more scenarios here and one BGG. I am trying to get one together myself, but needs a lot of work yet.lol

 

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.  I probably could revisit it and tweak some of the cards as suggested but it seemed to play out well for us too so I guess I just left it as is.  Hard to stay motivated when the company isn't.

I'll likely put out another scenario in August around the date when the action occurred…for the sake of the community (which seems to be dwindling)…but it was a good situation to make a scenario for and although I tacked it onto the campaign, it wasn't really a part of it (though it did involve the 12th SS).

Thanks too for the playtest offer…at this stage, I'm not sure how best to proceed.  Putting together a proper package takes time and I know the community appreciates that and would likely put up $10 to get a proper package…I'm just not sure it is worth the legal hassle though.  Just wish companies would get together more with the community….so many games would grow so well as a result…and they could still get their cut.  Shame.



#18 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:32 PM

I would love to parisipate in making a 'Fan Series I' og play tested, fan approved scenarios made by the fans. But last time I suggested something like that they closed their scenario page down :(  But it would be fun to take your scenarios, and a few other peoples scenario and bundlethem together. 

 

I dont think I can help creating scenarios, but proofreading (not spelling and grammer errors which cuzes confusion etc.) and maybe playtest a few.

I love the game, but I would much appriciate more ballance good fun scenarios.



#19 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:57 PM

Me and some frinds are going to try this scenario on thursday. Yeay. Finaly antoher game of ToI.

 

But I've got a quick question.

Panthers move at half speed, rounded up. But do you take the half before or after subtrations?

So

Full movement, healty panther: 4 movement

Full movement, lightly damaged: 3 movement

Fire & movement, healthy panther: 3 or 2 (??) movement

Fire & movement, lightly damaged: 1 or 2 in movement (?)



#20 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:59 AM

 On page 35 of the rule book it states that any addition or subtraction should be done before any division or multiplication (Calculating Modifiers).

 

Enjoy!

 

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS