[Mat Sheffield]

Gentlemen.

A couple of points of clarification.

RE question 1, I quite agree with you both. The plain intent, so far as I was concerned at least, was that it was any selector from the available listed books. However others did ask so it was worth asking here for clarification. As I say, the implication and intent of the rules pack seemed to be obvious to me, but it wont have done for everyone.

…

Re question 2, I think you have misunderstood me Braddoc.

I do not question, and nor did anyone else, weather the 750 and 1000 need to be made out of the units that comprise your 1250: they clearly do. The question is, do the 750 and 1000 have to use the same selector as the 1250, in addition to the same pool of ‘units’?

If my 1250 point list is, say, the Soviet Stalingrad selector, do all my lists need to be Stalingrad selectors, or can I use other Soviet alternatives for the different point bands?

Is that clearer?

…

Re Question 3, again I agree with Braddoc, I feel the intent was clearly that the lists should be consistent across points bands. But, while this is standard tournament practice, it isn’t stated explicitly that they need to be the same, and people have asked the question.

Mat

[Mat Sheffield]

I think Braddoc makes an interesting point here, that clearly there is now a precedent from Battle of France for multiple vehicles sharing a single dice to operate as a single unit, but because this is an exception it is defined as such, clearly and explicitly, in a way that the Aufsklarung aren’t.

In any case, I still think it causes major confusions with some of the core rules, and is therefore an inelegant solution, but at least the authorial intent is clear with that one. 😉

On the question of ‘Gruppe’, I’m with Invisible Officer. It’s something of a broad word and can change in meaning depending on what it is applied to.

Again, just to touch on my comments about Eric, I’m not trying to be cynical or make a personal comment about him. I know exactly the position he’s in, as I used to work for Games Workshop and occasionally you’d get asked, at tournaments and events, to arbitrate and give your opinion on rules and unit stats. I liked to think I was right most of the time, and I tried to make sure I knew what I was talking about and did a fair defense of my employers who were often criticsed, but I wasn’t flawless. 😉

I would add as a final thought that I do actually like the Western Desert book. I’m glad they’re not ‘Codexes’ and I don’t want them to be.

[Mat Sheffield]

Hey Felix, thanks for taking the time to respond to the mammoth post. A couple of things….

First, is Eric a designer/creator, or just warlord staff/forum moderator? I didn’t mean to be disrespectful if he is indeed the former, but just because he’s got an official account doesn’t mean he’s right. Plenty of mods have been wrong before, so I’m skeptical. As I said, I can’t see how his interpretation can be considered RAI, when;

1. That reading plainly contradicts or cause issues with the core rules. And,

2. There is nothing in the entry for Aufsklarung that tells you they work in a way outside the normal scope of the game rules.

If Eric is right, it’s not the plain reading…But that’s just repeating my earlier point. 😉

To clarify your questions/comments.

1. I wasn’t making a rules point about the history per se. I was simple pointing out that the interpretation I’ve given is consistent with the reasoning given in the book, and that it’s logical; irrespective of the rules. The expectation of what the unit was for, and how it fits within the game structure WD lays out, is consistent with my explanation. Is that clearer? I think it’s debatable, but I didn’t want my comments about rules to be isolated from the wider context, BA being a historical game and all…..

2. I don’t think that holds water. There are already rules that cover NCOs, and if the Kublewagon commander is indeed an NCO it creates even more rules conundrums, such as does the vehicle benefit from initiative training? How would that work? Do they take a morale penalty when the NCO dies/is destroyed? If you’re right, and this was the intention of the designers, they completely failed to mention this, or even imply it, in the unit entry, which you think they would have done. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation…

3. I wont comment on sub-points A-E in detail again, as we seem to be in agreement for the most part. (phew) I will clarify ‘E’ though. What I meant was probably simpler than what I wrote, so forgive the confusion. The short version is that there will be some instances of the vehicles moving through multiple terrain types, and it’s not always clear which restrictions should take precedent, a problem you avoid if they’re all independent… Infantry doesn’t move the same way vehicles do, so it;s likely to create some unique cases.

The rest of the debate is just subjective.

On Recce, I do appreciate what you’re saying, but I don’t see how it’s “on top of all the other things” as there are essentially NO advantages I can see to fielding them all as a single unit. I can’t see it.. It doesn’t save you many points, and there is only one very limited context and selector you could abuse it with.

So while I happily concede that Recce without a points increase is a massive advantage, I still feel that without anything at all they’re just flavorless and uninteresting, particularly so if every game with them you play has to start with a 3 min explanation of how they actually work. 😉 That’s a shame, because I want to like them.

I’m more arguing that Recon vehicle to be defined than I am arguing for it to be defined my way.

…

I stand by my point.

Whatever may have been intended (and I’m prepared to accept that you may be right, though I don’t think you are) the easiest and simplest solution to the confusion is the one I outlined above; the rules already exist and are clear-cut, as opposed to a complex and unusual situation.

Recce could go either way, but it’s a separate issue. The first issue, about how the units operates, is significantly more critical.

I agree with the final point entirely. It needs clarifying, explicitly and without wiggle-room. It shouldn’t have needed to be.

Mat

[Mat Sheffield]

Also, the Bren Comparison doesn’t work, for three reasons.

1. The Brens are transports, with a transport capacity, the Aufklarungs Kubelwagons aren’t.

2. The Brens have to stay together because they are transporting a single unit, when they aren’t, they don’t, and would therefore presumably revert back to two dice..

3. The rules for this are somewhat experimental, or unofficial, anyway…. They are in the back of the book as an idea, not a part of the core rules system. 😉

[Mat Sheffield]

I should add that I understand it’s a campaign unit and that it doesn’t need to be balanced for tournament play. I’m not arguing that it should be amazing, simply that it reflects its historical and game purpose properly.

As you can only take them in 1942 selectors from western desert, and of those, only one selector lets you take more than 1, I don’t think the concern of people spamming them is justified. 😉

[Mat Sheffield]

Sorry for being late to the party, but this is plainly a ridiculous situation, and some common sense needs to be applied. There are two issues here.

First, in regards the number of Order Dice and how the unit(s?) works.

Second, in regards Recce.

….

The first point is easy to answer: The Aufsklarung Gruppe should run with 3-5 dice (depending on how many Kubelwagons you want). With respect to Eric, I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.

I will give you four reasons.

1. The first is a historical reason, which is contained within the Western Desert book itself. In the book there are 4 selectors for the DAK in 1941 and 3 selectors for the DAK in 1942. The missing selector for the latter year is the DAK Recon Platoon. The Aufklarungs Gruppe is described quite clearly as the replacement for the Recon Platoon in those later selectors, as the role and function of said platoons changed when the DAK was restructured. Rather than the dedicated platoons of armored cars with limited Infantry support, the same role was instead done with the Kubelwagons. It makes sense to think of this way in thematic terms.

2. That’s why the Aufsklarung Gruppe has a command vehicle and looks like an armoured platoon. It’s not a squad of vehicles with an NCO at all, but actually IS an armored-platoon-in-miniature.

It’s plainly designed to function the same way as, say, 5 tanks, but because Kubelwagons simply don’t justify an armoured selector of their own, they take up a single armored car slot instead. This is easily the most logical reading of the unit entry, surely?, even if Stuart Harrison is quite right, and technically Kublewagons aren’t “armored vehicles” at all because they’re softskins. 😉

The point is that they’re a mini-platoon, not a squad, and like any other platoon in the game they function independently.

3. Perhaps most critically the reason it needs more than a single dice is that if it were one squad, with one dice shared between them, then it creates a series of paradoxes and problems that the core game mechanics simply can’t deal with. A few examples include..

A: The fact that aside from Spotters, there are no rules for multiple units sharing a single dice. Even horses and mules get their own dice. It’s the central mechanic of the game.

B: The core rule book explicitly says all vehicles, including transports, are independent units with their own dice. You don’t need to infer it. Page 113 of the rulebook says: “Vehicle units always consist of a single model”. There is no reason to treat Aufsklarung any differently.

C: The reason that’s the case is obvious, as what happens when one of the Kubelwagons is forced to go Down as a result of damage? Do they all go down? What happens if you immobilize one, is that specific wagon destroyed, or are all 5 immobile? How does that work?

D: The fact that the command range is 6″, and can only affect other Kubels and Kradschutzen, plainly expects the unit to be more spread out than a unit coherence of 3″. If you take 5, a 3″ coherence around the command vehicle means they have to travel as one, rather unwieldy, blob. That’s not even touching the question of why, if they have to remain so close at all times, you’d bother having a command vehicle at all? It’s nonsense. You don’t expect other tanks in an armoured platoon to stay within the command range of the command tank at all times.

E: How would a unit like that move when they move through different types of terrain? If one Kubelwagon is on a road, one on grass and one in a forest, what speed do they go at? What if the majority are on a road? There’s good reason vehicles are all independent.

And there’s a whole bunch more reasons it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, work.

You avoid all of these problems if an Aufsklarung Gruppe is treated as 5 separate units, with 5 separate dice, and that get a command bonus from being near the leader, but don’t have to be…

Y’know, exactly like an armoured platoon…….

And last of all on this point;

4. There’s simply no reason to ever take them if they share a dice! They’d be terrible. Genuinely they’d be one of the worst and least useful units in the game. Around 200+ points for one target, which is a softskin vehicle that will struggle to move anywhere, that will be destroyed easily by HE, and doesn’t even do much damage with 3 MMGs and 4 rifles….

…
…

Then we have ‘Recon Vehicle’.

Personally, I think it should be Recce, but I also accept it clearly isn’t Recce, and that from a purely RAW perspective you don’t get it. (despite, I note, what Easy Army thinks).

I’m inclined to agree with Eric on this point at least because, for the points, having 5 recce softskins that function independently is probably a bit too good, but I don’t think it’s game-breakingly so.

There are plenty of other armies out there with jeeps (always jeeps!) and units like them flying all over the table with Recce, for comparable points, so why can’t Germany have a piece of the pie? It’s annoying way more than it is powerful.

They definitely need something though.

It’s an easy fix for warlord with one of two solutions.

1. Give them Recce. Or, give them Recce at a minor points increase (say, 5-10 points per model?).

2. Give them something else that makes them unique instead, so they have a distinct purpose. I was informed by people from DownOrder podcast that ‘Recon Vehicle’ was a legacy rule from the drafts of V1, and was meant to work like a less-powerful version of Recce in the V1 ruleset, which was by all accounts too powerful.

It’s not such an issue now though.

#Rantover

[Author]

Posts