Aufklärungs Gruppe

[Felix]

Eric is posting as a representative of the designers and thus rules as intended. RAW leaving many question, but RAI is to clarify. At least for us here that is how it will be done until someone else from Warlord clarifies/changes that.

To respond to your points made:

1) I don’t see a point regarding rule-handling being made here.

2) The command vehicle can full well be seen as an NCO, as he fills the exact same role as an NCO if you regard the models of the squad as a unit. he confers a morale bonus to his unit. Sure this is the first and only use of this constellation, but that’s what campaign books do, introduce new units and organizations.

Your second point here is false. Jeeps, kubelwagen, even motorbike-sidecar combos ALL very much qualify for armored car slots. I don’t understand what you mean they wouldn’t qualify. because they don’t have armor? My Opel blitz with Flak counts as a tank and is a soft skin.

3) I agree with some of the problems you mention here, see my earlier question/post. The idea of a unit composed of vehicles does ask for detailing of how to handle damage now. Far from impossible, but definitely needed.
A: the way Eric says to see this unit is not as a bunch of independent vehicles, but as a ‘squad’ using rules like infantry squads. to that end it makes perfect sense they’d get one single order dice, as they have to act as one and take one order.
I think your rubbing up on the fact that this unit is composed of vehicles and there is no other unit in the game like it/venturing in this rule-zone. And I’m right there with you, I too wish the rules would be conclusive and detailed to not make this forum thread needed as it clearly is.

B: ” “Vehicle units always consist of a single model”. There is no reason to treat Aufsklarung any differently. ”
That’s exactly what new books (rule supplements) and units therein do. they can and will introduce new units, rules, scenarios etc (as they always do and always have done). Agreed, there is no reason to change anything, but they can and they did. There is plenty small examples to exceptions to RAW. Think American FairO, getting two airstrikes. RB says its one airstrike per FAO. the rule supplement armies of USA overwrites this with their rules.

C: Totally agree with all your points made here (see my older questions). This needs to be clearly stated in the rules if such a radical new organization is introduced.

D: Agreed, I think a easier way, if the unit is meant to operate as a single unit, would’ve been to simply say this cmd vehicle conveys its command bonus only to its own unit, but regardless if they are 3, 6 or 12″ away. The rules indeed are very confusing on this one.
Just a simple line that would clearly explain their unit cohesion would do the trick – 3″ is not bad, we tried it since and it worked splendid. Command range is weird though.

E: This question doesn’t make sense. wheeled vehicles can only operate on normal ground and cant pass through rough ground, obstacles or anything else for that matter. If you houserule that terrain X may be crossed by wheeled vehicles but say, only in advance, then just have the whole unit advance, like infantry of which half is trying to move through a woods or something.

4) I think usefulness is strongly in the eye of the observer. If this unit were independent cars, not an armored platoon and giving 5 orders THEN we’d have a severe balance issue imo.

After that, on everything you say about them ‘should having’ recce, on top of all the other gimmicky things, nope. Name and historical context maybe, yes, rule wise definitely not unless they become a good chunk more expensive.
I don’t know what you mean with jeeps flying around everywhere. A double jeep list in 2 platoons, sure can be seen sometimes. The ominous platoon with 10 independent recce jeeps and 6 MMGs flying around their 20 order list? Never seen that. Maybe Market Garden? I don’t have that book.

____

For me the use of this selection in the future will heavily depend on exact wording on how to handle unit cohesion and moreover damage being applied.

No matter which way it goes, but for this unit to be a big oll question mark to everyone involved is not worth bringing it imo. Nonetheless I love the idea of armored units.

[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

[Braddoc]

Maybe why they addded this little detail to the special rules for the KRAFTRADSCHÜTZEN SQUAD entry in Battle of France;

Extra selection: you may take up to four Kraftradschützen
motorcycle and sidecars as one selection in each
reinforced platoon. Each vehicle must have the same
experience level and forms a unit with a single order dice,
operating like “transport units’, as presented on page 217 of
the Bolt Action rulebook (except for the lack of transport
rules). A maximum of one light mortar may be taken in each reinforced platoon, and no more than half of the platoon’s motorcycle and sidecars may be equipped with an MMG.

Frankly, I see it as a single unit acting as a recce group. It’s a Gruppe, but it’s a unit, not 3-5 units.

(From Western Desert)
AUFKLÄRUNGS GRUPPE
This unit can be taken as an armoured car choice for any 1942 Afrika Korps army selector. The Gruppe is composed as follows:
1 Aufklärungs Command Kübelwagen
1-3 Aufklärungs MG Kübelwagen
1 Aufklärungs Kübelwag

A unit, ‘Gruppe’ is just a fancy name for a squad of vehicule, so 1 die. Like a squad of infantry is a unit and you activate 10 guys with it, you don’t get 10 die per squad whatever happens or happened in the real world. ‘Else as a British player I would need a battery of 25 pounders rather than one to match historical accuracy. Of course that got somewhat taken care of via the National Rules.

(Boldness in the text was added by me)

[invisible officer]

Gruppe had in Wehrmacht different meanings.

In Infanterie the Gruppe was the smallest unit, a squad.

But it was also used for forces made from separate units by grouping. Like Heeresgruppe or Armeegruppe.Or the Kampfgruppe DAK under Oberst Freiherr v. Liebenstein.

Staff DAK
· One Panzer-Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 8
· Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment Afrika
· Panzerjäger-Kompanie
· Luftwaffen-Jäger-Brigade 1
· Stab, I./Artillerie-Regiment-Afrika 1
· I./Artillerie-Regiment 190
· three Batteries Werfer-Regiment 71
· Stab Flak-Regiment 135 (Luftwaffe)
· Aufklärungs-Abteilung 33
· one Kompanie/Pionier-Bataillon 200
· Italian Panzer-Bataillon
· Italian Infanterie-Bataillon
· Italian Bersaglieri-Bataillon
· Italian Artillerie-Bataillon
· Italian Sturmgeschütz-Batterie

And also ad hoc units formed locally, named Kampfgruppe. Often in retreats as covering force.

(In Luftwaffe the Gruppe was made from some Staffeln)

—-

An example: In DAK a Aufklärungsgruppe was formed 22. August 1942 under Schützen-Brigade 15

Aufklärungs-Abteilung 3
Aufklärungs-Abteilung 33
Aufklärungsabteilung 580
Flak-Abteilung 612 (-1./612)

—-

So there is no reason to assume that a Gruppe in game is ever a single unit.

[Felix]

@ Matt Sheffield

that is a good point, not to speak for Eric, but it might very well be that he is not a developer but a moderator and admin. I’m not so much saying that his every word is ‘true’, but my point about his authority is the same. We can assume that he is in close contact (way closer than me anyway) with HQ and functions as their (literally hired) ‘voice’ to some degree and has the ‘authority’ to respond to rule-questions on their behalf.

and no worries about mammoth posts, I myself am a mammoth poster as well ;). I appreciate the civil-ness of this discussion btw, I noticed a somewhat rise of toxic and patronizing interaction in seemingly unimportant and casual chat. Thank you for that

[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.

[Nicholas Ellis]

This has become a very interesting conversation. I can see both sides of the story and I’m going to add another spanner in the works. If this unit does only get one order dice and we are to treat the unit like a unit of Kradschutzen ie they must remain within 3” of each other. Then how would damage be worked out on the unit of vehicles. Obviously you roll to hit the unit and then roll to damage but how do you allocate damage to a unit of vehicles. If it’s treated the same as another unit (infantry or bikers) then the owner of the unit is free to decide who he takes off unless it’s exceptional damage. If it was a single vehicle then that vehicle is the only target and any damage caused is obviously allocated to said vehicle. Say for example you target the unit and hit it 6 times, you roll for damage and get to 6’s which means two rolls on the the vehicle damage chart. Do you then place them on only one vehicle (and who chooses which vehicles) or can you spread the damage over two vehicles?

[Author]

Posts