This is an advance notice that we are now starting work (in earnest) on FWCII.
Fear not FWCI fans ... this is not a radicle overhaul, but more as we've done with BKCIV and CWCII, an evolution rather than a revolution.
The intention is to clear up any longstanding rules/mechanism errata, add many more and clearer diagrams and examples and add a few extra mechanism that will bring the rules more 'up to date' (so to speak).
Areas which I have already identified for consideration are:
1) Massive units - making them more viable and 'realistic' (more lives, more weapons etc.)
2) Adding in a Large profile unit category - between Ordinary/Average and Massive
3) Adding a Small profile unit category -below Ordinary/Average
4) Improving and clarifying the Shield and Shield Dome mechanisms
5) Adding in UAVs (drones)
6) Adding in more about Electronic Warfare and Defenses
7) Adding in new defensive armour types that have appeared as one-off special rules within certain lists (such as Reactive Armour and Exotic Alloy defences etc.)
8 ) Autonomous Weapons
... etc.
Some of the mechanisms from CWCII that were actually improved FWC mechanism will be transferred back to FWCII (if that makes sense).
Please use this thread to add your own thoughts and suggestions. Errata would be particularly welcome.
NB: I'll start a separate thread around Army Lists - as there are some challenges around copyright with many of these and we'll probably need the FWC player community to assist with converting some of these to the new FWCII format.
Many thanks - in anticipation - for your active participation :)
Mark
Suggested Change: ban Kraytonians (especially Steve's pink ones) :D
QuoteThis is an advance notice that we are now starting work (in earnest) on FWCII.
]
(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fd2ae4d32-b4bb-11ec-8ba8-f6bf3099f5f6.jpg?crop=4232%2C2821%2C0%2C0)
Quote from: Kiwidave on 26 September 2023, 04:47:07 PMSuggested Change: ban Kraytonians (especially Steve's pink ones) :D
Sadly, I don't think you can buy them anymore
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 26 September 2023, 05:35:05 PMSadly, I don't think you can buy them anymore
True - but almost as 'sadly', that wont stop him playing with them, unfortunately :'( :'( :'(
AWESOME NEWS MARK!!!
I'm excited about the autonomous weapons, more electronic battlefield stuff, plus I think we have to ratchet the exotic up a little bit as modern stuff starts getting close to FWC.
On a related note, not afraid of Steve's Pink Krayty boys anymore, he can't reach me way out here on the left coast even with stupid hovering pulsing toy tanks :)
Graham
Great news!
Some initial thoughts for things to clarify/correct:
1) Fully explain how opp fire works against initiative units using stabilisation to Move and Fire or Fire and Move. (i.e. clarify when the opp fire takes place in each circumstance). Also clarify whether a shield-equipped unit which fires opp fire can regenerate its shields in the subsequent initiative phase after opp firing.
2) Consider introducing open-topped AFVs (as written, FWC1 does not have them).
3) Consider making FWC artillery work just like BKC artillery. (as written, FWC1 had different artillery rules than the other books in the series for some reason relating to barrages versus concentration, and had ortillery hitting on better values than other artillery) Also consider introducing special munitions from CWC into FWC (again, as written FWC1 didn't have any special munitions). Also consider introducing MRL (as written, there are no MRLs in FWC1).
4) Clarify what happens if a sniper suppresses the CO of an army that only has the CO as a sole command unit (e.g. a 1000pt Marine or Kraytonian army)
4) Clarify who can fire at air target RECCE units. (such as a VTOL used for RECCE - can it be fired at by anyone, or only AA?)
5) Clarify whether Stealth is always on and at all times (including when suffering an assault from out of LOS) allows the owner to disappear into the reserve pool, or whether it requires an action to activate stealth during the turn.
6) Reconsider the many AFVs in the lists that are not IFVs but are given an infantry-carrying ability (e.g. neo-Soviet Vombat). As written in FWC1 it was never clear how they were supposed to act in assaults - i.e. only IFVs can add their assault factors together with their troops.
7) Clarify how many spaces an IFV with its infantry inside takes up inside a Dropship/transport.
8) Clarify what happens when you have gunship versus gunship combat i.e. what weapons can they use on each other? can they assault each other?
9) Clarify when any support units are moved during an assault i.e. is all movement of support units left until after the assaulting units have moved into contact and any response fire is taken against them?
10) Clarify whether infantry upgrades are separate weapons (so you list them separately and have to choose whether to fire them, or the original weapon) or are added to the original factors for a single new rating.
All good stuff dylan, thanks ... and all fairly easily rectified (he says - fingers-crossed ;D ;D ;D )
Shields have always been a bit contentious as they are such an advantage and are (relatively) cheap or very cost effective, depending upon your views. But with very little down-side.
There has been discussion for some time about allowing recharge as an Initiative action, for example. But whether that turns them into a 'super' defenses, needs to to weighed up carefully.
I also like the idea of a more 'Dune' universe approach to shields - so that they are susceptible to 'slow' attacks (similar to the 'Star Wars' universe approach as well) but I'm in two minds about the catastrophic consequences, to both attacker & defender, when lasers hit shields (kaboom!).
I'm also interested in expanding the Urban Combat aspects of FWC - especially around fortifications & bunkers. Currently its almost impossible to destroy certain troop types when holed-up in a bunker (for example).
Adding in Large profile units, and upgrading Massive profile units, will allow for a greater range of capabilities for the Massive units.
The intention with 'refreshing' the 3 existing Commander rules sets has always been to try for consistency across all core mechanisms and FWCII will be no exception.
Cheers
Mark
QuoteShields have always been a bit contentious as they are such an advantage and are (relatively) cheap or very cost effective, depending upon your views. But with very little down-side.
I may be missing something here, but isn't an increase in the points cost the obvious fix?
QuoteI'm also interested in expanding the Urban Combat aspects of FWC - especially around fortifications & bunkers. Currently its almost impossible to destroy certain troop types when holed-up in a bunker (for example).
In BKC this can be pretty difficult. Hitting on 6s, suppressing on 6s, makes units in solid terrain very hard to shift even with huge amounts of fire power.
QuoteI may be missing something here, but isn't an increase in the points cost the obvious fix?
Absolutely fred :) There are a number of the 'special' weapons that need their points adjusting to better represent their actual abilities in the game, and defensive equipment needs a similar review.
In BKC this can be pretty difficult. Hitting on 6s, suppressing on 6s, makes units in solid terrain very hard to shift even with huge amounts of fire power.
Yes, I agree. But there's difficult and impossible and in FWC it can be closer to the latter. It's also a fine balance between 'reality' and the ability to have a game that actually works (& is fun). But as we are seeing in Chechnya, Syria and the Ukraine, and was also the case in Stalingrad etc. in WW2 - getting determined dug-in infantry out of Urban areas is a real challenge.
Cheers
Mark
QuoteGreat news!
5) Clarify whether Stealth is always on and at all times (including when suffering an assault from out of LOS) allows the owner to disappear into the reserve pool, or whether it requires an action to activate stealth during the turn.
This in particular I think was broken in FWC1 and was able to be exploited having an opponent fire and withdraw repeatedly effectively making the unit(s) in question unassailable. I think having it as an action to withdraw works better as it would introduce a decision, do I fire, move or vanish rather that fire AND vanish
G
Quote from: Big Insect on 26 September 2023, 06:16:41 PMTrue - but almost as 'sadly', that wont stop him playing with them, unfortunately :'( :'( :'(
I resent that remark. They are perfectly beatable as Alan has demonstrated.
:P :P
QuoteI resent that remark. They are perfectly beatable as Alan has demonstrated.
:P :P
Only if you are armed to the teeth with as many Smart Missiles as you can lay your hands on Steve.
And you do know that perfectly well :D :D :D
In my opinion the 3 Dark Realm Miniatures races, Pax Arcandian, Andrayadan & Kraytonian, were probably the most balanced of all of the sci-fi ranges covered by FWC.
Are any ranges, such as Epic (that's GW not Warlord), being covered by FWC2?
QuoteIn my opinion the 3 Dark Realm Miniatures races, Pax Arcandian, Andrayadan & Kraytonian, were probably the most balanced of all of the sci-fi ranges covered by FWC.
Are any ranges, such as Epic (that's GW not Warlord), being covered by FWC2?
Hi Al.
The plan is to look at all the current FWC lists (including some of the newer PDF ones) and revamp them.
Some of them (the GW Epic 40k lists in particular) may end up having to be 'fan' created lists - due to potential copyright challenges. Pete seemed to get away with them, but that was in different times, and Pete was not a competing figure manufacturer. But the intention is to allow players to create their own upgraded versions.
I would agree that all 3 of the Dark Realm lists you name were probably the most balanced - when played against themselves. It is when they were let loose on the wider FWC universe that challenges occurred. We don't mention the 4th Dark Realm list (Scythes) as it was almost too nasty to be played (IMHO). But I digress.
Somebody must surely have bought the masters for all the Dark Realm 6mm sci-fi stuff, but they just seem to have disappeared into a black-hole!
We also have other lists to be transposed across into FWCII - such as the now defunct Dropship Commander 'universe' and Grendel have also produced their own 6mm ranges as well. So for FWC II the intention is that all the lists will be on-line, some produced at 'Pendraken Towers', some by players, but having them all online helps editing them and resolving any errata. Pendraken has plans for an extensive 10mm sci-fi universe and these will (of course) feature strongly in the new army lists.
Cheers
Mark
With respect to bunkers/buildings, I always liked this house rule suggestion:
When a building is completely covered by a template weapon, it has to make a save on 2d6.
Military Bunkers 2+
Other Concrete Buildings 3+
Brick Buildings 4+
Wooden Buildings 5+
Save Modifiers (Cumulative):
Light Arty attack -0
Hvy Arty Attack -1
Arial or Orbital Attack -1
If the building is detroyed, all units inside make an unmodified save. Success means they remain inside the rubble. Failure means they move adjacent to the rubble and are automatically supressed.
Rubble counts as linear terrain, providing a -1 penalty to hit (even against templates), but no armour save modifier.
Quote from: Kiwidave on 26 September 2023, 04:47:07 PMSuggested Change: ban Kraytonians (especially Steve's pink ones) :D
Oi!!!
Just an 'update' for all you FWC fans out there.
Work is progressing well on the final draft of FWCII :D
I've looked at all the Errata in this thread and I think most of what has been raised has been covered off.
But if you have any other burning issues or suggestions or bright ideas, all are welcome and do please post them here, now, or forever hold your peace (until FWCIII that is) ;D
As discussed previously - the army lists will always be a challenge - however, we've reached a decision around the points costs and points calculator and we are not going to 'muck about' with it. The only changes will be a few (minor) points costs adjustments and the addition of the costs for any additional tech/armour/weaponry. So the old lists should work equally well with FWCII as they did in FWCI (with some minor adjustments).
As with CWCII, the enormity of producing the lists will mean that they will be drip-fed out online. But as I've mentioned previously the plan is to get you guys to do some of the work by converting across some of the old lists on-line as a 'fan-based' project. But fear not - I will also be producing lists - revamping old lists and generating new ones - and I'll act as the moderator for any new lists as well :)
NB: we've seen a number of great sci-fi books converted into films over the last few years, along with innovative new sci-fi 'universes' being created on-paper. I continue to be impressed with Neal Asher and Alistair Reynolds and I'm 'warming' to Adrian Tchaikovsky (slowly) but I still fall back on the likes of Robert A. Heinlein, Joe Haldeman, Arthur C. Clarke, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, and finally (the master) Frank Herbert for what I call 'real' space opera stuff.
Cheers
Mark
Cool, good to hear progress is solid.
Whilst I absolutely understand putting the army lists online, can I suggest that a good selection are still included in the rule book - as it is always good to have several official lists to use when you start playing, and then to refer back to once you want to start creating lists yourself.
Hi dylan
As I'm working on FWCII I thought I'd come back to you on some of your points below - partly to clarify the points you've raised but also to maybe respond to a couple of things.
My answers are below in bold (NB: I'm not shouting :) )
Cheers
Mark
QuoteGreat news!
Some initial thoughts for things to clarify/correct:
1) Fully explain how opp fire works against initiative units using stabilisation to Move and Fire or Fire and Move. (i.e. clarify when the opp fire takes place in each circumstance). Also clarify whether a shield-equipped unit which fires opp fire can regenerate its shields in the subsequent initiative phase after opp firing.
> Not sure I understand the issue here?
You cannot use Opportunity fire against units that are undertaking an Initiative Action. You can only use Opportunity Fire against a unit being Commanded. Also, Initiative Actions are relatively limited to move or shoot or initiate an assault or some other specific task, so Stabilization is irrelevant. As a unit that is Stabilized can still only either move or shoot as an Initiative action, it cannot move and shoot or shoot & move.
If you are assaulted by a unit as an Initiative Action you will get Response Fire (page 36) but that is part of the Close Assault mechanism.
In the case of Opportunity Fire at a Stabilized unit that is moving/shooting as a Commanded action, the first action performed by that unit can trigger Opportunity fire against it. If it shoots and moves, it is the shot that triggers Opportunity fire. If it moves and shoots it is the movement that triggers the Opportunity Fire.
2) Consider introducing open-topped AFVs (as written, FWC1 does not have them).
> consider it done :)
3) Consider making FWC artillery work just like BKC artillery. (as written, FWC1 had different artillery rules than the other books in the series for some reason relating to barrages versus concentration, and had artillery hitting on better values than other artillery)
> one of the intention of all the rewrites is to look to achieve consistency of core mechanisms. However, having artillery hitting on better values in FWC than in BKC & CWC probably reflects the situation around better/more effective ammo - as to your point 3a) below
3a) Also consider introducing special munitions from CWC into FWC (again, as written FWC1 didn't have any special munitions).
> this is a tricky one - as with CWCII we are already seeing new and specialist ammunition appearing over the last c.30 years and whilst it would be easy to just replicate the CWCII specialist ammo types - I'm not sure that they actually work that well in an Future War setting. For example is a large chitinous bug going to draw the attention of a FASCAM munition (for example). But I'll see what we can do ;)
3b) Also consider introducing MRL (as written, there are no MRLs in FWC1).
> True - that is easily rectified - and is more a part of the army lists than the actual rules.
4) Clarify what happens if a sniper suppresses the CO of an army that only has the CO as a sole command unit (e.g. a 1000pt Marine or Kraytonian army)
> That's easy - the CO can give no orders - so the Active players CO cannot give an orders. The other Command units (such as FAOs & FACs & Recce) can carry out orders and move, but the turn will finish with a suppressed CO. You've just got to hope that next turn the Sniper misses or the CO saves the hit ;D - best to protect that vulnerable CO trooper!
5) Clarify who can fire at air target RECCE units. (such as a VTOL used for RECCE - can it be fired at by anyone, or only AA?)
> this is one of those 'how long is a piece of string' queries.
Technically in FWCI Recce units move in the Initiative phase - so there is no Opportunity or AA fire against them whilst they move. With an aerial recce - they are in the air whilst they move and again (like the Stabilized unit using an Initiative action) they can only perform a single action - so moving is that single action - just as landing is also another single action. If the aerial recce moved/relocated as its action, it is going to remain in the air for the whole of the Active players turn & the defending players turn, next. That means it is vulnerable to Initiative action AA fire from the defending player at the start of their next turn (& some AA units have an unlimited initiative range) but also to Commanded AA fire as well. Aerial recce are great in that they can usually move longer distances and get a +1 for height for acquiring enemy units, but on the 'future' battlefield, they are very vulnerable.
NB: players have gotten very 'creative' with Initiative actions - but their options are actually very limited - you either: move or shoot or assault or undertake a specific action if you are Recce or Engineers (for example) - that's it basically!
5) Clarify whether Stealth is always on and at all times (including when suffering an assault from out of LOS) allows the owner to disappear into the reserve pool, or whether it requires an action to activate stealth during the turn.
> I'm not sure I understand the question? Units with Stealth have stealth as standard. The only time it isn't active is when the unit is suppressed. But it can only use Stealth as an action (page 55). But that action can only occur during the Initiative phase, as an action, in the Command phase, as an ordered action and when the unit is under assault. It cannot occur in response to enemy shooting.
6) Reconsider the many AFVs in the lists that are not IFVs but are given an infantry-carrying ability (e.g. neo-Soviet Vombat). As written in FWC1 it was never clear how they were supposed to act in assaults - i.e. only IFVs can add their assault factors together with their troops.
> I agree that this is unclear but IFVs are a very specific type of infantry transport, that allows the internal passengers to shoot out whilst inside. In most cases that I can see - like the Neo-Soviet Vombat (which is like the Israeli Mekarva) the units primary function is as an MBT not an IFV, with the infantry passengers being their to support that tank in close terrain. With an IFV - like a modern BMP or Marder for example - it is the infantry that are the primary combat elements, supported by the weapons carried by the IFV. An APC - like an M113 for example is primarily an armoured 'bus' and again the infantry/passengers are the primary fighting element. I'd suggest that with a unit like the Neo-Soviet Vombat - the infantry will de-buss as if the Vombat was an APC as (like the Merkava) there is no ability for the infantry passengers to shoot out whilst mounted. Which I think is my prerequisite for an IFV over an APC. NB: I read (a while back) that IDF infantry disliked being passengers in a Merkava, rather than an M113, as although the Merkava provided better protection, the tank crews - by their nature and their being in a tank - tended to dump the infantry out in far more exposed positions than the M113 crew ever did. Worth thinking about the psychology of what you are driving.
7) Clarify how many spaces an IFV with its infantry inside takes up inside a Dropship/transport.
> APC (with 2 passengers) and IFVs (with 1 passenger unit) will each take up 4 Transport spaces - an MBT takes up 6 passenger spaces. Light vehicles - buggies & jeeps (which can carry 1 passenger) will take up 2 spaces. Towed guns (without their tows) take up 4 spaces. SPGs take up 6. Assuming all are Average profile - except the buggies which are Low. This is the standard CWC formula that will be carried across to FWCII. There will always be exceptions (of course). NB: in drop-ships - think 'Aliens' the passengers travel in their IFV on the journey to the surface! - "drive safely Bishop!"
8) Clarify what happens when you have gunship versus gunship combat i.e. what weapons can they use on each other? can they assault each other?
> now we are getting into detail :D CWCII covered this by simply stating that on-table aerial combat was carried out in exactly the same manner as if it was on-the-ground combat. Treating each aerial helicopter (gunship) as if it was a flying tank. Most gunships in the list dont have a primary AA capability in FWCI anyway. So simply use the weapons that each gunship has to target each other. Templated weapons wont work, so it it will be their effect as a concentration that is used. Some weapons like Pulse weapons are slightly different as unlike against Ground targets they only hit the target unit, not those on behind in either in the air or on the ground. With regards to air-to-air (gunship on gunship assaults) if the units have CA factors, then they can assault each other. Hope that helps?
9) Clarify when any support units are moved during an assault i.e. is all movement of support units left until after the assaulting units have moved into contact and any response fire is taken against them?
> the example on page 38-39 shows that the supporting units are moved into support after the assaulting units have made it into contact with their targets. You dont move the supports before then as there is a possibility that the assaulting units might be KO'd before they contact. If they are KO'd the supports are not moved.
10) Clarify whether infantry upgrades are separate weapons (so you list them separately and have to choose whether to fire them, or the original weapon) or are added to the original factors for a single new rating.
> Infantry upgrades are separate weapons - you fire them on an either or basis - nominating that you are choosing to fire them and at what. You buy and list them separately but assigned to specific units. If that unit is KO'd, the upgrade is lost.
Quote from: fred. on 22 September 2024, 04:30:47 PMCool, good to hear progress is solid.
Whilst I absolutely understand putting the army lists online, can I suggest that a good selection are still included in the rule book - as it is always good to have several official lists to use when you start playing, and then to refer back to once you want to start creating lists yourself.
Yup, we'll be putting a couple of example lists in the main rules set - as we did with CWCII :)
Cheers
Mark
Quote from: Grumbeast on 08 October 2023, 08:07:17 PMThis in particular I think was broken in FWC1 and was able to be exploited having an opponent fire and withdraw repeatedly effectively making the unit(s) in question unassailable. I think having it as an action to withdraw works better as it would introduce a decision, do I fire, move or vanish rather that fire AND vanish
G
Hi Graham - apologies for a very tardy reply - I trust your weather is nowhere near as damp as ours is currently???
I think you might have had Stealth used against you incorrectly my old chum. Stealth actions are actually quite limited.
1). Stealth can be used as an Initiative action - which means the unit can just 'stealth away' but do nothing else (no shooting or mooning etc.)
2). Stealth can be used as a Commanded action (a successful order is required) and even then you cannot order the unit to appear on-table and then shoot (for example) or appear and move. It can just 'appear'.
3). as a response to an Assault. The opponent declares that their unit is assaulting your unit with Stealth and you respond by disappearing. You don't shoot first & then disappear.
I suspect you've been remembering playing Gordon at some point in the past (or was that a terrible dream) :d :d :d
Cheers
Mark
Hey Mark!
It has been raining here, but not like with you (though we need it, its either raining here or on fire!, I'll take the rain)
I think it was against someone else at one of our FWC weekends though I still have all the scars from playing Gordon :)
I did wonder at the time if the rules were being interpreted correctly. Great to hear that there has been progress, I'll try and get some of the local guys to play when they are released, I have a couple who will play CWC with me (and I ran a game of CWC at our local show in Vancouver last year, went down well)
Quote from: Big Insect on 22 September 2024, 05:46:03 PMHi dylan
As I'm working on FWCII I thought I'd come back to you on some of your points below - partly to clarify the points you've raised but also to maybe respond to a couple of things.
My answers are below in bold (NB: I'm not shouting :) )
Cheers
Mark
Thanks Mark. I think many of these questions can be easily addressed by just including a small amount more information in the rulebook at the appropriate point to make it absolutely clear to players what the intent is - as you've seen some players took liberties where there was any possible room to do so.
So, as but one example, make it very clear that AFVs that are not IFVs but carry passengers do not get any of the IFV bonuses in assault combat.
I think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).
Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.
IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that :)
Cheers
Mark
To me the AFV - APC - IFV interaction is more of a Venn diagram with overlaps rather than distinct labels.
I think on of the problems with many rulesets is the writer has an understanding of how things work and interact - but the challenge is getting that over to the players, whose knowledge is limited to what is on the page. So having some extra clarity on what is a defined term in the rules (eg IFV, APC) rather than what is just a narrative term is really important.
GW have much gone over to the keyword method to try to convey this. It's not perfect as you end up with a lot of keywords, but it does help avoid ambiguity
Quote from: Big Insect on 25 September 2024, 11:55:18 AMI think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).
Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.
IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that :)
Cheers
Mark
That's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear. I suppose the market will decide. Good luck!
I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about. I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.
Quote from: dylan on 27 September 2024, 01:38:55 AMThat's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear. I suppose the market will decide. Good luck!
I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about. I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.
Of course not dylan :) and they were all very good points that are now being addressed in FWCII.
The challenge you raise about players trying to use IFV actions with APCs is also not a new one. Players often read the rules in their own favor but there is nothing in FWCI that even implies that you can treat APC as if they behave as IFVs :)
My point above was that however hard a set of rules might try it cannot be written on the basis that it anticipates all the various things a player might try to do and prohibit them. It just ends up with excessive wording and in the end always fails :)
Cheers
Mark