A house rule allowing them to "beam back down" when the infantry want to remount would solve that.  If they do it in an unfeasible place within range of the enemy, then they pay the price with losses from op fire.  At least let 30 Corps keep moving!

Cheers, Andy

You know we've never removed trucks! Not been an issue - unarmed soft skins don't count re:breakpoint anyway so unless they get arty'd no one has bothered "cherry picking" them unless they're the only target available

Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 October 2015, 01:17:17 PM
You know we've never removed trucks! Not been an issue - unarmed soft skins don't count re:breakpoint anyway so unless they get arty'd no one has bothered "cherry picking" them unless they're the only target available

we leave them on too, for the same reason, and so you can use them again. you are not actually obliged to take them off are you? are we playing that wrong too?

I do recall a game where the 'cunning' player advanced his trucks in front of his infantry to prevent the other guy shooting the footsloggers first.  .

Pat

I actually have played where we kept the trucks on table; as Pbeccas mentioned, there are certain scenarios where there's plenty of room to maneuver/ground to cover.  So when troops dismounted, the trucks automatically backed up about 8 or 12 inches and sat there, and they could be summoned later by infantry wishing to re-mount.

The only orders they were allowed to receive were to move to the infantry they had previously dismounted, then mount them up again.  Once the infantry were loaded they could act as normal.  But that wasn't really a big deal for us, as neither of us had any ideas of using our trucks as recon/assault forces   Our discussion of 'rules' was only in terms of not having to do command rolls to fall back or summon the trucks, it happened automatically.  Though this surely took some of the fun out of the game, as, no doubt, one of us most certainly would have rolled a blunder when trying to get our trucks forward to pick the infantry up!  And it made for 'too-good' coordination, i.e., as soon as the infantry wanted the trucks they appeared.  Not the most realistic, but we didn't want a game that lasted eight hours while simply waiting for trucks.  The defender was foot mobile in two widely dispersed areas of the table, so they weren't about to counterattack while the attacker was waiting for trucks, as we were playing in 3mm on a 6' x 8' table.

So, I have no problem with trucks being 're-used,' but I think there should be some mechanism to make sure nothing ridiculous is occurring.

V/R,
Jack

Is there an "unimpressed face" smiley? Tsk. That sort of play rankles with me but no ones ever seriously used that in any of the groups I've played in. As opposed to over running some ones transport which is awesomely good fun!

Perhaps solved by a simple "empty soft skins do not block line of sight/fire" line. Certainly they should never be a priority target! Spearhead (sorry, sound like a broken record I know) prevents this with excellent "fire priority" rules to force people to shoot the most legitimate targets first. Works really well as you can "protect" your armour from infantry AT By having nearby infantry of your own & vice versa, use 75mm Shermans to screen the Fireflys etc etc and it encourages good combined arms and rewards cross attaching units and mixed all arms formations. Not suitable at BKC's level of play though, I think.

Quote from: bigjackmac on 07 October 2015, 02:42:26 PM
So, I have no problem with trucks being 're-used,' but I think there should be some mechanism to make sure nothing ridiculous is occurring.

I believe the 'Commander' rules already have this in the form of the 'pointy stick' rule?

Perhaps trucks teleport off when they deliver their contents but a successful order allows your wizard to successfully cast the "Summon Trucks" spell?

Oh dear, perhaps I'm getting my rule systems muddled here

Sounds like the opposite of buses, teleport away when needed and magically appear in droves when not...

Edinburgh bus service is not only very good but, since I have my "old-fogeys" bus pass, free too. Lothian Buses' Bustracker app even lets you see how long your "Summon Omnibus" spell will take to cast!

"That sort of play rankles with me but no ones ever seriously used that in any of the groups I've played in."

Hey, I'm with you, I've never seen it either, but I can still see the need to have some language in the rules to prevent it, whether it's trucks being beamed up, target priority rules, whatever.

I play almost exclusively solo, so my opponent never does gamey stuff or cheats, though I'm not proud to admit I have cheated him a couple times... 

V/R,
Jack

BKC Areas to be looked at (these are the ones we find tricky/unsatisfactory in our games) :

- How "cover" works, in trenches, in buildings etc etc, and especially for infantry. It seems either to make them unkillable obstacles that can't be seen, can't be shifted, or otherwise easy victims to direct fire from AFV's. Not sure on the answer, but maybe an area for clarification or even blue-sky thinking ?

- LOS rules, visibility and terrain effects, especially when it comes to hedges and low area terrain, or when infantry can be seen (and targeted by tanks - see above). Negotiated between players is fine, but probably could be worked through and tightened up to be more workable in the rules

- Costs of command stands. A PITA I know, but CV is a force multiplier that improves all of the models in the army, whether you are playing 1000 or 10,000 points. Likewise the +1 for fixed command structures is a blunt instrument that can end up being far too overly effective as a 'freebie'

- Engineering & scenarios - getting your teams of engineers to the right spot unscathed to remove obstacles, and protecting them whilst they do their job often seems to end up being an integral part of a lot of the scenarios. Engineering should probably be part of the "chrome" around the edges of the rules if you are talking 'toys on table', or maybe even an abstracted capability of some sort to factor in if you are looking at scenario design ... not something vital (and quite so time consuming, but brittle)     

- Costs and mechanics of adding AT weapons to infantry stands. We all want to have tooled up units with bazookas, but right now its both a rebasing challenge and a prohibitive cost

- More provision for aircraft, maybe in a less effective role, but with an excuse to loiter on table more often ... even if this means bending the historical precedent to make them more prevalent. This is because seeing model aircraft in 1/144th scale on table is really, really cool, but right now they are very rare. they are also so much more devastating as a one-shot anti-tank unit than as a area bomber that they often effectively become just a Tiger-removal game mechanic.

- Look again at the scenarios generally. They would benefit from some testing about game length, and some guidelines about width of table/CV values of the forces involves etc, as you currently  would struggle to achieve some of them even with no opposition!

- Break points. Very blunt and simple, but possibly a more granular approach differentiating tanks and infantry would be good - maybe even list-specific?

tim

Welcome Tim

I see that's your first post. I could have sworn you were a member already,ir  maybe I am thinking of another site

Always enjoy your site and goad to see you here

Welcome from me, too, Tim.
Cheers - Phil

Welcome Mr Xeman, or may I call you Mada?

Join for the BKC, stay for the combined cameraderie and insanity.

Quote from: sane max on 07 October 2015, 02:08:48 PM
I do recall a game where the 'cunning' player advanced his trucks in front of his infantry to prevent the other guy shooting the footsloggers first.  .

Pat

thats rather gamey, not sure he would get many games at our club  after that.