The Commander Series Forum

Forum Home Forum Home
ImageCurrent Forum Category Cold War Commander, 1946+
ImageImageCurrent Forum CWC Rule Queries
ImageImageImageCurrent Topic A couple of post-Crisis Point rules issues
Post Reply
Post Reply
Author Page 1 
Counterpane
United Kingdom
Joined 26/03/07
Last Visit 16/10/18
130 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 12:54:22 GMT
Two differences of rules interpretation came up during the Crisis Point game. The first (on AA fire) has, I think, been resolved previously on this forum. The second (on ATGWs) appears to remain unresolved and could perhaps be addressed through the FAQs.

The AA Issue

Case 1: My British FAC successfully calls in a Harrier strike on the advancing Russians. He then calls in a subsequent Jaguar strike on the same target.

Case 2: Later in the game the same FAC uses a single order to call in three Harriers to hit a vehicle in the middle of a nearby Motor Rifle Battalion.

My understanding is that in Case 1 any AA unit with range can target the Jaguar even if it previously fired at the Harrier. In Case 2, however, each AA unit may only fire at one aircraft. This represents the use of a co-ordinated strike to distract or swamp the local AA defences.

This was Pete’s ruling previously but it would do no harm to have it confirmed.

The ATGW Issue

Option A: A specialist AA vehicle such as an FV438 or a BRDM with Sagger may fire once per Game Turn. If it fires using an order in my turn I can’t then use it to opportunity fire in my opponent’s turn.

Option B: A specialist AA vehicle such as an FV438 or a BRDM with Sagger may fire once per Player Turn. If it fires using an order in my turn I can still use it to opportunity fire in my opponent’s turn.

This one appears to have been ruled both ways in the past. A clarification would be useful. Personally I lean towards Option B because otherwise there is very little to distinguish between the firepower of an ATGW-equipped IFV like a BMP-1 and that of a specialist ATGW vehicle like the Sagger-equipped BRDM.

Could we have a definitive ruling please?

Otherwise I think it’s a tribute to Pete’s work that the rules accommodated fourteen players from different parts of England without more differences of interpretation.

Richard
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 13:00:57 GMT
The AA Issue - correct.

The ATGW Issue - ATGWs may only fire once per game turn, those mounted on IFVs may only use opp fire.
ianrs54
England
Joined 08/11/08
Last Visit 19/01/23
1348 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 16:56:26 GMT
Sorry to push this - Does once per turn mean that if you use Opp fire you then cant use Ordered fire.

IanS
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 17:03:13 GMT
Yes that's right, Ian. The bit that was missing from the text in the rule book was "game" where it says once per turn. It should read once per game turn.
stenicplus
England
Joined 05/06/07
Last Visit 24/05/22
483 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 17:25:11 GMT
And so presumably the reverse is true too then?

If you ordered fire due to moving first in a game turn, you may not then use opp fire when it comes to your opponent's command phase in that turn.

Hmm... need to re-read FWC bits and check the wording.
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 17:41:35 GMT
That's right, but careful - think this only applies to CWC Wink
collins355
United Kingdom
Joined 16/08/09
Last Visit 27/08/21
170 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 21:19:32 GMT
Now you've got me worried Pete. You mean in FWC missiles can fire more than once a game turn?
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 25 April 2012 at 22:11:19 GMT
Read the book Smile
ianrs54
England
Joined 08/11/08
Last Visit 19/01/23
1348 Posts
Posted on 26 April 2012 at 09:31:21 GMT
Sorry mate - but

M551 Sheridan and various T64/72/80/90 with missiles - can these missiles in any phase, and then fire as a gun. My personal opinion is that they should be treated as IFV.

Also infantry with ATGW and the various and assorted LAW/MAW (ie Carl Gustav, M72, RPG-7) - once with missile, once with each AT weapon ?

IanS
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 26 April 2012 at 09:38:48 GMT
Soviet tanks firing ATGW can fire until they are in range with their main gun, then they can't use their ATGW. Other than that, they are still limited to once per game turn.
toxicpixie
United Kingdom
Joined 09/03/11
Last Visit 17/07/21
2177 Posts
Posted on 26 April 2012 at 11:14:54 GMT
I think you're over complicating the question. If a unit has an ATGW attack (or IATW), then it can fire it once per game turn, no matter whether it be dedicated AT (e.g. Milan Team, BRDM with Spandrel etc) or a secondary/limited ammo/special case weapon (Russian tanks with ATGW, IFVs, Sheriden etc).

With Russian tanks, M60A2, Sheriden etc I'd presume they can fire in either Ops. or normal command phase, as they're NOT an IFV in game terms (and in 'real world terms' whilst tthe weapon systems might not have been perfect/unlimited ammo, they were primary systems intended as the main AT punch at certain ranges etc).

The gun can then fire as normal, subject to successful command rolls.

You wouldn't find ATGW teams with IATW in CWC terms, I think - the IATW would be bought for/carried by the infantry platoons; the ATGW teams wouldn't have them as they're an infantry support stand (as I understand it!).
ianrs54
England
Joined 08/11/08
Last Visit 19/01/23
1348 Posts
Posted on 26 April 2012 at 13:47:10 GMT
But - whilst Milan can be spearate the US army uses it's Dragon and Javiln within platoons, so embeded, and most 70/80s infantry carried at least 2 types of AT weapon, ie British with M72 and Carl Gustav, so can these fire all their weapons...

On somthing different the Draon does look a tad over-pointed.

IanS
toxicpixie
United Kingdom
Joined 09/03/11
Last Visit 17/07/21
2177 Posts
Posted on 26 April 2012 at 16:56:16 GMT
In RAW if it's an upgrade you can only buy it and roll it into an infantry stand. If it's a separate stand then you can only buy it as a separate stand and use it as such.

You can buy & attach a single IATW to a single infantry base.

How well that represents doctrine in a given army is debatable, but it does keep it simple and works very well.

If you as a player think team X with weapon Y should be part of the infantry stand then just keep them together on the table top Smile

Rules wise, a stand gets a single effective opportunity to attack with IATW per turn.

Whatever combination they're armed with, they'd use the best & the most they could - so buy them Charlie-G's and they get those dice. If you figure the LAW stats better represent them AT doctrine, training and weapons, then buy them those.

I really think you're over complicating things! If you want more 'chrome' and detail then you can house rule it, but I'd suggest it's not massively appropriate at the scale CWC looks at.

Now, skirmish level (a la FWC), it's a different game. You may well have two blokes carrying the Charlie-G, whilst every model has a LAW 'just in case', and then it's your decision as commander whose firing what when...
Counterpane
United Kingdom
Joined 26/03/07
Last Visit 16/10/18
130 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2012 at 11:19:35 GMT
I'll bring this up in the CWC-II section of the Forum when Pete launches an appropriate topic but I'll put down a marker here.

I think the new rules should make the following changes with ref to ATGWs:

1. Ditch the "can't fire across water" rule; it's not generally the case.

2. Provide more distinction between specialist ATGW systems and ATGWs-on-IFVs. Perhaps there are three categories:

IFVs - may only use ATGW for opportunity fire
Infantry ATGW units - may fire once per game turn (due to reload limitations)
Specialist ATGW vehicles - may fire once per player turn.
pete
Wales
Joined 05/02/04
Last Visit 07/05/19
3793 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2012 at 11:28:09 GMT
Feel free to post topics on things you are unclear about in the new section or that could be clearer in the rule book or that need to be defined/clarified Smile
Counterpane
United Kingdom
Joined 26/03/07
Last Visit 16/10/18
130 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2012 at 12:11:11 GMT
Thanks, Pete, I'll take this over there.

Richard
Counterpane
United Kingdom
Joined 26/03/07
Last Visit 16/10/18
130 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2012 at 12:13:04 GMT
Strike that, you've done it already. Thanks!
Page 1