The Commander Series Forum

Bttn of T34s, pulled up snug against a marsh, shooting across it.
Boxcars rolled, check the result, make one full move towards enemy.
The marshes, as in the rulebook and already discussed, were impassable to AFVs, and these were early T34s, so no wide track nonsense allowed.
We discussed and debated, and eventually decided to treat the marsh as a minefield, as it seemed somewhat hard on my 12 year old nephew to lose 8 tanks on one roll.
Any thoughts on this? Have we missed something in the rules?
Thoughts, suggestions, corrections welcomed...

Would they not have to move into it and immediately get stuck. The only way out would be engineers towing them. There would be a danger of sinking so crews would perhaps bail out so they would effectively be knocked out. This would prove that the marsh is impassable!

That's the best blunder ever. That's why I love these rules.

I think the "Full move towards the enemy" is only applicable for terrain that the units can enter, so in your case they would just stay at the edge of the marsh, and wonder at the intellect of higher command.

The blunders need to be applied sensibly, rather than rigidly sometimes...

They should go round it in that instance

Or as KD says, stay put if they can't.

Hmm, shame, I quite liked the idea of poor tankovy sliding into the mud as they blindly charge forwards, but thanks for the input and clarifications.

We'd probably go for them moving around the edge of the marsh to get as close as possible to enemy as they can! At least until they hit open terrain and then CHARGE! with whatever move is left.

Please can you clarify here?

If you treat the Blunder in a similar way to a Fall Back move - then moving into impassable terrain will KO every unit. Note that both Blunder and Fall Back specifically call out that the move should be 'Directly' towards or away from a unit / baseline.

If you think the Blunder move is not similar to a Fall Back move....then you can judge that units under a Blunder don't have to enter impassable terrain...but still have to move and try to find the most direct path to the enemy unit / baseline as possible avoiding the impassible terrain. Only staying still if a unit under a Blunder would end up no closer to the enemy / baseline than they started.

For me ....I think it's right to treat as per a Fall Back....and the units get knocked out.

Justify this any way you like....For example....on page 19 Impassible terrain is only impassible If no route is marked through that terrain.....you could argue that the blundering commander ordered an advance through a non-existent route. That's what a blunder is. But frankly you can justify it however you want.

The important thing is to get a clear rule that feels like it fits in relation to the other rules.

Yeah, strictly speaking I think the blunder would just kill them... from a less harsh stance I'd say path of least immediate death but most forwards...

A blunder isn't necessarily a bad thing to happen, just a misunderstanding of orders or a subordinate carrying out his own orders! Probably a bit harsh that they just dive head-first into the swamp - it's not as if they don't know it's there like an unmarked minefield.

So Pete...

You'd be going for option (2) in my previous post?
Its the bit about moving or staying still that needs clarification now that the Blunder isn't like Fall back.
Ta

How about this: if they can move directly towards the enemy, they do so, otherwise they stay put?

Sure....

Move directly towards enemy unit / baseline, stopping at the boundary of any intervening impassable terrain.

....Is clear.....but personally prefer to treat like Fall Back and have harsher impacts of the Blunder.....more dramatic that way!

To be honest, although I asked the original question to clarify, in case we missed something, our solution felt pretty good.

To remind people, we treated the swamp as a hidden minefield, with the according distance rolls leading to hits etc, with the proviso that they could not remain stationary, but had to either break on through, or carefully reverse.

He lost one tank, and it split the command up a bit, but it felt like the command blunder plus the positioning had worked well, in that he'd suffered a bit, but not lost his whole battalion. Plus, it felt more fun than just driving round the marsh.

Glad it worked for you. It would be difficult to say what to do in all situations, the rule book would end up being 1000 pages long and no-one would read it anyway

"but personally prefer to treat like Fall Back and have harsher impacts of the Blunder"

But a fall-back is usually only one unit, a blunder can affect lots of units. To have an entire bttn of T34 charge to their deaths into a swamp is a little bit harsh...they are basically struck there for a turn anyway.

As the co-recipient of the above blunder, I have to agree that the "unmarked minefield" felt about right. As SeanieUK said, the command was broken up, as some thanks pushed through the marsh and moved quite a way ahead, and others were stuck for a turn d6 inches inside the marsh.

We got our own back next turn when we were aiming for a roll under a CV of 4 and got double 1's and seconds later SeanieUK's chair broke and dumped him on the floor. See the power of our Russian might! In soviet Russia the dice roll you!

That's the power of the dialectic, comrades!

Surely it can't be advance and be destroyed? Next thing we'll accept it when they advance over a cliff!

I reckon we'd have just made them go around the swamp - simple!

I agree with Dr Dave, as the problem I see with insisting that blundering units move directly through impassible terrain would be that you could then see units crossing impassible rivers not just marsh. If you don't knock-out units that move into impassible terrain, then how are you ever going to get them out? So, if you don't want units knocked out, stranded or passing through impassible terrain, the only other option would be to make such compulsive moves be by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain. The blunders could then be worded as follows for the various blunders:

4. All units being ordered make one half move towards their baseline by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain.
6. All units being ordered make one half move towards their nearest visible enemy unit by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain.
7. Roll three dice and the command unit moves this distance towards their baseline by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain.
8. All units being ordered make one full move towards their nearest visible enemy unit by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain.
10. All units being ordered make one full move towards their baseline by the most direct route avoiding impassible terrain.

What do you think? Any chance of adding them to the FAQ?

Might be worth clarifying if units without a move value ignore blunders requiring movement.

What about units in bunkers as I thought there was a rule that you couldn't move some units out of a bunker?

On a related subject, can opportunity fire can be used against blundering units moving or firing?

RE OPPORTUNITY FIRE

Unless you think you can destroy them its a waste of ammo / -1 off command roll next time as their blunder ends that commands effectivesness?

I think the rules are that you can interrupt any movement with opportunity fire and and reply to any fire with opportunity fire (save restrictions on likes of mortars and likes of LOS etc).

The actual opportunity fire rule reads that you can fire at an enemy unit that carries out a move or fire action. Do actions carried out as a result of a blunder count as normal actions, bearing in mind that blunder movement is not hindered by the normal movement restrictions such as stopping at linear terrains and minefields? I would think yes and thus subjected to opportunity fire but would like it clarified.

Yep - if you blunder and advance into open ground, or fire when concealed, then you can be "opportunitied" back! Anything else would seem daft!