Nations At War Core Rules PDF Edition v3.0 Rev47

[David Heath]

David Heath submitted a new resource:

Nations At War Core Rules v3.0 - Latest Core Rules for the Nations At War Game System

Nations At War system is a Platoon-level gaming set in World War II. Its innovative gameplay mechanics, unparalleled artwork, historical scope, and accessibility have entertained veteran and new gamers alike and now have matured in their presentation.

The NaW version 3.0 (v3.0) rules manual contains the latest set of guidelines and regulations for the game system. Our goal is to present the rules in a straightforward manner without disrupting their existing structure and foundation....

Read more about this resource...

 

[Zac]

Do the module specific rules need any updates?

 

[Brettspielkater]

What's the reason of the high price? Is a rule book production that expensive?

 

[David Heath]

We don't think the manual has a high price. The old manual was $10.00 less. We are also making the manual spiral bound.

David

 

[Ty Snouffer]

WIth the 5.0 LnLT rules there were a handful of actual rule changes. Are there any actual changes in this NaW ruleset or is it simply a accumulation of the rules? From the description page it doesn't see that there are any actual changes but wanted to check to make sure.

Thanks

 

[David Heath]

I will say there are not any rule changes, but we have made them clearer.

David

 

[Ty Snouffer]

Thanks, David. I have plans to finally get this to the table next week.

Cheers

 

[Tim Foxley]

Gaming Emergency: Line of Sight Rules - don't get the logic and need a decision...!?

Guys, someone help me please. Bought this a few months ago. Now playing it and very impressed - simple and elegant. But I have come across a logical impasse which has brought my German mechanised recce bn flanking manoeuvre to a standstill. Some visual examples of LOS would have helped. My background with LOS is primarily Squad leader and Panzer Blitz/Leader, which probably hinders me, but I welcomed the Nations at War attempt to simplify this rule aspect down to a handful of paragraphs

Question - can the hill tank shoot at the hill tank in this situation?:

Hill hex with tank on it---hex---hex---wooded hex---hex---hex---hill hex with tank on it.

Your rules appear clear that neither tank cannot shoot at the other tank: "...even if both the attacker and target are on a Hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a Woods hex is between the attacker and the target's hex". Fine with that - woods are taller than a hill hex.

Now picture this situation - can the hill tank shoot at the ground tank?

Hill hex with tank on it---hex---hex---wooded hex---ground hex with tank on it

Can the hill tank shoot at the ground tank? of course not. Woods being taller than hills, my every instinct says no. Your rules state that "If the attacker is on Hill level, it cannot fire at a Ground-Level enemy unit that is behind and adjacent to a hex that blocks LOS." I get that as well - this is as classic a LOS rule from history (ie Squad Leader etc) that you will find - you are sheltering immediately behind the wood/building. No way anyone can see you.

So now I work up to the final question - can the hill tank see the ground tank in this next situation?

Hill hex with tank on it---hex---hex---wooded hex---hex---hex---ground hex with tank on it.

In writing the rule I have just mentioned "If the attacker is on Hill level, it cannot fire at a Ground-Level enemy unit that is behind and adjacent to a hex that blocks LOS.", you seem to be holding out the possibility that if the ground unit was NOT adjacent to the wood/building hex and was perhaps 2-400 metres away behind it - even a kilometre - 3,4,5,6 hexes or whatever - a unit on a hill could see and fire at such a ground unit. But why does this rule exist if a woods hex blocks every hex (including tanks on hills) behind it?

If, in this last example, the answer is "no", then what is the military value in this game of having the high ground (other than the bonus defensive die roll from incoming ground fire)?

I welcome someone's expertise?

Cheers

Tim

 

[ChuckB]

Hi Tim,

I can offer no "expertise" (meaning specific knowledge or superior understanding of the rules) but I'll try to help (since I'm also playing the game).

After reading the 5 paragraphs under Rule 6.1.2 several times, I think I understand where the confusion is coming from and here is my interpretation of the rules (which partly comes from knowing and partially applying the LoS rules of the Lock 'N Load Tactical system, which I know):

I do NOT think that the system assumes that blocking terrain ("BT") is higher than hills but that it is basically the same height, which would explain why there is a "shadow" element of both the ridgelines as well as any BT, meaning anything immediately behind it is outside the LoS, EVEN IF the attacker is on a hill.
If the target is behind a BT (but not adjacent to it), LoS would be established. What is confusing (or ambiguous) in this case is the second paragraph of Rule 6.1.2, which is your first bolded citation. I read that as a case where everything in this scenario (attacker, target, AND the BT) is on the hill level (but have to admit that this rule would not be strictly necessary, as it would basically irrelevant if it would happen on a hill or not but state the "normal" LoS rules).

In your examples, it's not clear if the "wooded hex" is actually a "wooded ground hex" or "wooded hill hex" and if the "hexes" in between are "hill hexes" or "ground hexes", which would make a difference.

If in your first example we speak about a "ground wooded hex", I would think there is LoS between the attacker and target that are each on a hill hex.
I would agree with you on your second example.
For the last one, it again makes a difference if the two hexes between the hill attacker and the wooded hex are hill hexes. If so, LoS blocked IMO (last paragraph of 6.1.2), otherwise, if all the hexes (including wooded hex) are ground hexes, I would say LoS established, because the target is NOT adjacent to the wooded hex.

Again, my reading and understanding, not necessarily the truth ...

 

[David Heath]

Hi Guys,

I have asked Sean to jump in and answer this question.

David

 

[Tim Foxley]

Hi Tim,

I can offer no "expertise" (meaning specific knowledge or superior understanding of the rules) but I'll try to help (since I'm also playing the game).

After reading the 5 paragraphs under Rule 6.1.2 several times, I think I understand where the confusion is coming from and here is my interpretation of the rules (which partly comes from knowing and partially applying the LoS rules of the Lock 'N Load Tactical system, which I know):

I do NOT think that the system assumes that blocking terrain ("BT") is higher than hills but that it is basically the same height, which would explain why there is a "shadow" element of both the ridgelines as well as any BT, meaning anything immediately behind it is outside the LoS, EVEN IF the attacker is on a hill.
If the target is behind a BT (but not adjacent to it), LoS would be established. What is confusing (or ambiguous) in this case is the second paragraph of Rule 6.1.2, which is your first bolded citation. I read that as a case where everything in this scenario (attacker, target, AND the BT) is on the hill level (but have to admit that this rule would not be strictly necessary, as it would basically irrelevant if it would happen on a hill or not but state the "normal" LoS rules).

In your examples, it's not clear if the "wooded hex" is actually a "wooded ground hex" or "wooded hill hex" and if the "hexes" in between are "hill hexes" or "ground hexes", which would make a difference.

If in your first example we speak about a "ground wooded hex", I would think there is LoS between the attacker and target that are each on a hill hex.
I would agree with you on your second example.
For the last one, it again makes a difference if the two hexes between the hill attacker and the wooded hex are hill hexes. If so, LoS blocked IMO (last paragraph of 6.1.2), otherwise, if all the hexes (including wooded hex) are ground hexes, I would say LoS established, because the target is NOT adjacent to the wooded hex.

Again, my reading and understanding, not necessarily the truth ...

Hi Chuck - many thanks for this really helpful reply, much appreciated. Apologies for my own slight ambiguity with my examples - every hex is a ground hex unless I specifically note hill hex. Your thinking is in line with mine and I am going to game on that basis. This therefore suggests that paragraph two of the Hill-Level LOS section is the flawed one that confuses our understanding of the subsequent ones. I even wonder now whether the rule writers meant to say "on the same hill" rather than "on a hill". That would then make sense. All my understanding of the logic of this type of tactic-level of boardgaming suggests that a unit on a hill should be able to fire at/see a unit on a different hill with woods and villages in the valley in between playing no part in obstructing LOS. Smoke might be the exception but that is not my concern here.

My suggested rewrite for paragraph 2 would thus be:

"If both the attacker and target are on the same hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a woods/town hex is between the attacker and the target's hex. If both the attacker and target are on separate hills, LOS is not blocked by intervening woods or towns in the valley between."

and my clarification for paragraph 3 would be:

"If the attacker is on a Hill Level, it cannot fire at a Ground-Level enemy unit that is behind and immediately adjacent to a hex that blocks LOS, but it can fire at a unit that is two or more hexes beyond that same blocking terrain (unless other separate LOS factors apply). Cultivated terrain offers no such LOS protection from a unit on a hill."

Naturally I welcome any thoughts

 

[Tim Foxley]

Hi Guys,

I have asked Sean to jump in and answer this question.

David

Hi David, many thanks. I would welcome yours or Sean's thoughts on my reply to Chuck. My sense is that paragraph two of the Hill-Level LOS section may need a slight adjustment.

Cheers

Tim

 

[Sean Druelinger]

Hello
So I appreciate everyone's support in attempting to answer this. To begin LOS is completely different than a game like LNL Tac or ASL. Terrain in a hex blocks LOS through the whole hex...

In regards to hills.
1. You may only shoot at a ground hex if you are on a hex that borders another ground hex, You cannot not be in the middle of a hill and shoot down. (Think crest line).
2. If a firing unit is on a hill and the target is on a hill they are at the same elevation. If there is additional terrain on the hill (like woods) then determine LOS as if it was on level 1 terrain. Example: Tank on hill behind woods cannot see tank on another hill if the woods is between the tank and the target tank.
3. If you are shooting at a target from a hill, adjacent to a ground hex and no other blocking terrain between you and the target you can see the target.
4. If your target is on the ground and blocking terrain is between the firing unit on a hill and the target unit on the ground where the targeted unit is not adjacent to blocking terrain between the firing unit and target. It can be shot at.
5. If the targeted unit is adjacent to blocking terrain between firing hill unit and it then LOS is blocked.

So there are both LOS advantages and firing advantages for being on a hill. The LOS advantage is shooting over blocking ground level terrain providing target is not adjacent.

Hope this helps.

Thank you
Sean

 

[Tim Foxley]

Hello
So I appreciate everyone's support in attempting to answer this. To begin LOS is completely different than a game like LNL Tac or ASL. Terrain in a hex blocks LOS through the whole hex...

In regards to hills.
1. You may only shoot at a ground hex if you are on a hex that borders another ground hex, You cannot not be in the middle of a hill and shoot down. (Think crest line).
2. If a firing unit is on a hill and the target is on a hill they are at the same elevation. If there is additional terrain on the hill (like woods) then determine LOS as if it was on level 1 terrain. Example: Tank on hill behind woods cannot see tank on another hill if the woods is between the tank and the target tank.
3. If you are shooting at a target from a hill, adjacent to a ground hex and no other blocking terrain between you and the target you can see the target.
4. If your target is on the ground and blocking terrain is between the firing unit on a hill and the target unit on the ground where the targeted unit is not adjacent to blocking terrain between the firing unit and target. It can be shot at.
5. If the targeted unit is adjacent to blocking terrain between firing hill unit and it then LOS is blocked.

So there are both LOS advantages and firing advantages for being on a hill. The LOS advantage is shooting over blocking ground level terrain providing target is not adjacent.

Hope this helps.

Thank you
Sean

Thanks Sean, that is a very helpful clarification. Doesn't this mean therefore that paragraph two ("...even if both the attacker and target are on a Hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a Woods hex is between the attacker and the target's hex") is unhelpfully ambiguous - it is not clear if the attacker and target are on the same hill or if the blocking terrain is on the hill level or ground level?

What do you think of my suggested amendments to paras 2 and 3, above?

Cheers!

Tim

 

[ChuckB]

Hi Chuck - many thanks for this really helpful reply, much appreciated. Apologies for my own slight ambiguity with my examples - every hex is a ground hex unless I specifically note hill hex. Your thinking is in line with mine and I am going to game on that basis. This therefore suggests that paragraph two of the Hill-Level LOS section is the flawed one that confuses our understanding of the subsequent ones. I even wonder now whether the rule writers meant to say "on the same hill" rather than "on a hill". That would then make sense. All my understanding of the logic of this type of tactic-level of boardgaming suggests that a unit on a hill should be able to fire at/see a unit on a different hill with woods and villages in the valley in between playing no part in obstructing LOS. Smoke might be the exception but that is not my concern here.

My suggested rewrite for paragraph 2 would thus be:

"If both the attacker and target are on the same hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a woods/town hex is between the attacker and the target's hex. If both the attacker and target are on separate hills, LOS is not blocked by intervening woods or towns in the valley between."

and my clarification for paragraph 3 would be:

"If the attacker is on a Hill Level, it cannot fire at a Ground-Level enemy unit that is behind and immediately adjacent to a hex that blocks LOS, but it can fire at a unit that is two or more hexes beyond that same blocking terrain (unless other separate LOS factors apply). Cultivated terrain offers no such LOS protection from a unit on a hill."

Naturally I welcome any thoughts

Hi Tim,

The way I would probably approach this would be to go one step "higher" and clarify some baseline rules: compared to other games (such as LnL Tactical, not sure if you are familiar with the system) the rules around hills in NaW should be rather basic due to the fact that the NaW system only seems to deal with a basic elevation system: there are ground (level) hexes and hill hexes. Other than for example in LnL Tactical, there don't seem to be different elevation levels in NaW (LnL Tactical as 1-story and 2-story buildings and hills can also have different levels). That would mean that units (and other terrain features) are either on ground level or hill level (with all hills being the same height). The one thing we then have to know is how high/tall blocking features are (woods, cities, towns) or, rather, if they are taller than the (floor) height of a hill. If not (meaning they are, at a maximum, reaching only to the (floor) height of a hill), they do not matter for any LoS between units on hills (provided that this blocking feature is on ground level).

Regarding your rewrite of paragraph 2: I don't think it matters of the units are on the same hill, it only matters if the units are on a hill (i.e. not on ground level). Also, the LoS between two units that are both on a hill would only be blocked by a blocking feature that is also on a hill. I would probably stay away from introducing terms like "valley" as they could suggest something outside (or in addition) to the basic concept of everything being either on ground or hill level.

In your clarification of paragraph 3, I would leave out your last sentence because cultivated terrain never offers LoS protection and mentioning it here in connection with hills suggest that there is something special about cultivated terrain and hills (which I don't think is the case).

One suggestion I would have with respect to the rules would be (a) (throughout the rule book) to number each paragraph within a section to make references easier and (b) move the last paragraph of Section 6.1.2 ("If the attacker is on a Hill Level, it cannot fire at an enemy unit ...") behind the first because this one paragraph together with the first one describe LoS rules around hills generally (not matter of any blocking terrain), while the following paragraphs of 6.1.2 add additional rules for cases where you have both units on hills AND additional terrain features, meaning the first two paragraphs always apply as the more general rules while the following ones are more specific.

Writing these rules seems pretty difficult ...

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Doesn't this mean therefore that paragraph two ("...even if both the attacker and target are on a Hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a Woods hex is between the attacker and the target's hex") is unhelpfully ambiguous - it is not clear if the attacker and target are on the same hill or if the blocking terrain is on the hill level or ground level?

What do you think of my suggested amendments to paras 2 and 3, above?

Myself, I see obstacles such as woods and city as being one level high so if two enemy units are on hillm hexs (same hill or different ones), their LOS to each other is not affected by obstacle on ground level

I see a possible failing of your suggested rewording for para 2.

If both the attacker and target are on the same hill, LOS is blocked if blocking terrain such as a woods/town hex is between the attacker and the target's hex. If both the attacker and target are on separate hills, LOS is not blocked by intervening woods or towns in the valley between."

The problem is with the words same/separate. You could very well have both the attacker and the target on the same C-shaped hill, with woods in between them on gound level. You could also have the attacker nad, the target on two separate hills, with wooded hill hex in between the two of them (either on one of their hill or a third one) that would block LOS.

What need to be introduced is the concept of level because if both the attacker and the target are standing on level-2 hill hexes, their LOS would not be blocked by a wood hex located between them but on a level-1 hex. In fact, that would also prevent anybody from invoking para 5 (If the attacker is on a Hill Level, it cannot fire at an enemy unit on Ground Level if a Hill hex is between the attacker’s hex and target’s hex). to pretend that a unit on a level-2 hill hex could not fire at a unit on the ground two hexes away from a level-1 hill hex

I don't think para 3 need rewording, because para 4 explain it pretty well. Maybe those 2 para could be fused