RE: DSII: More questions

This was answered by Mike Elliott a while ago, and he said it
was the first erratum for DSII.  I can't find that message,
though.  It was from a long time ago.  I think he pretty much
said use the chart for everything the chart specifies.	Anything
it doesn't cover, use the rules in the text.  Conflicts--use
the chart.  That meant when firing at infantry with weapons
you don't take cover into account.  I think you usually use
Yellow, though I think it depended on the weapon.  I don't
have the rules with me, so I'm a bit vague, but I'm sure the
chart was the correct version.	I kinda liked the text rules
myself, especially using the cover rules.  He mainly didn't
want vehicle weapons to very useful against infantry.

But he's on this list, so I'm sure he can clarify.

andy

 ----------
From:  owner-ftgzg-l[SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent:  Tuesday, June 25, 1996 12:19 PM
To:  FTGZG-L
Subject:  Re: DSII: More questions

>> >On the chit validity chart, most vehicle weapons are given chit
>> >validities for infantry targets. These do not correspond with the
>> >validities (or even number or chits drawn) listed under 'Vehicle
>> >weapons
>> >against infantry'.
>> >
>> >Which ones do I use?
>> >
>> >Confused as usual,
>> >
>> >Oerjan Ohlson
>>
>> >
>>
>> the "vehicle weapons fire against infantry" tells how many chits to
>draw,
>> while the Valid Chits table tells which ones count
>>
>No. These two sections give contradictory info on chit validity - the
>vwfai section claims that I should use the same validity as for
>infantry
>weapons. Which is correct?
>
>Oerjan Ohlson
>
Ok ... I've been looking over this and here's what I have come up with
... you tell me if I'm full of crap or not:

Take what I said before, but temper it with the following (see pg. 33,):
in the open:	red & Yellow
soft cover:	red
Dug in/urban:	yellow

I see your point. Personally, I would follow the weapons chart for
validity,  follow the VWFAI for number of chits, and forget the "note""
that seams thrown in as an afterthought. Just a thought...

Paul