Flanking

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

And that would be information shared before the start of the game. But John's
assertion still stands, and I still think that "Having greater variety in
armor configurations will mean I have to spend more time looking at stat
sheets" is a poor argumant against variable armor levels per facing. Let's not
chase hares too far.

> > No it doesn't. Yes, you can set your facing

You might. But what's the relevance of that point
for/against the argument that the movement rules
aren't too abstract WRT facing? Again, watch for rabbit holes.

> Also, there really should be rules that allow tanks

The opportunity Fire rule already does, but I agree, it hsould be expanded
upon.

> KHR wrote:

> Whether you know an enemy's armour might be made part of a scenario

No, it isn't unreasonable at all - because as you say in the next part
of the sentence:

> (though you could argue about switching around add-on armour).

It is very easy indeed to argue this, provided that your vehicles are
designed to allow it at all (which would be a background-specific design

system consideration, but not a points system one) and you have the
add-on
kits available (which would be a *campaign* system consideration). Already
today, many modern AFVs (including MBTs) are designed to accept several
different kinds of add-on armours which can radically change the
vehicles' armour configuration in a few hours.

Of course, if you don't like this kind of things happening in your gaming
background you could always forbid it in your vehicle design rules :-/

Later,