Matrix Games Forums

Why is the 2D10 combat table and blitz bonuses mutually exclusive???

blitz bonuses are builtin for 2d10

When playing Barbarossa and choosing the preferred options I was allowed to have one or the other. I chose the 2D10 combat table. On playing the game my attacking armor/mech etc did not get blitz bonuses though the defending armor/mech did get defensive combat factors.

In 2D10, the Blitz bonusses are build in. So you can't have that optional rule in 2D10...

Blitz bonusses are only available voor the 1D10 table...

Now, if you think there is a miscalculation for the bonusses for 2D10, than we would like a saved game from before the combatresolution. Can you put it in here (zip it and upload it)?

In my group we have played with the 2D10 combat table since it was introduced and we have always used the blitz bonuses for any armor/mech corps or divisions involved in the attack as long as a blitz combat is called. The actual combat chart sheets we use which we downloaded from the Yahoo groups WIF forum specifically states that you get +1 for each attacking armor or mech unit.

Yes. That's what Centuur is telling you. The blitz bonuses are included in the 2D10 chart, as they are in the chart you downloaded.

The option in MWIF it seems to be for those playing 1D10 who want them too (it surprised me too because I never payed 1D10).

ORIGINAL: Sp00k

In my group we have played with the 2D10 combat table since it was introduced and we have always used the blitz bonuses for any armor/mech corps or divisions involved in the attack as long as a blitz combat is called. The actual combat chart sheets we use which we downloaded from the Yahoo groups WIF forum specifically states that you get +1 for each attacking armor or mech unit.

Yes, and those bonusses are to my knowledge correctly appied in the combat calculations. If you don't think so, we would need a saved game to find out if it is a bug or not.

We can't investigate something immediately without a saved game. If there isn't a saved game, it gets on the list marked as "to be investigated sometimes". Now, if nobody else reports this bug, it can take a long time for you to get an answer, since the priority of this will be very, very low...
If there is a saved game in here, it gets investigated within a day to see if something is wrong or not. That's why we want to have a save.
And there is always the odd chance that you are misinterpreting the rules (believe me, I'll still do too, sometimes). For this, it is also better to have a save, so we can get those things out of the way, without having to bother the programmer...

ORIGINAL: Sp00k

When playing Barbarossa and choosing the preferred options I was allowed to have one or the other. I chose the 2D10 combat table. On playing the game my attacking armor/mech etc did not get blitz bonuses though the defending armor/mech did get defensive combat factors.

As for this, it could be a bug but it could be perfectly right:

you only get blitz bonuses when attacking in desert, clear and maybe mountain AND fine or snow weather. While you get defense bonus independently of the land (AFAIK) although t it still depends on the weather.

Yes, but there is no option that lets you opt out of blitz boni for 2d10 table (thus the builtin comment). These are coupled to the option that choses 2d10 table. For 1d10 you have the option to opt in to the blitz boni, which are row shifts iirc.. not familiar with the details of the rule. Who plays 1d10 anyways..

OK??? I'm sure I never received the +1 for each armor/mech in my Barbarossa games so far. I calculated that I should have had much better odds than I did when final odds etc. were arrived at. I will go and double check. Maybe I'm losing the plot!!!??!?

[:D] Do, because if there is fine or snow weather and clear, desert, ..., you should in attack.

Also remember that it's a +2 in defense.

I will once again say that itemizing the die roll modifiers will a) help players learn the rules, b) reduce the number of incorrect bug reports and c) make it easier to find actual bugs.

I agree, however I think there are far more important things to do first...