"WRG Armour and Infantry rules 1973 version - help !" Topic

Anyone still playing these or remember how the morale rules work.
Am enjoying a trip down memory lane using these rules for micro armour games but can't figure out if units when forced to halt as a morale outcome can voluntarily try to rally or have to wait until taking another hit/neutralisation before being able to test again. The way the rules seem to read is unless they are retreating they have to take some sort of hit before taking another morale test or is being forced to halt equate to retreating.
I know that in WRG important game concepts can be summed up in a phrase and sometimes am ambiguous one at that.
Thanks in anticipation.

I think our group tried using the WRG morale rules once. Caused so much chaos trying to interpret them we never again did that.

I modelled my armor and infantry morale rules on Napoleonic rules. More like Empire than WRG.

This
PDF link
Reaction seems only to last for the following turn.

I have a PDF of the armor and infantry rules. It says the unit can roll again at the start of each turn it wishes to cease retreating. A unit is platoon sized or section sized if a support weapon.

Thanks VVV for the PDF link, however this link is to a different set of rules by WRG which is more infantry based but makes sense that the same mechanisms would apply to the more tank orientated version when it comes to morale.

Also thanks Mobius for your input , I soppose if a morale result is to halt then that's better than retreating and if retreating units can voluntary retest then I guess halted units can.

The 1925 to 1975 Infantry Action Rules are the same vintage as the 1925 to 1950 Armour & Infantry set and share the same philosophy in Reaction tests.

Reaction results are for the current turn unless specified.
The cause of test section para "d" mentions needing to test to stop retreating.

Have a look at the -10 or worse reaction result, it specifically says in this case the retreat cannot be stopped.

I don't think a halted unit needs to test to "unhalt" – if it has no cause to test next turn it can return to obeying orders.

Cheers
David

Thanks David that very helpful and makes a lot of sense.

Reaction results are for the current turn unless specified.

It doesn't say that. It says either obey orders, halt or retreat.
Actually, the unit continues to retreat until it rolls high enough to stop (if another reaction roll applies). So retreat doesn't last one turn.

There is no coming back from a halt in the rules. Unless, the unit is forced to retreat and then recovers to obey orders, skipping the halt result.

The other weird results is the 1 to 3 "The Other units will obey orders."Are other units other than infantry and AFVs, artillery or cavalry?

Am still trying to make WRG work. Reason being I like 1:1 games have lots of models and although I probably have copies of most available rules the 1973 version of WRG looks as though it could be easier to play, especially when I'm the person who to organises the games and recently we have used far more complicated game mechanics which took much longer in order to achieve similar results to that which would have occurred if we'd stuck to WRG 1973 version. However I can't find in the rules any reference to the American 57mm anti tank Gun…..does that mean it's the same as the British 6 pounder? anyone have any insight on this.

The American 57mm was a copy. In the later rule set (June 1988) it's classed as the same.

I do agree with you about these rules being easy to use. They were used a lot at the time. I had many great games. Pity Phil over complicated them. I felt infantry were never in the game. With only a 50mm move they were always very static…as someone once said 'Infantry always move 6" especially if they're are going to impact on a 6x4 foot table.

I took part in a WRG playtest of a revision of the 1988 rules last year but without any input from Phil this isn't going to happen.

I quite like the armour / anti tank rules in the 1988 version but struggle to actually play the game I may just try and persevere but in the past I've given up and returned To more familiar rules.

When I used to play WRG 1973 version in the early 80s I changed the scale to 1 inch = 50 metres and if infantry were involved they needed some sort of transport. However ultimately they are a good fall back set of rules for a relatively stress free evenings gaming

Jethro
I revised all the distances Bish Iwasko/George Gush style which worked well. I still have my copy with all the original distances tippexed over!

There is no coming back from a halt in the rules. Unless, the unit is forced to retreat and then recovers to obey orders, skipping the halt result.

I thought the logic of the rules is that 'halt' is a temporary state; i.e. if a unit is no longer required to take a reaction test, it is automatically allowed to move again. It specifies that 'retreat' is a state which persists into subsequent bounds, but not halt.

I felt infantry were never in the game. With only a 50mm move they were always very static…as someone once said 'Infantry always move 6" especially if they're are going to impact on a 6x4 foot table.

For a more infantry-focused game, change the ground scale to 2mm = 1m. Infantry move 10cm and the game zips along. Useful for fighting in denser terrain (where the infantry-friendly locating rules become even more useful).

I thought the logic of the rules is that 'halt' is a temporary state; i.e. if a unit is no longer required to take a reaction test, it is automatically allowed to move again. It specifies that 'retreat' is a state which persists into subsequent bounds, but not halt.

It is stated in "neutralized" that the unit cannot move the following bound then it would be stated in the "halt" rule that it only is for the following bound.

In the results units are allowed to move to cover if the results are halt. So they still can move in the bound if the results are to halt. If halt last only one bound then they would move to cover in one bound, them move normally again the next. How is that even much of a negative result?

I found the results table unfinished and though I used some ideas in my own rules morale failure results table added a couple of things to a halt results. One is the units must halt for 1-6 turns. Another is they need to communicate to a higher level unit to confirm their orders to advance from their position.

Sorry Mobius, I am not sure that I understand you.

The rules state that neutralized elements can't move in the next bound.
The rules state that retreat results persist until a subsequent reaction test is taken and a better result is achieved.
It says nothing about halt, therefore it neither applies for the next bound only nor is persistent. You are correct that a 'halt' isn't much of a negative result – should it be? Bear in mind that troops can only move to cover that is further away. I don't think that the rules are unclear here.

Results:
1 to 3 – Infantry and AFV may either halt immediately, or move to any cover which they can reach during the bound, and which is further from any located enemy than from their present position. Other units will obey orders.

0 to -2 – Troops may either remain halted, or move to any cover which they can reach during the bound without going closer to any located enemy than they are at present.

What is the difference between these two results? One is to remain halted the other is to halt? If the halt lasts only a single bound they are the same thing. But, if halt persists it means that each bound the 'halted" units may retreat to cover and may retreat each and every bound.

What is the difference between these two results?

1 – The first result is obviously much more positive for light recce, artillery, anti-tank, engineer units etc.

2 – In the "0 to -2" result, if the troops were not already halted (i.e. they were moving at the time of whatever triggered the reaction test), then the troops have to move to cover without moving closer to a located enemy. In the "1 to 3" result, they get the choice.

Well, it's nonsensical is what it is. "Other than infantry and AFVs" includes trucks, jeeps, kubelwagens, bulldozers, cavalry, and yes anti-tank, artillery and anti-aircraft guns. So these are immune to having to halt. I guess if they are lumbered they and their transport can just carry-on. So these are more resilient to giving way than infantry and AFVs?
Yes, I see how these would not be driven back or halted for anything, like Napoleon's Old Guard.

2 – In the "0 to -2" result, if the troops were not already halted (i.e. they were moving at the time of whatever triggered the reaction test), then the troops have to move to cover without moving closer to a located enemy.
In the "1 to 3" result, they get the choice.

If as you say they must move to cover if within a bound they are in an impossible situation if they cannot reach cover if it is not within a bound of movement.
They cannot halt if not already halted as you say. And, they cannot move either.

Yes, I see how these would not be driven back or halted for anything, like Napoleon's Old Guard.

Well of course, Napoleon's Old Guard were famously halted and driven back…anyway, it is probably (and I don't know) an appreciation that survival for infantry and armour is increased by stopping and hiding, whereas troops in soft skins are better off moving. I suppose a player could try and exploit this, but they are probably going to regret it.

If as you say they must move to cover if within a bound they are in an impossible situation if they cannot reach cover if it is not within a bound of movement.
They cannot halt if not already halted as you say. And, they cannot move either.

1 – Were the troops moving at the time of the reaction test? If not, halt or move to step 2 (player's choice). If yes, move to step 2.

2 – Can the troops reach cover which is no closer to a located enemy? If yes, move to cover. If no, halt.