My group has been wondering about the tactic of using Gung-Ho to scoot in and out of the same position (usually a cover position).

As the rules and cards are written, this provides a boost to self defense, without the usual penalty of boosting target defense (at the loss of the re-roll for being stationary).

To us this usage seems to contradict the flavour of the name. It also contradicts
the description of the Americans in their nationality intro: article:


A search on this forum revealed a post from a few months ago which claimed that this tactic was ruled legal, and was referred to by the designers as 'smoking'.


Unfortunately that post was not linked, and a search for "smoking" returned no useful results.

Our questions are:

1. Can we get an official ruling that this tactic is legal?
2. If legal, does this tactic accurately reflect the initial intent of the American national characteristic rule, or is it an exceptional usage which the designers feel does not much affect game balance? In other words, when the rule was first written was it explicitly intendedt o be used this way, or is "popping smoke" applied after the tactic was discovered?
3. If not part of the initial intent, would the team consider re-costing or clarifying the rule in the future?
4. If part of the initial intent, would the team consider revising the American national characteristic introduction article to explicitly talk about this rule interaction?

Thanks for your attention!

There are two versions of this (our consensus at the moment is that the first is more effective) but we are referring to the general tactic colloquially as "scoot and shoot" in parody of the armor tactic referred to as "shoot and scoot". I apologize for the misleading description.

1. Activate a Tank with Gung-ho (that's sticking out of the woods say), scoot forward along the ruler only 1mm, gain a 1 move marker.

When this tank is shot at, it gains 1 defense die from the miniscule move despite not compromising it's preferred position.

However when this tank shoots, it ignores the 1 move marker and the target only gains the benefit of it's movement and defense dice. The shooting tank doesn't get the stationary re-roll.

2. Activate a Tank with Gung-ho (that's sticking out of the woods say), move any distance, then make a second move back to it's original position, gain a 2 move marker.

When this tank is shot at, it gains 2 defense die despite not compromising it's preferred position (or effectively moving at all).

However when this tank shoots, it ignores 1 move marker and the target only gains 1/2 of the typical boost to defense in addition to it's it's movement and defense dice. The shooting tank doesn't get the stationary re-roll.

This is an interesting tradeoff ability that, while possibly valid, doesn't logically follow from the description of Gung-ho.

I find it happens a lot, especially when a tank is already in cover. I think of it as a tank staying in motion and perhaps pivoting or shuffling a few feet to gain better cover.

The movement arrow is where your tank ends its movement, not its movement in its entirety. Basically look at it this way, your tank is moving to the side and goes about an inch. The tank does not physically move sideways, it turns moves forward and turns again to achieve its final position but the arrow only shows the result of the movement and not the path it took.

A Sherman in cover behind a building may peak out to take a shot and reverse back into cover once it fired, it did not move much but it did add to its defence, the same could be said for a tank inside a forest.

The American rule basically gives their target -1 defence if the American tank moved this turn. So moving one just for the defence boost might be good, but you are exchanging your ability to re-roll all your attack dice for remaining stationary.

Just remember in TANKS where you end up on the arrow is not the direct path you took to get there, it is just where your tank ended up at the end of its move.

Edited by user Friday, December 16, 2016 3:36:01 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified