Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just to know what some other folks would think about it: i personnally regard them as quite useless. I used to play a Stug IV for my germans before acquiting a Panzer IV so as to replace him, since i found that the stug suffered from being turretless (which tends to imply an almost unavoidable -1 to hit), from their lower shape which doesn't actually bring any benefice in most cases, and all this for, in most cases, a price roughly similar to those of other tanks. What's more, the Stug, in thay precise case, does not benefit from the Toger fear rule altogether.

Would you agree or not?

It's going to depend on the tanks. The Panzer IV is better than the StuG in that specific case as are most tanks that basically the same as at TD just with a turret. However some bring better AT guns than you would otherwise get or have powerful HE shells.

see your point vut as far as better weaponry wouldn'it be as good to take an at gun/ howitzer for he? It would be way cheaper and, since it usually sits at the back of the table, quite be spared enough shot to do it's job too. But still with those spare ponts you have from chosing such unit instead of an Assault Gun, you might fit anither tiny support squad dor instance. Or do i miss something on that point?

We usually play with a lot of terrain so sitting back isn't always possible for AT guns or if you want to direct fire HE. In those cases the mobility and protection provided by an assault gun can be valuable. It's also really sad in v2 when a tank drives up, survives ambush and one shots your AT gun with a small HE template but still big enough to cover all the crew.

true as far as ambush!

It depends, but I would first like to correct you on something. You say the the smaller size of the Assault Gun matters for little but in my experience it counts for a lot. That difference in size is the difference between your tank being shot over the hedge and your tank being invisible. It is the difference between lying in wait behind an obstacle at a valuable junction or having to engage the enemies tougher frontal armour from your hull down position. It is the difference between enjoying heavy cover or light cover. Or even no cover at all.
Never underestimate the advantage of a low silhouette.

SPG's can be really useful when well sited, dug in and with a good arc of fire, their flanks protected by cover, and I have had very few games where my Hetzer or Stug have been at a -1 to hit from moving. Positioning is key in Bolt Action, and SPG's really force you to learn that.

That and sometimes people just like the vehicles and bring them, even when there are better choices.

Well, the stug's main edge over any foe or friendly is indeed how freaking badass a tin can it is. However in my experienced i got tricked (cuz i'm a turd) by my adversaries using their armor as objective deniers, in which case you would lose the advantage of having a low silhouette, forcing you to get out of cover unless any other AT unit is available (in my pzrsonal case none was).I have yet to play a gale where the setting allows for an ambush. But when i do then... maybe i'll change my mind who knows...

Starting to anyway since it sounds like AGs are very well liked, maybe i should actually guve it another try with cheaper AGs, instead.

I should also mention here that in my last Tank War game my Hetzer accounted for four enemy Sherman II's, and nearly took out his firefly as well. Imagine what a Stug could do.

The vehicle points system doesn't account for the casement mount, rather just the armour value and its weapons. Due to this a Panzer IV has a turret and extra MG, but hardly costs more at all.

You can pick units like its a wargame (i.e. for efficiency), because they look cool, or for historical accuracy. Though stuff like the Jagdpanzer IV LV 40 may be worth the points when compared to its turret mounted counterpart; the Panther, due to the size difference.

Its a similar question designers came to in the real world, as more guns were stuck in turrets due to the eventual lack of cost saving. ...Though that's probably not the rules writer's intent.

In real life, having a low silhouette, and especially in the case of the german army in late war, allowed for potent ambush units, which costed less. What's more, turretless vehicules would embark better guns.

In fact, what i'd discuss is: according to bolt action's ruleset, are its advantages represented, and the gun therefore worth it? It seemed actually to me that the point do miss the fact the vehicule has or has not a turret, which proves unbeneficial to assault guns.

However it might be true that actually little ones moght get an advantage anyway.