Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Sat, 31 October 2009 17:45
it's not the dice that i whine but your aircraft carries a big atomic bomb which is illegal in M44 lol
      
Sgt Storm
Senior Member
Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 903
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Sun, 01 November 2009 23:48
Seriously though, the problem with Air Power (by itself, not with air rules) is it favors the Allies (since they get 2 dice). I understand the historical significance (somewhat), but that should not matter in a command card. That is, all command cards should be evenly weighted to each side. Special rules (e.g., Blitz Rules) then can skew the results one way or the other as appropriate.
      
Nightrain
Senior Member
Oberstleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 424
Registered:
October 2008
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Mon, 02 November 2009 04:26
i also felt the same

that's why the air rules that overrides the previous air power is one great way to balance the game Smile
      
OldBloodandGuts
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 307
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Mon, 02 November 2009 15:32
When I write early war scenarios, I often have a special instruction to "invert" the Air Power card (Axis roll two and Allies roll only one), since the Luftwaffe was so dominant in North Africa and Russia early in the war.
      
PanzerRunes
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 229
Registered:
January 2007
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 06:15
Steve Nightrain wrote on Sun, 01 November 2009 19:26



that's why the air rules that overrides the previous air power is one great way to balance the game Smile





True Air Rules do balance the game but my impression is that the Air Rules are flawed and go against some fairly conventional logic... I know it is a game and abstracts many concepts in favor of simplicity and ease of play but the Air Rules just feel like two left shoes... Which isn't bad if you have two left feet.

I rarely use air rules because of this.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7141
Registered:
July 2007
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 06:21
PanzerRunes wrote on Mon, 02 November 2009 21:15

Which isn't bad if you have two left feet.

I rarely use air rules because of this.


You don't play with the Air Rules because you have 2 left feet?! Rolling Eyes
      
PanzerRunes
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 229
Registered:
January 2007
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 06:29
And thumbs... Shocked ... But my kids still call me dad... I am known as the strange parent who keeps walking in circles while mumbling.

But yes I think the Air Rules are broken... Now back to the on-going debate regarding the BEL card...
      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 11:12
ad79 wrote on Tue, 27 October 2009 23:31

So if I move 3 hexes with BEL, end on a road hex, battle and then move again.
If all my remaining moves is now on a road, am I alloved to move four hexes?



No. The card instructs you to ignore movement restrictions.
Although the term 'restiction' is never defined, I am pretty certain it covers bonusses as well as limitations.
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 12:08
GreatDane wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 10:12

ad79 wrote on Tue, 27 October 2009 23:31

So if I move 3 hexes with BEL, end on a road hex, battle and then move again.
If all my remaining moves is now on a road, am I alloved to move four hexes?



No. The card instructs you to ignore movement restrictions.
Although the term 'restiction' is never defined, I am pretty certain it covers bonusses as well as limitations.



The word restriction is defined in the English language?

Restriction: something that restricts; a restrictive condition or regulation; limitation.

An extra move is not a restriction.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2279
Registered:
August 2006
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 14:41
As the FAQ says, "basically, an Infantry unit is allowed to go anywhere it could legally go in 6 one-hex movements" (with an optional battle after the first 3 movements). (Roads don't give a bonus. Steep hills count as single hexes. Impassable terrain is impassable.)

http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?th=17900&start=0 See page 28 for full details.
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 15:00
sam1812 wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 13:41

As the FAQ says, "basically, an Infantry unit is allowed to go anywhere it could legally go in 6 one-hex movements" (with an optional battle after the first 3 movements). (Roads don't give a bonus. Steep hills count as single hexes. Impassable terrain is impassable.)

http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?th=17900&start=0 See page 28 for full details.



But we are always being told that if we take the words on the cards literally, we will be right.

The last bit you quote (Roads don't give a bonus. Steep hills count as single hexes. Impassable terrain is impassable.) is not actually in the FAQ. It only lists "restrictions" to movement in the FAQ under BEL, no mention is made of bonuses.

I know it says 6 hex movement, but thats no different to the basic rules stating movement allowances (without bonuses like roads)

Not giving a bonus would be against the literal meaning of the card that "only restrictions" apply. The bonus for moving on a road is not a restriction.

PS: what about this quote from the BEL FAQ:

A. Yes, and then it can take its remaining 3 hexes of movement. This effectively could allow an Infantry unit to move 7 total hexes.

There goes the 6 hex and no more theory!

[Updated on: Tue, 03 November 2009 15:04]

      
gheintze
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 956
Registered:
August 2004
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 16:08
Vulch wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 09:00



A. Yes, and then it can take its remaining 3 hexes of movement. This effectively could allow an Infantry unit to move 7 total hexes.

There goes the 6 hex and no more theory!


If restrictions aren't counted than neither are bonuses, they are both exceptions to the movement rules. Since BEL is ignoring the movement rules the bonuses would not be taken into account either.

And the answer you post refers to taking ground -- which is an action outside of the movement rules -- so your quote and the resulting conclusion are a bit misleading.

Geoff
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 16:33
gheintze wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 15:08

Vulch wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 09:00



A. Yes, and then it can take its remaining 3 hexes of movement. This effectively could allow an Infantry unit to move 7 total hexes.

There goes the 6 hex and no more theory!


If restrictions aren't counted than neither are bonuses, they are both exceptions to the movement rules. Since BEL is ignoring the movement rules the bonuses would not be taken into account either.

And the answer you post refers to taking ground -- which is an action outside of the movement rules -- so your quote and the resulting conclusion are a bit misleading.

Geoff



Not misleading, I was just demonstrating that you can move more than 6 hexes in certain circumstances.

Your position that "exceptions" to the movement rule do not apply is misleading, since that is not what the card says. The card only says "restrictions" do not apply. A bonus is not a restriction, its simple English.
      
ad79
Senior Member
Major Howard

User Pages
Posts: 786
Registered:
September 2007
Re:BEL of St. Richard's :) Tue, 03 November 2009 17:33
So the question of the Extra move on the BEL has followers on both sides, and I don't think an agreement can be made unless Richard or DOW steps in to resolve the issue.

And just to add some fuel to the flame.

If an extra move is allowed on the last 3 hex move on road it should also be possible on the 3 hex move before the attack.

Example.
I am on a road, plays BEL, moves my infantry 3 hexes + 1 for road bonus, attacks and eliminates unit on adjacent road hex, takes ground, moves remaining 3 hexes + 1 road bonus.

Can you, Richard or any DOW staffers, give us an official answer if this 9 hex move is a legal action?

      
gheintze
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 956
Registered:
August 2004
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 18:19
I agree that the card as written does not state that bonuses do not apply -- but it seems that the spirit of the card is that terrain does not affect movement when using the BEL card. Therefore, the bonuses would not seem to apply -- and this is how I would play it.

Certainly, official clarification is welcome, but I would be very surprised if the bonus were allowed.

Just in regards to the 7 hex answer presented above. Taking ground is considered part of the attack phase, not the movement phase. Moving that hex is always in addition to whatever regular movement is allowed. Just remember, that terrain restrictions do apply to this move (taking ground)...

Geoff

[Updated on: Tue, 03 November 2009 18:20]

      
Krieghund
Senior Member

Posts: 147
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 19:35
Take two:

"The effects of terrain on movement are ignored, except for impassable terrain."
      
Timmuilwijk
Senior Member
Fähnrich

User Pages
Posts: 164
Registered:
March 2009
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 22:10
Indeed a very heated discussion, but both sides bring in good arguments, but what does the card say, no restrictions, and what does the FAQ say? (somebody?)

We need an answer from DoW on this one, but I think that 7 hexes (6 movement + 1 take ground) is correct but partially probably, if starting from road hex moving, ending up after battle on road hex and moving again...

Tim
      
Sgt Storm
Senior Member
Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 903
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Tue, 03 November 2009 22:46
While it is fun to argue about the same thing over and over...

The card answers the question already. It says "Unit may move up to 3 hexes". So it cannot move more than 3 hexes (in each half). Case closed.

This card is already powerful enough. It does not need terrain benefits.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2279
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Wed, 04 November 2009 02:57
Timmuilwijk wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 16:10

Indeed a very heated discussion, but both sides bring in good arguments, but what does the card say, no restrictions, and what does the FAQ say? (somebody?)

We need an answer from DoW on this one, but I think that 7 hexes (6 movement + 1 take ground) is correct but partially probably, if starting from road hex moving, ending up after battle on road hex and moving again...

There has been an official ruling that an infantry can take ground after a successful close combat in BEL, before doing its second movement. The question is explicitly asked and answered on page 28 of the FAQ (4th question): "Yes, and then it can take its remaining 3 hexes of mocement. This effectively could allow an infantry unit to move 7 total hexes."
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Wed, 04 November 2009 11:21
Sgt Storm wrote on Tue, 03 November 2009 21:46

While it is fun to argue about the same thing over and over...

The card answers the question already. It says "Unit may move up to 3 hexes". So it cannot move more than 3 hexes (in each half). Case closed.



I could equally argue that the standard armour card says 0-3 and battle. So it cannot move more than 3 hexes. Case closed.

There are always additions and exceptions.

Richard Borg always says (and has said on this very forum) if you take the words on the cards literally you wont go wrong.

Taking the BEL card literally, only "restrictions" are ignored. Any other rules still apply. Case Closed!.........and I am sat on the lid.

      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2166
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Wed, 04 November 2009 11:48
I believe that the question of a if a BEL ordered unit could benefit from the road bonus was asked before before AND officially answered and that answer was "no".

      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2166
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Wed, 04 November 2009 12:11
but do not forget this from the FAQ (in bold and quotation marks):

"Q. When using Behind Enemy Lines, does moving through a cave hex count as one hex and allow the Japanese Infantry unit to move two more hexes before battling?

A. No. Moving from one cave hex to another empty cave hex is the unit's entire movement for the turn. The Japanese Infantry unit can still battle but may not move another three hexes."


Also, as a unit that is ordered by a card other than BEL and uses cave movement can take ground after battling, a BEL ordered unit could do so too.

[Updated on: Wed, 04 November 2009 12:12]

      
Timmuilwijk
Senior Member
Fähnrich

User Pages
Posts: 164
Registered:
March 2009
Re:Question to Dow: Revised behind enemy lines Wed, 04 November 2009 18:45
Those Japs are always unlucky, the marines can even order one more BEL inf with the cards while (most of the time) the Japs cannot move more than one hex between caves....the poor bastards, I think that is why they lost the war Razz

Tim
      
Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2 ]     
Previous Topic:TIGERS in the SNOW on Vassal -- Sunday, November 1
Next Topic:a BCF question
Goto Forum: