Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » IJA and Wire
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 07:10
An IJA infantry unit moves 2 hexes onto wire adjacent to an enemy unit. May he remove the wire in lieu of battling?

Summary card for IJA says, "Infantry may move 2 hexes to combat into Close Assault." (The full sentence in the Pacific rule book says, "An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit.")

Summary card for Wire says, "Infantry may remove wire instead of battling." (The full sentence in the original rule book says, "An Infantry unit that is eligible to battle may remove the Wire instead of battling.")

I think the Wire card is clear about this, but was discussing the question with a friend who saw it differently.
      
Zalamence
Senior Member
Bring Boys Back Home

User Pages
Posts: 109
Registered:
June 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 08:19
The way I see Banzai War Cry was designed is that IJA infantry are eligible to Close Assault (and nothing more) after moving 2 hexes and ending their movement next to enemy ground unit.

They are not eligible to battle, for instance they may not Fire [at a distant target], like every other unit eligible to battle could.

Since they are not eligible to battle, and it is required for removing wire, they may only Close Assault this turn.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

User Pages
Posts: 1028
Registered:
November 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 08:40
I would say the infantry can remove the wire instead of battling.

How would you handle Japanese engineers? They can normally, like any other nations engineers, stay put or move one hex and then battle and remove the wire. The FAQ_v2 clearly states:
Q. Do Japanese Engineers benefit from all of the Nation Rules that most Japanese units get?
A. Combat Engineers units are affected by Nation rules. Therefore Japanese Combat Engineers are able to move two hexes and Close Assault (Banzai) with +1 die when at full strength (Seishin Kyoiku).

So if they move two hexes ingot close combat and have battle out at minus 1 die, would they then not be able to remove the wire?

      
bdgza
Senior Member
Captain

User Pages
Posts: 242
Registered:
February 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 09:28
I would interpret the same as Zalamence, cannot remove wire. But I wouldn't be surprised if Richard ruled the other way.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 1139
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 10:16
My gut feeling says:
- The regular japanese infantry cannot remove wire. Just battle in close assault.
- The engineers can battle, and after battle can remove wire.

But that's just my gut feeling, and I don't really have a way to support this with the rules.
Based on the literal reading of the rules, I'd say that either both can remove wire (after battle for engineers), or neither can.


How do you rules this:
If an infantry unit moves into a wire and is no longer able to battle. Then on the next turn, you play a close assault/firefight to order the unit. Can it remove wire instead of battling?
If the answer to this is yes, I'd say the Japanese infantry in the question from Sam can also remove wire. If the answer would be no, they can't either.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 1139
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 10:57
I made a list of situations in which I'm not sure if wire can be removed or not. I have my ideas on an answer, but I'd like an official ruling.

Rules clarifications for Memoir'44, terrain 15 - Wire
Can wire be removed by infantry:
Instead of a Banzai War cry attack? (Imperial Japanese Army)
After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army)
Instead of a Stiff Upper Lip attack (battle back)? (BCF)
After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF)
Instead of the second Close Assault from the Furia Francese? (French Army)
Instead of battling when ordered by the Close Assault command card?
Instead of battling when ordered by the Firefight command card?

Is there anyone who has other questions to add to this list before we submit these to DoW or Richard Borg?

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 16:06
Zalamence or bdgza: Where in the rules do you find justification for your position?

The rules are clear that IJA that move 2d into close assault are eligible to battle (unless they move into terrain such as Forest or Town that explicitly forbids it).

The rules for Wire are clear that an Infantry may remove wire instead of battling.

In the rules for regular Infantry, there is no explicit statement about removing Wire instead of battling. That instruction comes from the rules for Wire.

The syllogism seems clear: IJA may move 2 and battle in Close Assault. IJA is an Infantry. Infantry may remove Wire instead of battling. Therefore, IJA that move 2 may remove Wire instead of battling in Close Assault. Where is there any exception to that?
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 16:27
Wim, great idea to extend the question to other situations. Here are my guesses on your questions:

Can wire be removed by infantry:
Instead of a Banzai War cry attack? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
Instead of a Stiff Upper Lip attack (battle back)? (BCF) No, just as you can't Ambush a battle-back, because it's not in the Battle phase.
After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF) No. Same reason.
Instead of the second Close Assault from the Furia Francese? (French Army) Yes -- but I doubt that the situation would arise frequently.
Instead of battling when ordered by the Close Assault command card? Yes.
Instead of battling when ordered by the Firefight command card? The card says, "Issue an order to 4 units to open fire." I don't see any difference in meaning between "open fire" and "battle." So though my feelings might think no on this one, reading the instructions makes me think, "Yes." [Edit: "fire" was originally mis-typed as "first".]

[Updated on: Sat, 15 February 2014 23:50]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 21:07
sam1812 wrote on Sat, 15 February 2014 01:10

An IJA infantry unit moves 2 hexes onto wire adjacent to an enemy unit. May he remove the wire in lieu of battling?


Summary card for IJA says, "Infantry may move 2 hexes to combat into Close Assault." (The full sentence in the Pacific rule book says, "An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit.")

Summary card for Wire says, "Infantry may remove wire instead of battling." (The full sentence in the original rule book says, "An Infantry unit that is eligible to battle may remove the Wire instead of battling.")

I think the Wire card is clear about this, but was discussing the question with a friend who saw it differently.


May he remove the wire in lieu of battling?
IT DEPENDS.
Having the ability to battle and removing wire are not always equal.
this is the key to looking at this issue.

My response would be that the INTENT of the banzai charge is to attack an enemy unit at close range. Hence the original rule on p. 7 of the Pacific Rules states;
Quote:

An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit.

So the qualifier for the ability of that unit to battle is WHEN CLOSE ASSAULTING AN ENEMY UNIT. It is not a generic order to just battle but a specific order to battle an adjacent enemy unit.
Therefore a standard Japanese Infantry advancing 2 hexes adjacent to an enemy unit and entering a hex with wire has no leeway to remove wire. It must either attack an adjacent enemy unit in close assault or do nothing.

I think you get into trouble when you just evaluate a rules meaning just based on the cards in the cards compendium alone and don't review the larger text of information from the original rules. The cards, though helpful reminders, don't always cover all the basic intent which is usually (but not always) Laughing made clearer from the original text.

That being said. I believe a Japanese Engineer unit may move 2 hexes into wire and as long as it is adjacent to an enemy unit and battles that unit, it may then also remove the wire. However, it may not move two hexes adjacent to an enemy unit and just remove wire. Nor may it move 2 hexes into wire which has no adjacent enemy unit and remove the wire.
Nevertheless, this is just my opinion and not how I have always played it.. so lets see what Richard says on this one!

The changer for all this 2 hex movement action is if the Japanese infantry is activated by orders from an INFANTRY ASSAULT card. In this case, the Japanese unit be it regular or Engineer may simply remove the wire and not attack at all. However it is the battling on 2 moves option given by the card and not the Banzai effect which enables this opportunity.

[Updated on: Sat, 15 February 2014 22:00]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 15 February 2014 21:33
sam1812 wrote on Sat, 15 February 2014 10:27

Wim, great idea to extend the question to other situations. Here are my guesses on your questions:

Can wire be removed by infantry:
Instead of a Banzai War cry attack? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
Disagree, No - see discussion above.

After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
Agree! (but I could be wrong)

Instead of a Stiff Upper Lip attack (battle back)? (BCF) No, just as you can't Ambush a battle-back, because it's not in the Battle phase.
Agree, but not for the same reason. p7 Mediterranean Rules states:
"... may immediately battle that enemy back with a single battle dice." Although the WIRE may feel like the "enemy" it is not the previously attacking in Close Assault enemy unit and the rules only allow battle back against enemy units not wire.


After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF) No. Same reason.
Agree, but not for the same reason. p7 Mediterranean Rules states:
"... may immediately battle that enemy back with a single battle dice." Although the WIRE may feel like the "enemy" it is not the previously attacking in Close Assault enemy unit and the rules only allow battle back against enemy units not wire.


Instead of the second Close Assault from the Furia Francese? (French Army) Yes -- but I doubt that the situation would arise frequently.
Disagree, the Furia Frances rule on p. 10 of the Equipment Pack rule states:
"... the unit may stay in place and make a second Close Assault attack against another adjacent enemy unit"
Wire is not an enemy unit. Again the intent is close assault attack against an enemy unit (not a general battle or do what ever else you want rule).


Instead of battling when ordered by the Close Assault command card? Yes.
Disagree, wire is not an enemy unit. Again the intent is close assault attack against an enemy unit (not a general battle or do what ever else you want rule).


Instead of battling when ordered by the Firefight command card? The card says, "Issue an order to 4 units to open first." I don't see any difference in meaning between "open fire" and "battle." So though my feelings might think no on this one, reading the instructions makes me think, "Yes."
Disagree, wire is not an enemy unit. Again the rule for firefight is directed at attacking enemy units and not a general order to do whatever you want, including removing wire. The very logic that your attack has to be at a distant (non adjacent target) should preclude you from even considering that you can "attack" a wire in the very same hex. All orders are not equal. The tactic cards give specific orders for specific targets and wire is not a target.


In the end, Richard will have to rule on whether an IJA Engineer can remove wire after battling on a Banzai charge, however, I truly believe that the other situations are addressed clearly by the existing rules. I hope I have been kind in my remarks even if I have been contradictory. Smile

[Updated on: Sat, 15 February 2014 21:58]

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 02:34
FAQ, page 10:

Q. Can an Infantry unit battle on the same turn in which it enters Wire?

A. The Infantry unit must make a choice between fighting at -1d OR removing the Wire and not battling this turn. When an Infantry unit moves onto the Wire hex after moving two hexes and is not able to battle this turn, it may not remove the Wire.
      
Zalamence
Senior Member
Bring Boys Back Home

User Pages
Posts: 109
Registered:
June 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 08:33
Sam, I'll quote myself.
Zalamence wrote on Sat, 15 February 2014 09:19

The way I see Banzai War Cry was designed - -


I do not claim I find justification for my interpretation in the rules. I just assume Banzai was created for Close Assaulting and not for anything else (removing wire in this case)

Regarding Wim's and Paul's posts, I think Paul has an excellent point "all orders are not equal". You can't use Dig-in to order troops to do something you want, so you can't order Firefighting units to remove wire.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 1139
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 09:43
Paul,

I see an inconsistency in your rulings between

After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
Agree! (but I could be wrong)


and

After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF) No. Same reason.
Agree, but not for the same reason. p7 Mediterranean Rules states:
"... may immediately battle that enemy back with a single battle dice." Although the WIRE may feel like the "enemy" it is not the previously attacking in Close Assault enemy unit and the rules only allow battle back against enemy units not wire.


The banzai war cry allows the japanese engineers to only battle a unit in close assault, not the wire. Yet, you allow them to remove wire after battle.
The stiff upper lip allows the british engineers to only battle back a unit that attacked in close assault, and you don't allow them to remove wire afterwards.

You have all been so kind to give your opinion and they are close to mine. Yet I wanted to know if anyone can come up with another borderline situation for which it can be useful to have an official ruling. Once I collect them all, I want to send them to DoW/Richard Borg.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 13:36
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 16 February 2014 03:43

Paul,

You have all been so kind to give your opinion and they are close to mine. Yet I wanted to know if anyone can come up with another borderline situation for which it can be useful to have an official ruling. Once I collect them all, I want to send them to DoW/Richard Borg.


Your questions will all be reviewed by Richard at some time in the future. This entire post has been placed in the FAQ review and at some point those issues which need to be resolved will be. Sometimes Richard will be kind to reply to individual posts, but to conserve his time Jesse Rasmussen and DOW have been using a broader review system with the aim of getting the responses into the FAQ as quickly as possible for all to use.

So if you have a question for the FAQ, post in the forum heading:
OFFICIAL FAQ THREAD
it is the first heading in this Memoir '44 Forum

The response will not be immediate, but at least the question is certain to be reviewed when the next update for the FAQ is processed.

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 13:58]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7099
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 17:41
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 16 February 2014 12:43

You have all been so kind to give your opinion and they are close to mine. Yet I wanted to know if anyone can come up with another borderline situation for which it can be useful to have an official ruling. Once I collect them all, I want to send them to DoW/Richard Borg.


Like Stevens said, please post your questions over in the Official FAQ thread and I will contact Richard to get the answers unless he has time to check the forums and answer directly.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that Richard will not be answering "what if" situations. This means that if there isn't an Official scenario where the question could actually happen, it won't be answered. A good example of that would be Imperial Japanese Army Snipers. There are no Official scenarios that include IJA Snipers, so if that question had come up now, it would not get an answer.

So as you come up with questions, make sure it could really happen in an Official scenario. I hope this makes sense. Smile
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 19:14
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 16 February 2014 03:43

Paul,

I see an inconsistency in your rulings between

After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army) Yes.
Agree! (but I could be wrong)


and

After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF) No. Same reason.
Agree, but not for the same reason. p7 Mediterranean Rules states:
"... may immediately battle that enemy back with a single battle dice." Although the WIRE may feel like the "enemy" it is not the previously attacking in Close Assault enemy unit and the rules only allow battle back against enemy units not wire.


The banzai war cry allows the japanese engineers to only battle a unit in close assault, not the wire. Yet, you allow them to remove wire after battle.
The stiff upper lip allows the british engineers to only battle back a unit that attacked in close assault, and you don't allow them to remove wire afterwards.

You have all been so kind to give your opinion and they are close to mine. Yet I wanted to know if anyone can come up with another borderline situation for which it can be useful to have an official ruling. Once I collect them all, I want to send them to DoW/Richard Borg.


Ah yes, the apparent inconsistency!

Thanks for taking the time to read my prior explanations and hopefully this further discourse will clear things up a bit.

It would probably be best to say why I think it MAY BE POSSIBLE for an IJA Engineer to move two hexes in a Banzai attack into a terrain hex with wire, battle an adjacent enemy unit and then remove wire. Here goes...

p.7 Pacific Rules:
Quote:

An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit. Terrain movement and battle restrictions still apply.


p.10 Pacific Rules:
Quote:

An Engineer unit that is on a hex with wire will reduce the number of Battle Dice it rolls by 1 and may also remove the wire from the hex on the same turn. The Engineer unit must be able to battle, to remove the wire.


So according to the Banzai restrictions on battling an adjacent enemy unit, if the IJA Engineer does a Banzai and moves two hexes into an open hex containing wire he may attack an adjacent enemy unit at -1 die. This is the only dice limitation he has from the terrain he is in, since the terrain the defender is in will provide no dice reduction. He attacks and possibly destroys the enemy unit. Now he may not take ground because entering wire precludes this opportunity to take ground. Nevertheless, because he was able to battle while in the hex with wire it seems reasonable that he may also now, after battling, remove the wire.

I have never played this way and I don't believe the Online Memoir '44 programming will allow it, however, it seems reasonable to me that it could actually be a possibility as I read the rules, and so as I stated before - I believe it could be possible legitimate action, but I could be wrong. Laughing

Consider now that this BANZAI movement and battle was an OFFENSIVE action taken on my turn.

Now lets consider the British Engineer who has been attacked in close assault, is in a hex containing wire and is reduced to one figure. Notice that the Stiff Upper lip allows a return attack ( p. 7 Mediterranean Rules):
Quote:

A BCF ground unit that survives an enemy's Close Assault combat without retreating and is down to a single figure may immediately battle that enemy back with a single Battle die.

However, the limitations on that attack are very specific and are directed wholly towards the enemy unit (which a WIRE is not an enemy unit). You are battling back not just battling per se in general. The one you are to battle back is solely the enemy. This is to me the best argument for not allowing WIRE removal.

Another second argument I did not utilize is this one....

And off course battle back is a DEFENSIVE action taken on my opponents turn

Consider this current rule; we know already that an Armor unit always removes wire when entering a WIRE hex on OFFENSE but it is not allowed to do so upon retreating onto WIRE in DEFENSE.
Quote:

Q. May an Armor unit that retreats onto a hex with Wire remove the Wire?
A. No. Look at the act of removing Wire by an Infantry or Armor unit as an offensive action. Therefore an Armor unit retreating onto or through a hex with Wire will not remove the Wire. Note: If an Armor unit attacks out of Wire it had to retreat into, the Wire is removed after the attack. If an Armor unit simply moves out of Wire it had to retreat into, the Wire is not removed.


So I could also argue that since the British Engineer is on DEFENSE he may not remove WIRE which is an OFFENSIVE move. I think this is not the best argument as I think the rules are clear on Battling back WHO is battled, but a tidy argument nonetheless.

I hope this has cleared up the perception of inconsistency in my thinking.

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 19:41]

      
sdnative
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 447
Registered:
February 2009
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 19:27
sam1812 wrote on Fri, 14 February 2014 22:10

An IJA infantry unit moves 2 hexes onto wire adjacent to an enemy unit. May he remove the wire in lieu of battling?

Summary card for IJA says, "Infantry may move 2 hexes to combat into Close Assault." (The full sentence in the Pacific rule book says, "An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit.")

Summary card for Wire says, "Infantry may remove wire instead of battling." (The full sentence in the original rule book says, "An Infantry unit that is eligible to battle may remove the Wire instead of battling.")

I think the Wire card is clear about this, but was discussing the question with a friend who saw it differently.


The question that Sam asked does not involve Engineers but I do not see any difference between a Japanese moving 2 hexes and given the choice of wire or close assault or another nation moving 1 and given the same choice.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 19:49
sdnative wrote on Sun, 16 February 2014 13:27

sam1812 wrote on Fri, 14 February 2014 22:10

An IJA infantry unit moves 2 hexes onto wire adjacent to an enemy unit. May he remove the wire in lieu of battling?

Summary card for IJA says, "Infantry may move 2 hexes to combat into Close Assault." (The full sentence in the Pacific rule book says, "An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit.")

Summary card for Wire says, "Infantry may remove wire instead of battling." (The full sentence in the original rule book says, "An Infantry unit that is eligible to battle may remove the Wire instead of battling.")

I think the Wire card is clear about this, but was discussing the question with a friend who saw it differently.


The question that Sam asked does not involve Engineers but I do not see any difference between a Japanese moving 2 hexes and given the choice of wire or close assault or another nation moving 1 and given the same choice.



The fact is that in the 2 hex move Banzai attack the Japanese unit is not given a CHOICE to remove wire.

p. 7 Pacific Rules:
Quote:

An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit. Terrain movement and battle restrictions still apply. A Japanese Infantry unit ordered by an Infantry Assault Command card may move 2 hexes and battle during a Banzai charge, but it may not move 3 hexes and battle.


His only choice in this situation is to battle an adjacent enemy unit or do nothing.

Equating the ability to battle alone with the ability to remove wire in every situation is a false notion (battle=remove wire). The rules do not support this belief on a tit for tat every case situation. The rules are specific about who must be battled and when. The idea of a universal CHOICE is utterly fallacious.

Maybe there is a way to be less blunt about it, but I humbly submit that the first error in reasoning leads directly to all the other errors in supposition.
I hope I have been kind even if I have been direct. Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 20:30]

      
sdnative
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 447
Registered:
February 2009
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 20:08
You say Potato I say Potato!

Razz

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 20:18]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 20:32
sdnative wrote on Sun, 16 February 2014 14:08

You say Potato I say Potato!

Razz

The fact is that one potato is a sweet potato and the other is an Idaho potato makes all the difference in the world if you are a chef.

NOT ALL POTATOES ARE EQUAL Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 20:54]

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 21:17
Well, folks, I sent a message (in black) to Mr. Borg, and he was kind enough to reply (shown here in red).

Quote:

The following question came up last night, with regard to the next scenario in the Vassal Ladder tournament -- Battle of Hong Kong.

An IJA infantry unit moves 2 hexes onto wire adjacent to an enemy unit. May he remove the wire instead of battling?

My analysis of the situation is, "IJA may move 2 and battle in Close Assault. IJA is an Infantry. Infantry may remove Wire instead of battling. Therefore, IJA that move 2 may remove Wire instead of battling in Close Assault." Some people see it differently.
(RB) It also seems logical by rule, that the Infantry unit could remove the wire instead of battling.

One of the players extended to question to cover some additional situations: Can wire be removed by infantry ...
Instead of a Banzai War cry attack? (Imperial Japanese Army)
(RB) Yes

After a Banzai War cry attack by engineers? (Imperial Japanese Army)
(RB) Yes

Instead of a Stiff Upper Lip attack (battle back)? (BCF)
(RB) No

After a Stiff Upper Lip attack by engineers? (BSF)
(RB) No

Instead of the second Close Assault from the Furia Francese? (French Army)
(RB) Yes

Instead of battling when ordered by the Close Assault command card?
(RB) Yes

Instead of battling when ordered by the Firefight command card?
(RB) Yes

I'll admit, I was surprised to see so much debate about this question and its corollaries. I assumed it was an open-and-shut question. One great thing about this community is that we thoughtfully discuss questions and respect each other's differences. Another great thing is that we play together well in spite of it all.

The nations of the world could learn from us.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sun, 16 February 2014 23:37
Looks like its french fries for everyone. Laughing

And I see that (battle=remove wire) after all. So I eat my humble pie and accept that the reason this does not occur on a Stiff Upper Lip Battle Back situation is because removing wire is an offensive action. Embarassed

So when are these new finds going to be incorporated into the Memoir '44 Online game?

[Updated on: Sun, 16 February 2014 23:46]

      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:IJA and Wire Mon, 17 February 2014 19:01
We just got Pacific Theater (Valentine's present? I think not). I hadn't read the rules since I'd downloaded the .pdf a long time ago, but there's a new printing!

Pacific Theater p7

Bonsai Charge
A mark of respect for the Emperor, Bonsai emerged as the obsession of Japanese soldiers during World War II.

An ordered Japanese Infantry unit may move 2 hexes and still battle when carrying out a Close Assault on an enemy unit. Terrain Movement and battle restrictions still apply.

Instead of Battling in Close Assault, the Japanese Infantry may clip hedgerows or wire, and Japanese Combat Engineers may also remove minefields.

"We'd heard of the Bonsai Charge, so our C.O. made us improve our defenses. Seeing them running toward our guns, shouting "Bonsai" was terrifying, but then they dropped to the ground right in front of us with clippers; it was a sight to behold! A sergeant down the line told us they'd done the same thing with trowels in front of their minefields." -Corporal "Snuffy" Smith at Wake Island.


Laughing

[Updated on: Wed, 19 February 2014 05:14]

      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:IJA and Wire Wed, 19 February 2014 05:17
From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight.

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rbork.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing

[Updated on: Fri, 21 February 2014 19:24]

      
bdgza
Senior Member
Captain

User Pages
Posts: 242
Registered:
February 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Wed, 19 February 2014 23:21
JFKoski wrote on Wed, 19 February 2014 05:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight.

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing


So with Firefight you can order units adjacent to enemy units in case they will be no longer adjacent later, and you can still fire with ordered units that become adjacent during the firefight. So basically you can now use Firefight to fight adjacent units?
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7099
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Wed, 19 February 2014 23:26
bdgza wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 02:21

JFKoski wrote on Wed, 19 February 2014 05:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight.

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing


So with Firefight you can order units adjacent to enemy units in case they will be no longer adjacent later, and you can still fire with ordered units that become adjacent during the firefight. So basically you can now use Firefight to fight adjacent units?



I'm going to go on the record and question the validity of this answer. Sorry, but I don't think it's actually from Richard Borg.
      
bdgza
Senior Member
Captain

User Pages
Posts: 242
Registered:
February 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Thu, 20 February 2014 10:18
rasmussen81 wrote on Wed, 19 February 2014 23:26

bdgza wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 02:21

JFKoski wrote on Wed, 19 February 2014 05:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight.

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing


So with Firefight you can order units adjacent to enemy units in case they will be no longer adjacent later, and you can still fire with ordered units that become adjacent during the firefight. So basically you can now use Firefight to fight adjacent units?



I'm going to go on the record and question the validity of this answer. Sorry, but I don't think it's actually from Richard Borg.



Yes, I've been had. Rolling Eyes

[Updated on: Thu, 20 February 2014 10:19]

      
sdnative
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 447
Registered:
February 2009
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 06:24
JFKoski wrote on Tue, 18 February 2014 20:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing




Are you Jesse saying this information is NOT from Richard Borg????
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7099
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 07:14
sdnative wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 21:24

JFKoski wrote on Tue, 18 February 2014 20:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing


Are you Jesse saying this information is NOT from Richard Borg????



That's what I'm saying. I contacted JFKoski and Richard Borg; Richard said he didn't give that answer and JFKoski said it was a joke.

JFKoski, could you please modify your post so that it doesn't confuse anyone right now and so future players don't mistake your post as true. Thanks.
      
gonzalan
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2003
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 16:26
rasmussen81 wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 23:14

sdnative wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 21:24

JFKoski wrote on Tue, 18 February 2014 20:17

From this thread, paying the game
waltero wrote on Thu, 12 September 2013 21:58

Is there a place where I can post a suggestion about the game mechanics?

I found that if you use the Firefight card, you can not designate a unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit.

I also find, during the firefight, if a unit retreats next to a previously designated unit (one of the units chosen for the firefight...that has not fired yet)that unit becomes adjacent to enemy unit and is disqualified for use in the firefight.

Something don't seem right with that.
Maybe allow a player to chose (designate)a unit that is currently adjacent to enemy unit...if in the course of battle (firefight) said enemy unit is no longer adjacent to designated unit, to be allowed to engage in fire fight

Or just do not allow unit to retreat next to enemy unit engaged in the firefight (thereby disarming unit)

Not really an issue. It cost me a game.


I finally got an answer from Rborg1.

He says, yes that makes a lot of sense. From now on, go ahead and order units if you want to next to other units for Firefight. If they retreat away you can battle them. Also, if someone retreats next to a unit that is ordered by Firefight it can still battle it.

Rasmussen, don't forget to add to next FAQ.

Laughing


Are you Jesse saying this information is NOT from Richard Borg????



That's what I'm saying. I contacted JFKoski and Richard Borg; Richard said he didn't give that answer and JFKoski said it was a joke.

JFKoski, could you please modify your post so that it doesn't confuse anyone right now and so future players don't mistake your post as true. Thanks.



Ah, so the "J" is for Joke FKoski? A little humor and some "wool" go a long way it appears!!!

Thanks for the clarification and let's all "FIREFIGHT" away!!
      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 20:02
When playing Battle of Hong Kong with Sam1812, I said be careful playing Stevens in your tournament. Based on his posts regarding rules and FAQ, he seems to want to use odd interpretations no one else heard of or uses to surprise his opponent and gain an advantage.

I can understand that, because when I played History of the World, I looked for card combinations to give me an extra point or two, like Pirates in the Caribbean.

I've mostly felt we should be consistent and clear in the rules so we don't have surprises like an Early War Anti-Tank gun ordered by Behind Enemy Lines and still able to battle, as takes place in the Online game.

There are a few other errors still in M'44 Online, such as Snipers Ambushing tanks in Red Barricades. In two cases shortcuts were used that changed the rules for the scenario: the HQ town in Rzhev was replaced by a tent, and Bluffs rules were changed just for First Assault Wave, only.

In many other cases for the Official Scenarios, the M'44 Online game is set up to be authoritative on how the rules should work, like for Behind Enemy Lines (w/Roads, Marines and Ambush-flag).

For two years, since December 2011, no rules fixes were made for M'44 Online. People who want to play correctly know that they should have at least one unit in the section for Recon-as-Air Strike, or not Ambush from the sea. The Anti-Tank situation was serious enough to clarify the rule for face-to-face play but it hasn't been fixed online.

With regard to Japanese Infantry moving 2 into close assault and still being able to clip wire, I thought it was an absurd issue, and that Sam was joking in order to give Stevens a hard time. This is just the kind of "SURPRISE" rule I was warning him Stevens might pop on him.

There has been no discussion as far as I can find about people encountering different interpretations of Japanese infantry and wire in the many years of the Online game with Wake Island, and before that when Pacific Theater came out.

I was offended that Sam could (supposedly) just call up the designer and get a ruling in favor of such a questionable interpretation that we know won't be incorporated in the Online game! This is why I answered twice to mock his post. I spent a couple days looking for the newbie's post about wanting to change the rules of Firefight in the basic game after it's been out for 9 years!

It is absurd to think that Japanese would have extra ferocity to run up the beach and clip wire or mines. Perhaps RBorg didn't look to closely enough at his question, and thought Sam wrote IA (Infantry Assault), instead of IJA (Imperial Japanese Army).


PS: Laughing this laughing symbol is called laugh-out-loud.

PPS: For the love of god, when you quote someone, just keep the sentences you are concerned about (& use elipses...), don't quote a hundred words or so just to answer with one sentence.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7099
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 20:25
JFKoski wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 11:02

~Snip~

I was offended that Sam could (supposedly) just call up the designer and get a ruling in favor of such a questionable interpretation that we know won't be incorporated in the Online game! This is why I answered twice to mock his post. I spent a couple days looking for the newbie's post about wanting to change the rules of Firefight in the basic game after it's been out for 9 years!

It is absurd to think that Japanese would have extra ferocity to run up the beach and clip wire or mines. Perhaps RBorg didn't look to closely enough at his question, and thought Sam wrote IA (Infantry Assault), instead of IJA (Imperial Japanese Army).


How do you think we've gotten all the answers for the massive FAQ if not calling up the designer to ask? That's how this works...we run into a question where people see it differently and after discussing it for a while and looking for rules that explain how we should play it, someone contacts Richard Borg. It's often times me, but technically anyone could write him a PM.

In making sure that your joke wasn't a real rule change, I contacted Richard and he confirmed that those were his clarifications. So now we have our Official answer.


EDIT: I know that some people would love more information about Richard's thinking and why he made this decision. We have his answer but some people might not agree or see the logic, so they want a detailed explanation.

Keep in mind that Richard is very busy. He has designed tons of games, though not all of them are as complicated as his Command and Colors series. He makes a living designing games, so he has to constantly design new games even while he supports the games that are out. I'm actually amazed at how much time he takes to keep us on the right track and answer our random questions!

As such, Richard simply doesn't have time to explain exactly why a rule is the way it is. If he takes the time to justify every answer for Memoir '44, he could spend most of his time writing to us and still not satisfy everyone who disagrees with him. So the fact that we have an answer is great. If we want to know the logic behind it we can take some guesses...like that Attacks are just attacks. So in this situation, if the Japanese can attack they can do anything that is allowed with an attack.

[Updated on: Fri, 21 February 2014 21:04]

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 22:48
Having the ability to battle and using that ability for another action simplified it in my mind. Of course this only covers OFFENSIVE action and thus battling back (a defensive reaction) does not grant the same benefit.

I know I didn't personally agree with this appraisal readily at first because I personally liked the more restrictive reading of the rules. Nevertheless, I believe this will simplify game play for many new folks and I appreciate Richard's moving quickly to solve this query.

[Updated on: Fri, 21 February 2014 22:52]

      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1384
Registered:
October 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Fri, 21 February 2014 23:45
stevens wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 15:48

Having the ability to battle and using that ability for another action simplified it in my mind. Of course this only covers OFFENSIVE action and thus battling back (a defensive reaction) does not grant the same benefit.

I know I didn't personally agree with this appraisal readily at first because I personally liked the more restrictive reading of the rules. Nevertheless, I believe this will simplify game play for many new folks and I appreciate Richard's moving quickly to solve this query.


I agree that if you have the ability to battle, you have the ability to cut wire, remove mines, and deploy bridge (hobarts funnies). This was the whole premise behind the way the combat engineers worked since the Terrain Pack expansion. That Combat Engineers had to be able to battle to remove a minefield (TP page 13,FAQ 34;42).
      
bdgza
Senior Member
Captain

User Pages
Posts: 242
Registered:
February 2010
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 22 February 2014 10:17
50th wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 23:45

stevens wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 15:48

Having the ability to battle and using that ability for another action simplified it in my mind. Of course this only covers OFFENSIVE action and thus battling back (a defensive reaction) does not grant the same benefit.

I know I didn't personally agree with this appraisal readily at first because I personally liked the more restrictive reading of the rules. Nevertheless, I believe this will simplify game play for many new folks and I appreciate Richard's moving quickly to solve this query.


I agree that if you have the ability to battle, you have the ability to cut wire, remove mines, and deploy bridge (hobarts funnies). This was the whole premise behind the way the combat engineers worked since the Terrain Pack expansion. That Combat Engineers had to be able to battle to remove a minefield (TP page 13,FAQ 34;42).


What this clarifies is that a limited battle capability (ex: can only close assault) also enables full battle capabilities (ex: remove wire).
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3045
Registered:
February 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 22 February 2014 12:58
bdgza wrote on Sat, 22 February 2014 04:17

What this clarifies is that a limited battle capability (ex: can only close assault) also enables full battle capabilities (ex: remove wire).

Yes, which raises another question which may need some clarification for me. If I am playing CLOSE ASSAULT, I believe that only those units adjacent to enemy units are enabled to remove wire, etc.
So in a situation where two of my units are adjacent to an enemy unit and both in hexes with wire: if the first unit attacks and the enemy unit retreats or is eliminated, since there is NO longer any adjacent enemy unit, does my second unit lose its ability to battle and hence also to remove wire?
This may seem patently obvious to some of you, but at this point I am a little gun shy and am just thinking through this again.

Also if I use FIREFIGHT, I am allowed to order a unit that not adjacent to an enemy unit and it may or may not actually have an available target at the time of the ordering. Therefore, it seems that as long as the unit is not adjacent to an enemy unit it doesn't matter where it is on the board, if ordered it may remove wire, etc. if already on a hex with that obstruction since no movement is allowed.
Are others seeing it the same way?

Bart, you use the word limited... I might say conditional ability.

[Updated on: Sat, 22 February 2014 13:43]

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2257
Registered:
August 2006
Re:IJA and Wire Sat, 22 February 2014 17:00
Stevens, the concept I would pull from this is that on a Close Assault or Firefight, the unit must qualify to be ordered at the time of ordering, and must qualify to battle at the time of battling. The qualifying condition relates to whether or not your unit is adjacent to an enemy unit -- rather than whether or not there is an eligible target at the moment.
      
sdnative
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 447
Registered:
February 2009
Re:IJA and Wire Tue, 25 February 2014 06:43
Thanks for clearing that up Jesse as I had thought that JFkoski was serious..

Confused Confused Confused Confused
      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 603
Registered:
October 2005
Re:IJA and Wire Wed, 05 March 2014 17:17
rasmussen81 wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 14:25[/quote

...That's how this works...we run into a question where people see it differently and after discussing it for a while and looking for rules that explain how we should play it, someone contacts Richard Borg....

In making sure that your joke wasn't a real rule change, I contacted Richard and he confirmed that those were his clarifications. So now we have our Official answer.

EDIT: ...If we want to know the logic behind it we can take some guesses...like that Attacks are just attacks. So in this situation, if the Japanese can attack they can do anything that is allowed with an attack.


http://static.memoir44.com/lang/english/images/mm_compendium_nation_3.jpg

#1. We did DID NOT have a discussion about the Banzai War Cry and wire. As far as I can tell (not reading French) NO ONE has asked about or played that Japanese can move 2 and still clip wire in close assault since the Pacific Theater came out.

#2. If Japanese Infantry can move 2 and clip wire people should have asked for that during the Beta of M'44 Online when they were programming the rules, the computer AI, or for the next correction after it was released in Summer 2011.

#3. M'44 Online will not be reprogrammed to incorporate this new rule interpretation nor will the Pacific Theater manual be rewritten. I realize no manuals will be rewritten for typos, omissions or clarifications (CBs and BT need it badly!) but the Basic Set and Front/Theater manuals seem to be good enough for people to play out of the box. (Well, BEL needed a new card.)

#4. It's clear to me that it's the enemy presence that allows the unit to move 2 and battle. It's absurd that they would move 2 and clip wire (or remove mines).

#5. Sam1812 wrote to Rborg with some urgency, saying the question/answer was for a current tournament. This may have prompted a hastily considered decision with only Sam1812's viewpoint given. (Which was the joke above about a newbie wanting to change Firefight and the answer could be "Sure, go ahead".)

It is my hope that RBorg will reconsider his decision, perhaps playing Battle of Hong Kong himself to see how changing the rule affects the scenario.

[Updated on: Wed, 05 March 2014 17:18]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Designer's Oath

User Pages
Posts: 7099
Registered:
July 2007
Re:IJA and Wire Wed, 05 March 2014 17:34
JFKoski wrote on Wed, 05 March 2014 08:17


#5. Sam1812 wrote to Rborg with some urgency, saying the question/answer was for a current tournament. This may have prompted a hastily considered decision with only Sam1812's viewpoint given. (Which was the joke above about a newbie wanting to change Firefight and the answer could be "Sure, go ahead".)

It is my hope that RBorg will reconsider his decision, perhaps playing Battle of Hong Kong himself to see how changing the rule affects the scenario.



You can write to RBorg and explain your thinking, making sure that this is what he intended, but this is indeed how clarifications work and I already clarified with him after he gave Sam his initial response. Richard did not rethink his stance so I wouldn't hold my breath for a change.

Sam ran into a situation that needed clarification and posted it online for all of us to talk about. There wasn't a clear consensus and both sides of the argument make sense, so the question moved on to the designer of the game. He gave an answer to the person asking the question, who posted it online. I followed up to make sure it's what he intended because you had doubts and Richard confirmed his ruling. This ruling will then be placed in the Official FAQ for the next update.

At home, people are welcome to play however they want. Online, the game will continue to play the way it has been playing, but at tournaments Richard's rule will be followed and people will be able to remove wire or mines.

But like I said, you're welcome to contact Richard directly and express your disappointment to him.
      
Pages (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:M'44 Collectibles up for grabs
Next Topic:online air scenarios?
Goto Forum: