Zug um Zug – Frankreich Zug um Zug – Frankreich

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 - English » Campaign Book #2 Errata
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 07:53
All nice and well, but I wasn't questioning if it's true or not, nor was I inquiring about engineers (which are documented well enough). I was merely interested as to the logical process which led to this conclusion, because if it's something that should be inferred from the rules, it kinda eluded me Question .
In the end it doesn't really matter, as long as there's a consensus about this. Like I said, just curious Grin .
Again, my thanks for the answers.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1881
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 08:30
Hi Rork,

When minefields were introduced in the Mediterranean pack (page 9) the rules read:

The scenario Briefing Notes indicate which side will lay Minefields out.
Minefields are set up at the same time as terrain hexes. Before placing any Minefield, set all the Minefield pieces with the picture of the land mine face up. Mix the pieces. Now place one Minefield piece, selected at random, face up (number side hidden) on each Minefield hex indicated by the scenario.

Return any unused Minefield pieces to the box, their numerical face still hidden from the players' view.

When entering a Minefield, a unit must stop and may not move any further on that turn.

If the unit entering the Minefield is an enemy unit, turn the Minefield piece over to reveal its strength number. If the Minefield is a decoy ("0" strength), remove it from the board. Otherwise roll the number of Battle dice equal to the Minefield's strength. Score 1 hit for each die matching the units symbol or a grenade. Ignore all other symbols, retreat flag included. After any explosion, the Minefield remains in effect, its strength face up and visible to both players.

If the unit entering the Minefield is a friendly unit (i.e. a unit that belongs to the player who laid the Minefield down), the unit must still stop, but will ignore the Minefield, never revealing it, if hidden, nor rolling dice.


On the card the two bold sections were abbreviated and do not mention the "entering" bit. So, in my (humble? Wink ) opinion these rules state that only on entering a minefield you activate it, provided you are the "bad guy" of course. Very Happy

That, and the way DoW programmed the on-line game in accordance to that, lead me to the way I/we play it now.


Does this answer your original question?
(We do tend to "dive in" and "go overboard" on the rules questions, its just our enthusiasm for the game leaking out, sorry we just can't help ourselves. Smile )
      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 16:14
Oh, I see, I completely forgot about the fact that some rule questions can be found in the online game Embarassed . Yup, it does answer the question and it also adds another black mark to the way the rules are written (the online game came long after the MT army pack).
And no worries, I'm all for overboard enthusiasm when it comes to clearing muddy rules, so it's most welcome.

And on another note, we've finally completed both CBs, so if anyone's interested I could post some impressions, ideas, results and other stuff.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8127
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 16:29
Rork wrote on Fri, 07 November 2014 07:14

Oh, I see, I completely forgot about the fact that some rule questions can be found in the online game Embarassed . Yup, it does answer the question and it also adds another black mark to the way the rules are written (the online game came long after the MT army pack).
And no worries, I'm all for overboard enthusiasm when it comes to clearing muddy rules, so it's most welcome.

And on another note, we've finally completed both CBs, so if anyone's interested I could post some impressions, ideas, results and other stuff.


The online game can sometimes be used to help clarify rules but should not be used as a final word because there are still some errors in the game.

This question can be answered using the rule books themselves, which is why the question was never put into the FAQ. The rules clearly say that if you move into a hex with minefields, it triggers an explosion.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1881
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 16:32
Beware: some rules are (not yet) implemented the right way in the on-line version.
      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 22:16
rasmussen81 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2014 17:29

The online game can sometimes be used to help clarify rules but should not be used as a final word because there are still some errors in the game.

Thanks for the warning: it's one of the reasons why I won't be using the online game anytime soon... or ever.

rasmussen81 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2014 17:29

This question can be answered using the rule books themselves, which is why the question was never put into the FAQ. The rules clearly say that if you move into a hex with minefields, it triggers an explosion.

That wasn't neither my original question, nor my second one. Both have been answered in detail. But since you brought it up again, please tell me where in which rules is clearly stated what happens if a unit already in a battlefield is ordered but doesn't move.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Fri, 07 November 2014 22:43
Rork wrote on Fri, 07 November 2014 22:16


That wasn't neither my original question, nor my second one. Both have been answered in detail. But since you brought it up again, please tell me where in which rules is clearly stated what happens if a unit already in a battlefield is ordered but doesn't move.

As Jeronimon Bolded a few posts higher, in the Med Theatre Rulebook, it says when the minefield is triggered: upon entry by an enemy force.

Since a unit that doesn't move doesn't "enter" a certain hex, the minefield is not triggered, because the trigger for minefields ("entering") doesn't go off
      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 08:45
Quit2 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2014 23:43

As Jeronimon Bolded a few posts higher, in the Med Theatre Rulebook, it says when the minefield is triggered: upon entry by an enemy force.

Since a unit that doesn't move doesn't "enter" a certain hex, the minefield is not triggered, because the trigger for minefields ("entering") doesn't go off


Clearly stated = written in black and white. There are a number of ways of doing this. Consider the following:
- "Minefields only trigger when they are entered by an enemy unit."
- "Enemy unit in minefield that is ordered and doesn't move doesn't trigger the minefield anymore."
You're not pointing out a clear statement about this situation, only a logical conclusion - an extrapolation if you prefer - that one may infer or not. I did, my opponent didn't, hence the original question Smile . Why did this happen? Because each player sees things differently and, as I've pointed out on several other occasions (for instance, the "must" and "may" conundrum), M44 rules could benefit from some serious editing to eliminate (or at least reduce to a minimum) the need for personal interpretations by providing clear answers and unambigous rules.

[Aktualisiert am: Sat, 08 November 2014 08:45]

      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 11:27
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 08:45


- "Minefields only trigger when they are entered by an enemy unit."
- "Enemy unit in minefield that is ordered and doesn't move doesn't trigger the minefield anymore."



I would thoroughly dislike any of these in a rulebook. They break some ground rules in what I consider to be good rulebook writing.

- The first: the word "only" is unnecessary. In a rulebook, you write what happens when the game progresses. It is a general understanding that only what you write happens, and nothing else. The ground rule to good rulebook reading is that you make no interpretations, but only do a literal reading.
If a rulebook author would add "only" in such a sentence, he would actually tell the reader that there is room for interpretation in anything that's written, except for those sentences with only.
Infantry can move 0-1 and fire or move 2 and not fire. Since there is no only, it can also move 4? If you start adding "only" you have to add it in any rule, and that would just look silly to me.
- For the second one: here you break my rule of writing a "positive" rulebook. You should write why happens, and not what doesn't happen. Because it's easier to come up with all the cases of what happens, than to find any particular oddity that might occur and shouldn't happen. You should only use negative rule writing to indicate an exception to the general rule. "An enemy unit moving into a minefield triggers it. An engineer moving into a minefield and still able to battle does not trigger it."
To come to your example: so a unit that is in a minefield and not ordered does trigger the minefield every turn that it stays in the minefield? And a unit that is ordered and is adjacent to a minefield, does that one trigger it? Write when it does happen, not when it doesn't happen.

For me, this would be a good rule:
- "Minefields trigger when they are entered by an enemy unit."
And how is that different from what is written and copied by Jeronimon? (that actual rule is just longer because it also explains that a unit has to stop and it explains what triggering a minefield means.)

You accuse us of making interpretation about the rules, while we only apply what's written. The rules describe when a minefield trigger. We don't assume that a minefield triggers in any other case than the one described, and that's indeed the best way to treat a rulebook, because that's generally the way a rulebook should be treated.
However it is your opponent in that game who was making interpretations about the rules, and who thought it triggered when a unit did not enter the minefield but just stayed there. Why can you point out where we supposedly are making interpretation, yet you don't see where your opponent was doing so?
      
Aussie_Digger
Senior Member
Lieutenant

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 254
Registriert:
March 2010
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 11:34
In the rules for minefield they only refer to a unit being attacked by them if it is an enemy unit and enters the hex. There is no other reference to when a unit is attacked by them so this would be the only time.

A lot of uncertainty comes from people trying to read into rules that aren't there just take them as they are written.

The 2 key points are pointed out in the rules for a minefield to attack "entering the minefield" and "enemy unit" so if both of these are met then it attacks, otherwise if its not written there it doesn't happen.

Other units special rules may override these core concepts for minefields such as engineers.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8127
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 17:27
This isn't the first time, Rork, that you've expressed disappointment in how the Memoir '44 rules are written. It's understandable that you would be disappointed if you expect the rules to cover every situation and spell out everything explicitly.

There is a reason we have a large FAQ: a rule book cannot possibly cover every situation and if they tried, the Memoir '44 rule books would be novels. That isn't realistic or desirable. Instead, players have to read the rules literally, check the FAQ, and enjoy the game for what it is; a game.
      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11
Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

They break some ground rules in what I consider to be good rulebook writing.

I'd be genuinely interested in reading these ground rules. If it's not asking too much, could you please provide some references and/or links about them?

Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

You accuse us of making interpretation about the rules, while we only apply what's written.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm merely pointing out the fact that for a lot of people what's written is too open to interpretation.
Also the answer to my question came not from an interpretation, but from a logical inference.

Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

Why can you point out where we supposedly are making interpretation, yet you don't see where your opponent was doing so?

I don't understand what you're saying. Of course my opponent interpretated the rules, then I did the same in order to demonstrate the opposing fact. The point here is that the rules are open to interpretation and imho they shouldn't be.[/quote]

rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

This isn't the first time, Rork, that you've expressed disappointment in how the Memoir '44 rules are written.

Why, is that a problem? If it is, just say so and I can assure you that there'll be not a single negative comment from me on this topic.

rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

There is a reason we have a large FAQ: a rule book cannot possibly cover every situation and if they tried, the Memoir '44 rule books would be novels. That isn't realistic or desirable. Instead, players have to read the rules literally, check the FAQ, and enjoy the game for what it is; a game.

Amen to that. Except the FAQ doesn't cover everything either.
What is desirable for any rules anywhere is that interpretation should be kept at a minimum and the wording as clear and precise as possible, so as not to leave people guessing.

But of course, I'm not a native English speaker. And all the people I played with, among them an English translator, a speaker of five languages, one game designer and players with vast boardgame/videogame experience, have the same problem. I wonder which situation is more likely: all of us non-native English speakers experiencing the same difficulties or the rules being way too open to interpretation?
      
Aussie_Digger
Senior Member
Lieutenant

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 254
Registriert:
March 2010
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sat, 08 November 2014 23:53
I must admit memoir 44 IMO has one of the better rules sets in the gaming world (though I would have to say the best would be combat commander, this game really teaches you to take the rules as written and nothing more)

I don't think iv come across a situation that needed an interpretation as all the rules give you the conditions that need to be met, the problems happen when people try to make things out of the rules that are not even written into them.

The only time i have used the FAQ is for when I have been unclear on a situation for a particular scenario not a rules issue. IMO the FAQ covers a lot of rules issues that are already answered in the main rules set (im sure there are some that are relevant but I have not needed to refer to them).
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sun, 09 November 2014 02:29
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11

Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

They break some ground rules in what I consider to be good rulebook writing.

I'd be genuinely interested in reading these ground rules. If it's not asking too much, could you please provide some references and/or links about them?


I can't. I don't have documentation. It's my opinion and it's in my head only.

I did however explain what i meant, for each of your proposals as to how the rules should be written according to you.
You left that out of your quote, a practice often used by forum trolls. Could it be?

Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11


Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

You accuse us of making interpretation about the rules, while we only apply what's written.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm merely pointing out the fact that for a lot of people what's written is too open to interpretation.


Almost anything anyone ever writes is open to interpretation.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11


Also the answer to my question came not from an interpretation, but from a logical inference.


Whatever you want to call it. Fact is, that if you apply what's in the rules about when a minefield explodes, and you don't make interpretations or assumptions on when else they could explode, it is all very clear. That's why it is clear to a lot of people playing Memoir.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11


Quit2 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 12:27

Why can you point out where we supposedly are making interpretation, yet you don't see where your opponent was doing so?

I don't understand what you're saying.

I don't see how I can make it more clear. It must be a lack of intelligence on my part.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11

Of course my opponent interpretated the rules, then I did the same in order to demonstrate the opposing fact. The point here is that the rules are open to interpretation and imho they shouldn't be.

I don't think they are open to much interpretation, if you accept the premise that you should only apply what is written and assume nothing else.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11


rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

This isn't the first time, Rork, that you've expressed disappointment in how the Memoir '44 rules are written.

Why, is that a problem? If it is, just say so and I can assure you that there'll be not a single negative comment from me on this topic.

rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

There is a reason we have a large FAQ: a rule book cannot possibly cover every situation and if they tried, the Memoir '44 rule books would be novels. That isn't realistic or desirable. Instead, players have to read the rules literally, check the FAQ, and enjoy the game for what it is; a game.

Amen to that. Except the FAQ doesn't cover everything either.


Nothing could cover all the crazy ideas and assumptions certain players can come up with.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11


What is desirable for any rules anywhere is that interpretation should be kept at a minimum and the wording as clear and precise as possible, so as not to leave people guessing.

Apply what is written. Apply only what is written. It will get you a long way.
Rork wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 23:11



But of course, I'm not a native English speaker. And all the people I played with, among them an English translator, a speaker of five languages, one game designer and players with vast boardgame/videogame experience, have the same problem. I wonder which situation is more likely: all of us non-native English speakers experiencing the same difficulties or the rules being way too open to interpretation?

I'm not a native english speaker, as you might have noticed.
Maybe this advice can help you, with this game and many others: apply only what is written and assume nothing.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8127
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sun, 09 November 2014 06:23
Like I've said many times before, no rule book can cover every situation. Personally, like Aussie_Digger said, I've found that Days of Wonder rule books are some of the better written rules.

Memoir '44 has a ton of expansions with lots of rules interacting. Because of all of this interaction, questions have come up and players have wanted official answers for them. Richard Borg has done a wonderful job answering them. I've done a passable job putting them into an FAQ. But even so, we can't cover every situation.

In my experience, almost every question can be answered by reading the rules (in the rule books) and following them exactly as written. The FAQ covers situations where lots of people had doubts or where there was something unclear.

In your question about the Minefield, it isn't in the FAQ because your question is answered by simply reading the rules. A Minefield only explodes when you enter it because that's what the rules say.
      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Sun, 09 November 2014 22:21
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 03:29


I can't. I don't have documentation. It's my opinion and it's in my head only.

The why do you present it as reference? Your opinion is not ground rules for writing boardgames rulebooks, it's just that: your opinion. So rules can be written in any way that makes them as clear as possible.

Quit2 wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 03:29

You left that out of your quote, a practice often used by forum trolls. Could it be?

I actually started to reply to your uselessly long post, but obviously communicating in any way with you would be pointless. I was tempted to reply in earnest, all the more so since your spot on self-characterization would've made it so easy, then reconsidered. You're simply not worth the effort. I didn't post here to be insulted by someone who confuses personal opinions with objective facts. So that's the end of all discussion with you - now and in the future.

Furthermore, I think it's time for this to stop. I asked some questions which were more than adequately answered. Running around in circles some twelve posts later on a quite different topic not associated with this thread is neither producing anything useful, nor helping anyone. The rest, much like the rules themselves (and yes, I agree that DoWs rules are usually more clearer than others), is open to interpretation Twisted Evil .
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Mon, 10 November 2014 02:00
Rork wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 22:21

Quit2 wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 03:29


I can't. I don't have documentation. It's my opinion and it's in my head only.

The why do you present it as reference?


I didn't. I clearly said: "what I consider to be .."
Rork wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 22:21



Quit2 wrote on Sun, 09 November 2014 03:29

You left that out of your quote, a practice often used by forum trolls. Could it be?

I actually started to reply to your uselessly long post, but obviously communicating in any way with you would be pointless.

I never wanted to offend you, but you had pushed my limits.
Jeronimon pointed out where the rules write how minefields work. Those rules are perfectly clear.
One of the propositions you make actually wrote the same thing (shorter, because you didn't explain the resolution of the explosion of the minefield, but that was not necessary for this discussion). The only difference in your proposition was the addition of the word "only". That word really isn't necessary. So your insistence on the fact that the rules are unclear on this subject seems like nothing more than trolling.

If you're really not trolling, explain to me how the rules, as cited by Jeronimon, are still not clear to you.

[Aktualisiert am: Mon, 10 November 2014 02:01]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8127
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Mon, 10 November 2014 04:17
Rork

rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

This isn't the first time, Rork, that you've expressed disappointment in how the Memoir '44 rules are written.

Why, is that a problem? If it is, just say so and I can assure you that there'll be not a single negative comment from me on this topic.

rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 08 November 2014 18:27

There is a reason we have a large FAQ: a rule book cannot possibly cover every situation and if they tried, the Memoir '44 rule books would be novels. That isn't realistic or desirable. Instead, players have to read the rules literally, check the FAQ, and enjoy the game for what it is; a game.

Amen to that. Except the FAQ doesn't cover everything either.
What is desirable for any rules anywhere is that interpretation should be kept at a minimum and the wording as clear and precise as possible, so as not to leave people guessing.

But of course, I'm not a native English speaker. And all the people I played with, among them an English translator, a speaker of five languages, one game designer and players with vast boardgame/videogame experience, have the same problem. I wonder which situation is more likely: all of us non-native English speakers experiencing the same difficulties or the rules being way too open to interpretation?


What I was trying to say (and admittedly didn't do a great job communicating) is that you seem disappointed in the rules and unsatisfied with our answers to your questions. We can't do anything more than try to help you understand the rule but every time we explain something you complain about how the rules were written or how you and your friends had questions.

We didn't write the rules, we don't have any control over them, we know the answer, and we're trying to help you by answering your questions. We understand that you were confused by a rule but the answers are often still covered by the rules themselves. Sometimes it just takes another person pointing something out for us to see it...but then you seem frustrated that we're pointing back to the rules. It turns into a messy circle of posts. Razz

Anyway, I hope you've gotten your questions answered to your satisfaction. Have fun with the game and may the dice always roll in your favor!

[Aktualisiert am: Mon, 10 November 2014 04:19]

      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Mon, 10 November 2014 22:49
rasmussen81 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2014 05:17


What I was trying to say (and admittedly didn't do a great job communicating) is that you seem disappointed in the rules and unsatisfied with our answers to your questions. We can't do anything more than try to help you understand the rule but every time we explain something you complain about how the rules were written or how you and your friends had questions.

Two posts after my first question, courtesy of tank commander and Stevens, I had the answer. Second question was answered by Jeronimon and that should've been it.
And then your post started this, for no reason at all. Yes, I am disappointed with the rules, but please, do tell how and when I was dissatisfied with the answers. Maybe thanking wasn't enough? Maybe asking for further clarifications is considered offensive? Or maybe the problem is that there's an unwritten convention on this forum about how the rules are damn near perfect and it's always the players' fault for not understanding them?
And complaining about how my friends have questions? Seriously? It was an example about how other people with solid gaming culture (for instance, in Magic, where rules are mathematics and words do actually mean what they're supposed to mean) could reach opposite conclusions based on supposedly clear and simple rules. Sorry, I apologize for their frustration (and mine as well) at stopping the game several times for up to half an hour while looking for answers in different rulebooks, one FAQ and several forums and finding none. So yea, I guess I must be disappointed.

rasmussen81 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2014 05:17

(...) but then you seem frustrated that we're pointing back to the rules.

Because the rules don't say anything about what I was asking, it's just an implied situation. Some people see it, some don't. Good for y'all that you can spot it so easily, I didn't, else I wouldn't have been asking the question in the first place.

[Aktualisiert am: Mon, 10 November 2014 22:54]

      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1584
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Tue, 11 November 2014 01:38
I have a friend that can read the same rule I read and get a totally different meaning out of it. Even though I think the rules in Memoir are very well written compared to other rulebooks.Maybe Rork is like my friend and gets something different from the otherwise well written rules.

      
Rork
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 80
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:Campaign Book #2 Errata Tue, 11 November 2014 22:27
50th wrote on Tue, 11 November 2014 02:38

I have a friend that can read the same rule I read and get a totally different meaning out of it. Even though I think the rules in Memoir are very well written compared to other rulebooks.Maybe Rork is like my friend and gets something different from the otherwise well written rules.

It was my opponent who read it differently. That and the fact that I wasn't quite sure my interpretation was correct led to the question.
I had the same answer as the one I got here before posting the question, but following a different reasoning: seems kinda absurd to have an unit stationed in a minefield and still take losses every time it's ordered. Though, come to think of it, you can easily imagine an unit pinned down in an unmapped minefield and taking losses while trying to exit the area... but I digress here.

Other than that, it's the most sensible and to the point message ever since this conversation got sidetracked on the topic of how good or bad written are M44's rules.
      
Seiten (5): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5 ]     
Vorheriges Thema:10th anniversary of Memoir'44, November
Nächstes Thema:Sword beach - differences in breakthrough /d-day landings versions?
Gehen Sie zum Forum: