RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking Limits

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking Limits

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking Limits

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/22/2008 10:50:14 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Thank you for looking into this, it is always good to be sure of the interpretations of RaW. The goal of the day is complete, I have learnt something new

Hold on, I still don't have the view of the designer, which I've not given up on obtaning.
And one of us just made the same answer and argument as you did.

(in reply to oscar72se)

Post #: 61

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/22/2008 4:27:17 PM

oscar72se

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Thank you for looking into this, it is always good to be sure of the interpretations of RaW. The goal of the day is complete, I have learnt something new

Hold on, I still don't have the view of the designer, which I've not given up on obtaning.
And one of us just made the same answer and argument as you did.

I have read the same paragraph in RaW (for the 100th time) and noticed something which i haven't payed any attention to earlier:

Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy face-up units before face-down units.

The word "then" implies that the overstacking cannot occur at the time that overstacking is checked. All of a sudden it all seems pretty clear, or?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 62

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/22/2008 7:01:17 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Thank you for looking into this, it is always good to be sure of the interpretations of RaW. The goal of the day is complete, I have learnt something new

Hold on, I still don't have the view of the designer, which I've not given up on obtaning.
And one of us just made the same answer and argument as you did.

I have read the same paragraph in RaW (for the 100th time) and noticed something which i haven't payed any attention to earlier:

Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy face-up units before face-down units.

The word "then" implies that the overstacking cannot occur at the time that overstacking is checked. All of a sudden it all seems pretty clear, or?

Not really. If you are interpretting the 'then' to mean the precise point that the step ends, well, no one is doing anything at that precise moment. Someone just says "I'm done."

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to oscar72se)

Post #: 63

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/23/2008 10:55:02 AM

oscar72se

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Thank you for looking into this, it is always good to be sure of the interpretations of RaW. The goal of the day is complete, I have learnt something new

Hold on, I still don't have the view of the designer, which I've not given up on obtaning.
And one of us just made the same answer and argument as you did.

I have read the same paragraph in RaW (for the 100th time) and noticed something which i haven't payed any attention to earlier:

Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy face-up units before face-down units.

The word "then" implies that the overstacking cannot occur at the time that overstacking is checked. All of a sudden it all seems pretty clear, or?

Not really. If you are interpretting the 'then' to mean the precise point that the step ends, well, no one is doing anything at that precise moment. Someone just says "I'm done."

My point is that the phrasing implies that the "voluntary overstacking bit" only applies at the time that the step ends, i.e. when someone says "I'm done." or after a retreat. That would also mean that you don't check for overstacking before the step ends.

I also like to add that I think that the game would become more realistic if the rule was to be interpreted as described above. I mean, a division of ENG could flee from a mountain range if need be (tearing down an airfield or whatever that bonus means), it's not like the pilots are keeping the engineers hostage...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 64

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/23/2008 11:25:21 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se
I also like to add that I think that the game would become more realistic if the rule was to be interpreted as described above. I mean, a division of ENG could flee from a mountain range if need be (tearing down an airfield or whatever that bonus means), it's not like the pilots are keeping the engineers hostage...

The discussion is still raging on, on the MWiF Rule Discussion Group, with 25 post now.

quote:

****************************
2.3 says that voluntarily or inadvertandly overstacking is forbidden.

Situation is : An Air unit is stacked on an HQ in a mountain hex.
Question 1 : Can the HQ move, inducing the air unit destruction because of overstacking ?
Question 2 : Can the HQ move, and be replaced by another HQ or an ENG ?

At Q1 I'd answer "NO", and at Q2 I'd answer "YES". What would you say ?
****************************

Lane has the same point as you have, that is that if the answer to Q2 is "yes", answer to Q1 should be "yes" too.
But this opens up a pandora box that maybe we do not want to open.
For example, it then allows the Japanese player to overstack all his MIL in China & elsewhere, have them destroyed at the end of the movement step, and all re-appear in Japan at the start of next turn.
In fine, it happens that if you accept it is played this way, then you can delete the "You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably)," from RAW, because you are then allowing to overstack all the time.

Also, if you answer "No" to Q1 and for consistency reasons you answer "No" to Q2, then you can't anymore exchange 2 units between two 3-stacked adjacent and surrounded hexes, which would render the game much more hard toplay in crowded fronts.

So, the best way out IMO is to say that the spirit of the rule tells us that we can't voluntarily overstack, so that moving a HQ or ENG that results in an overstack should not be permitted, except if the HQ or ENG is replaced by another before the first leave. Overstack is allowed during movement, but MUST be solved if possible before the end of the movement. In our case it can be solved by another HQ / ENG taking the place or by the HQ not leaving.

Edit : Anyway, I believe that this is the way everyone plays this rule, and there are tons of ways to deal with that smallish problems during play, so the HQ / ENG is not really stuck in place.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 1/23/2008 11:30:54 AM >

(in reply to oscar72se)

Post #: 65

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 1/23/2008 5:42:36 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

This is consistent since you are not allowed to voluntarily destroy units.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 66

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 4/12/2008 12:58:37 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

The last/missing page for this tutorial.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 67

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 4/12/2008 1:40:49 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The last/missing page for this tutorial.

Steve, what you wrote in the last paragraph is wrong.
If an US SCS or air unit with A2S factor was present, supply would NOT be cut, as long as the Japanese CP is not sunk, because 2.4.2 Option 11 is still satisfied.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 68

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 4/12/2008 6:31:45 PM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

Patrice is correct. The convoy in the South China Sea would have to be sunk to cut that supply route. As long as it is still there, no number of US ships (and/or subs) will cut supply.

_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 69

RE: Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking... - 4/12/2008 9:37:33 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

Patrice is correct.� The convoy in the South China�Sea would have to be sunk to cut that supply route.� As long as it is still there, no number of US ships (and/or subs) will cut supply.

Ah, mea culpa. I need to print RAC version 13; I was looking at my printed copy of RAC version 12, where it is ambiguous. Here is the text from version 13.