$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 53.61

3,945 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
24.9% of Goal | 30 Days Left

Support:

Bracco Michel
France
flag msg tools
Hello,

An armored unit can not attack through 1 hex escarpment, but can it defend itself ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In the first case the armor would be going to the enemy through the escarpment; in the latter the armor unit is letting the infantry come to it through the escarpment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
MEOW!
mbmbmbmbmb
IIRC the rule sates that a unit can only attack another unit if he is in the defenders ZOC. So infantry cannot attack armour through an escarpment hex side.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garrett Potvin
United States
Brooklyn Park
MN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes infantry can attack armor across an escarpment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wylie
msg tools
Infantry can attack across an escarpment. Armor can defend itself against an attack across an escarpment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
MEOW!
mbmbmbmbmb
Do you ever feel like you have walked into a converstation and missed something critical? That is me now. The rules state:

ZOC does not extend across escarpment for armor units

Only units in an enemy ZOC are eligible to attack

Am I misreading? I cant find an FAQ or living rules (mind you I dont do to the CSW forums).

Dont get me wrong, I prefer your interpretations (ie the classic...attacker can attack units in his own ZOC) as I never understood why it was originally written the way it was.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bracco Michel
France
flag msg tools
Hello,

if I summarize :

ZOC does not extend across escarpement for armor units (noted by the red hex) unless there is a pass.

1 - Infantry can attack and defend across an escarpment.

2 - Armor cannot attack across an escarpement, Armor can defend itself against an attack across an escarpment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Petdoc wrote:
Do you ever feel like you have walked into a converstation and missed something critical? That is me now. The rules state:

ZOC does not extend across escarpment for armor units

Only units in an enemy ZOC are eligible to attack

Am I misreading? I cant find an FAQ or living rules (mind you I dont do to the CSW forums).

Dont get me wrong, I prefer your interpretations (ie the classic...attacker can attack units in his own ZOC) as I never understood why it was originally written the way it was.


Can someone please reconcille this contadiction officially?
Yes, infantry can attack across escarpments.
No, armor cannot attack across escarpments(only through passes)but they can defend against attacks across escarpments.
ONLY UNITS IN AN ENEMY Z.O.C. are eligible to attack.
So, as an example: how can 1 infantry attack one armor across an escarpment? They are not eligible to attack!?
This seems to be the one possibility that meets the requirements of the rules: if there is an infantry adjacent to an enemy armor across an escarpment, and also adjacent to an enemy infantry that projects its z.o.c. into the hex that the friendly infantry occupies, then the infantry can attack the enemy armor across an escarpment?

To me, this seems to be the way the rules were written, but intended? It also seems to aid armor units that are behind an escarpment, enemy units cannot attack them in a strictly one on one scenario, they need to flank with other units from other hexsides.

If not the case, then the rule needs to be clarified or rewritten. Ex: Units can only attack enemy units they are adjacent to, armor cannot attack across escarpments.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bracco Michel
France
flag msg tools
Hello
ZOC does not extend across escarpement only for armor units.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
MEOW!
mbmbmbmbmb
The point is though the rules state that the attacker has to be in a defenders ZoC to attack. So because the armour doesnt have a zoc across an escarpment it cant be attacked that way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Petdoc wrote:
The point is though the rules state that the attacker has to be in a defenders ZoC to attack. So because the armour doesnt have a zoc across an escarpment it cant be attacked that way.

Actually the rule states: (11.2 Combat "Only units in an ENEMY ZOC are eligible to attack.")
It does not say defender(it only references defender for that not all units have to attack and for cost of rp. So, as going off of the example provided on page 5, there is an Italian armor behind an escarpment line. It does not project zoc past the escarpment line, so if an enemy infantry was in the hex with no zoc it could not attack because of the stated rule. However, my example was if there was an Italian unit adjacent southwest of the armor, then that unit would extend zoc into the highlighted hex, and thus an attacking infantry would be in an enemy zoc and eligible to attack the armor unit.
If said Italian unit was instead directly east of the armor, it's zoc would not be effected in that escarpments only block zoc for armor, and thus the enemy unit could attack the armor in this example also.

To me it seems silly(in a strict one unit on one unit scenario that you can freely attack one type of unit behind a terrain feature and not another. Hooray boys, enemy infantry-get em! King an Country and all that jazz. Wait laddies, enemy armor, we can't attack because of zoc rule. Not that infantry would want to attack armor across an escarpment(I would reckon it would not go well for infantry on tank, but if your in a situation and only need 1 hit to eliminate the armor,they probably could employ that tactic).
Much less sensible is that you could attack that unit if there is more enemy units adjacent to the target. 1 unit vs. 1 unit-no go but 1 on 2 or 3, light em up!...?
In my opinion Worthington needs to pay a little more heed to how there rules are written so as to avoid conundrums and confusion in rulesets. I actually like the rules and this game and the series very much and have from time to time in other threads defended this game against alot of naysayers. I just feel that the book could be laid out a bit better and rules more thoroughly cross checked against each other. 1 or 2 more pages of examples and or clarifications wont hurt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
MEOW!
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with you 100%. When I wote defender I meant it as any opposing players units ZOC, not specifically that armour unit. Makes no sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Why are there ZOCs in this game anyhow? devil

Excepting supply rule of course.....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vmi1983 wrote:
Why are there ZOCs in this game anyhow? devil

Excepting supply rule of course.....


Oh, I don't know Matt. At least this game and system doesn't have as sticky a EZOC rules as other systems. One can still move through a EZOC for an extra MP, so it acts as limiting factor but not a hard stop buffer(other games and systems have a double cost to enter and a double cost to leave, and or a must stop when entering-think it all comes down to scale and unit size for what might work best) I'm not sure that removing EZOC rules on movement is what this game needs(it could possibly open up manuevre but at the cost of shifting the balance too far the other way? Might be worth a try or two playtesting) I think you may of been on to something discussing fortress ezoc and strategic movement tho. I think I will drag this one out again and give it s whirl with some minor, and I do mean minor tweaks to adjust balance. Going too far the other way will just be a self defeating cause.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
vmi1983 wrote:
Why are there ZOCs in this game anyhow? devil

Excepting supply rule of course.....


Oh, I don't know Matt. At least this game and system doesn't have as sticky a EZOC rules as other systems. One can still move through a EZOC for an extra MP, so it acts as limiting factor but not a hard stop buffer(other games and systems have a double cost to enter and a double cost to leave, and or a must stop when entering-think it all comes down to scale and unit size for what might work best) I'm not sure that removing EZOC rules on movement is what this game needs(it could possibly open up manuevre but at the cost of shifting the balance too far the other way? Might be worth a try or two playtesting) I think you may of been on to something discussing fortress ezoc and strategic movement tho. I think I will drag this one out again and give it s whirl with some minor, and I do mean minor tweaks to adjust balance. Going too far the other way will just be a self defeating cause.


Thank you Erik- try it out- fortress zoc rule- and whatever you think will help play- minor tweaks.

Matt
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
vmi1983 wrote:
Why are there ZOCs in this game anyhow? devil

Excepting supply rule of course.....


Oh, I don't know Matt. At least this game and system doesn't have as sticky a EZOC rules as other systems. One can still move through a EZOC for an extra MP, so it acts as limiting factor but not a hard stop buffer(other games and systems have a double cost to enter and a double cost to leave, and or a must stop when entering-think it all comes down to scale and unit size for what might work best) I'm not sure that removing EZOC rules on movement is what this game needs(it could possibly open up manuevre but at the cost of shifting the balance too far the other way? Might be worth a try or two playtesting) I think you may of been on to something discussing fortress ezoc and strategic movement tho. I think I will drag this one out again and give it s whirl with some minor, and I do mean minor tweaks to adjust balance. Going too far the other way will just be a self defeating cause.


Erik, after reading this thread the rules get complicated- if zoc do not extend out from a fortress- well then per rule- that unit would be immune from attack, correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vmi1983 wrote:
redblackmonkey wrote:
vmi1983 wrote:
Why are there ZOCs in this game anyhow? devil

Excepting supply rule of course.....


Oh, I don't know Matt. At least this game and system doesn't have as sticky a EZOC rules as other systems. One can still move through a EZOC for an extra MP, so it acts as limiting factor but not a hard stop buffer(other games and systems have a double cost to enter and a double cost to leave, and or a must stop when entering-think it all comes down to scale and unit size for what might work best) I'm not sure that removing EZOC rules on movement is what this game needs(it could possibly open up manuevre but at the cost of shifting the balance too far the other way? Might be worth a try or two playtesting) I think you may of been on to something discussing fortress ezoc and strategic movement tho. I think I will drag this one out again and give it s whirl with some minor, and I do mean minor tweaks to adjust balance. Going too far the other way will just be a self defeating cause.


Erik, after reading this thread the rules get complicated- if zoc do not extend out from a fortress- well then per rule- that unit would be immune from attack, correct?

The rule in essence is how you put it, technically, to attack, one must be in an enemy zoc(doesn't have to be necessarily the defenders zoc). The spirit of this thread started out talking about escarpments and how they block projecting zoc's. Thus if 1 isolated infantry(which can attack across an escarpment) wanted to attack 1 isolated armor across an escarpment they could not because the armor cannot project zoc across an escarpment. Completely eliminating zoc rules, one would then have to simply go off of if units were adjacent to enemy units they could attack(escarpments blocking attacks by armor). Personally, I'll stick with the modified fortess zoc rule that zoc's out of a fortress can be negated by opposing units for purposes of supply(as on p6) and strategic movement.
This whole thread, especially the parts about escarpments is just a prime example of rules not getting cross checked thoroughly, and no clarication given by Worthington that resolves this.

Cheers!
Erik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Got it- makes sense, the ZOC of a Fortress Garrison does not interdict strategic movement and supply, only, not combat- but what is your thinking about normal movement? I would hate to have an exception to the exception so to speak- but if it improves play, I am all for it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vmi1983 wrote:
Got it- makes sense, the ZOC of a Fortress Garrison does not interdict strategic movement and supply, only, not combat- but what is your thinking about normal movement? I would hate to have an exception to the exception so to speak- but if it improves play, I am all for it.


So, just to be clear, rule in the book has it that friendly units negate ezoc for supply purposes. My house rule adds strategic movement to that exemption.(Reasoning in my head being that friendly units can "screen" for the unit making a strategic move, because strategic movement cannot end in a combat situation or possibility-strategic moved units must follow all other rules on strategic movement and not wind up adjacent to enemy units).
Normal movement can result in a combat situation or possibility... so no, I personally would not change ezoc affecting normal movement(2 mp per hex moving through ezoc). You could tinker with having strategic movement be possible through an ezoc if done through friendly units hex, but still impose the 2mp cost per hex.
Thats the problem with house rules when trying to fix a game that very well may be broken beyond repair, very often you wind up with more contradictions and rules creep.

Hope I didnt make it worse for you,
Best of luck,
Erik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
vmi1983 wrote:
Got it- makes sense, the ZOC of a Fortress Garrison does not interdict strategic movement and supply, only, not combat- but what is your thinking about normal movement? I would hate to have an exception to the exception so to speak- but if it improves play, I am all for it.


So, just to be clear, rule in the book has it that friendly units negate ezoc for supply purposes. My house rule adds strategic movement to that exemption.(Reasoning in my head being that friendly units can "screen" for the unit making a strategic move, because strategic movement cannot end in a combat situation or possibility-strategic moved units must follow all other rules on strategic movement and not wind up adjacent to enemy units).
Normal movement can result in a combat situation or possibility... so no, I personally would not change ezoc affecting normal movement(2 mp per hex moving through ezoc). You could tinker with having strategic movement be possible through an ezoc if done through friendly units hex, but still impose the 2mp cost per hex.
Thats the problem with house rules when trying to fix a game that very well may be broken beyond repair, very often you wind up with more contradictions and rules creep.

Hope I didnt make it worse for you,
Best of luck,
Erik



I think I'll just keep it simple- a Fortress Block's ZOC does not interdict supply and/or movement. This will allow the Italians to attack Benghazi w/o Rommel, for example,

Matt




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.