Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

The Guns of Gettysburg» Forums » Rules

Subject: double obstructed terrain optional rule rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Randy C
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Robert L Howard (Medal of Honor recipient)
Avatar
Microbadge: Enemy Action Ardennes fanMicrobadge: Avalon Hill fanMicrobadge: The Burning Blue fanMicrobadge: The Guns of Gettysburg fanMicrobadge: Wargamer of 50+ years

I have been using this rule.

Are most other players using it too?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
San Clemente
California
flag msg tools
Here the truceless armies yet / Trample, rolled in blood and sweat; / They kill and kill and never die; / And I think that each is I. // None will part us, none undo / The knot that makes one flesh of two, /
badge
Sick with hatred, sick with pain, / Strangling -- When shall we be slain? // When shall I be dead and rid / Of the wrong my father did? / How long, how long, till spade and hearse / Puts to sleep my mother's curse?
Avatar
Microbadge: Metagaming fanMicrobadge: Oakland Athletics fanMicrobadge: Ruthenia fanMicrobadge: Treefrog Line fanMicrobadge: nestorgames fan
Yes, it's not too difficult to use.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: Up Front fanMicrobadge: High Frontier fan - Your trip starts here!Microbadge: Comanchería: The Rise and Fall of the Comanche Empire fanMicrobadge: Linux userMicrobadge: Soccer fan
I am about to try a game using this rule. I have two questions on it though:

1. The 2nd to last paragraph says: "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss (as either the attacker or defender) if either its position or the position of the winning enemy block is fully obstructed. (This is true even if the block is in the same position as the winning enemy block.)" (bolding added by me)

Why is the bolded part needed in the above sentence? It seems the first sentence addresses all cases where a block may have to perform a mandatory withdrawal, but is excused from having to perform one when fully obstructed positions are involved. Generally speaking, I find the wording in the above rule to be very difficult and think it could benefit from some examples. If anyone thinks they understand the meaning of the above, could they please provide their paraphrasing of it?

2. The last paragraph under rule 21 talks about an attack where a defender is sandwiched between two enemy blocks. The last part of the paragraph talks about what happens for whomever loses. In the case of the attacker losing, it says "the attacking blocks must withdraw and the defender's original front is restored." (underlining added by me).

Earlier in the rule it says "Fully-obstructed positions cannot be attacked by group attacks." This says to me you can only attack a fully obstructed position with a single block since bringing more than one block would be a group attack.

So keeping in mind the rule against group attacks, how can you have a case where attacking blocks lose an attack against a fully obstructed position?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
Microbadge: I design games for the love of itMicrobadge: Rules Addict - I read rules before I go to bedMicrobadge: Saaremaa fanMicrobadge: Rules TranslatorMicrobadge: Rachel Simmons fan
arjisme wrote:
1. The 2nd to last paragraph says: "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss (as either the attacker or defender) if either its position or the position of the winning enemy block is fully obstructed.

Why is the bolded part needed in the above sentence?
I guess if it was just "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss" it would seem to many people that it only applies to attacking pieces. If you don't find the addition necessary, feel free to ignore it, it's in brackets anyway

arjisme wrote:
2. The last paragraph under rule 21 talks about an attack where a defender is sandwiched between two enemy blocks. The last part of the paragraph talks about what happens for whomever loses. In the case of the attacker losing, it says "the attacking blocks must withdraw and the defender's original front is restored."

Earlier in the rule it says "Fully-obstructed positions cannot be attacked by group attacks."
I think you may have found a logical error in Mr. Simmons' rules. If so, congratulations.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garry Haggerty
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Fielmann wrote:
I think you may have found a logical error in Mr. Simmons' rules.
Well, a typo anyway.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Anderson
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Microbadge: Napoleon's Triumph fanMicrobadge: Strike of the Eagle fan - PilsudskiMicrobadge: The Guns of Gettysburg fan
Fielmann wrote:
arjisme wrote:
1. The 2nd to last paragraph says: "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss (as either the attacker or defender) if either its position or the position of the winning enemy block is fully obstructed.

Why is the bolded part needed in the above sentence?
I guess if it was just "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss" it would seem to many people that it only applies to attacking pieces. If you don't find the addition necessary, feel free to ignore it, it's in brackets anyway;)

arjisme wrote:
2. The last paragraph under rule 21 talks about an attack where a defender is sandwiched between two enemy blocks. The last part of the paragraph talks about what happens for whomever loses. In the case of the attacker losing, it says "the attacking blocks must withdraw and the defender's original front is restored."

Earlier in the rule it says "Fully-obstructed positions cannot be attacked by group attacks."
I think you may have found a logical error in Mr. Simmons' rules. If so, congratulations.
If memory serves, the optional rule allows two blocks to share a spot so a sandwich is possible without a group attack as one block just sits there sharing the position (isn't part of the attack)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: Up Front fanMicrobadge: High Frontier fan - Your trip starts here!Microbadge: Comanchería: The Rise and Fall of the Comanche Empire fanMicrobadge: Linux userMicrobadge: Soccer fan
Fielmann wrote:
I guess if it was just "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss" it would seem to many people that it only applies to attacking pieces. If you don't find the addition necessary, feel free to ignore it, it's in brackets anyway
But adding the bracketed stuff appears to make the rule applicable only to attacking and defending pieces. I am thinking the intent is that if you are a block that is adjacent to a position that was attacked, your requirement to withdraw (or not) is impacted if fully obstructed terrain is in your position or in the attacked position.

G Haggerty wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
I think you may have found a logical error in Mr. Simmons' rules.
Well, a typo anyway.
Yeah, I suspected a typo, but have found none elsewhere in the rules, so couldn't be sure there was an intended meaning here that I wasn't getting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
Microbadge: I design games for the love of itMicrobadge: Rules Addict - I read rules before I go to bedMicrobadge: Saaremaa fanMicrobadge: Rules TranslatorMicrobadge: Rachel Simmons fan
arjisme wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
I guess if it was just "A block is exempt from a mandatory withdrawal following an attack loss" it would seem to many people that it only applies to attacking pieces. If you don't find the addition necessary, feel free to ignore it, it's in brackets anyway
But adding the bracketed stuff appears to make the rule applicable only to attacking and defending pieces. I am thinking the intent is that if you are a block that is adjacent to a position that was attacked, your requirement to withdraw (or not) is impacted if fully obstructed terrain is in your position or in the attacked position.
Oh, I see what you mean now It is my interpretation that a block that was adjacent to a position that was attacked does count as a block that is subjected to a mandatory withdrawal as a defender, because it belongs to the defending army, even though it's not a defending piece itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls