Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

Roads to Moscow: Battles of Mozhaysk and Mtsensk, 1941» Forums » Rules

Subject: Some notes on the rules rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jorge ML
Spain
Madrid
MADRID
flag msg tools
mbmb
RtM is a fun and amazing operational game. There are many strategic games themed on WWII East Front, but this treatment on specific East Front battles is a real treasure.
GMT packs it with well designed counters' art and map. The rulebook, while B&W, is complemented with a playbook that includes an interesting example of play and historic notes. Also, TOE cards are colourful and eases gameplay.

After playing it a couple of times, I also decided to purchase Roads to Leningrad (GMT still has some copies available). I highly recommend both.

Now, the designer of this RtM game decided to introduce some improvements after RtL, and while I understand these are well thought, the final edition took the RtL rulebook as a starting point and failed to correctly amend some paragraphs/graphics affected by these rule changes. While I'm still trying to write down these little errors, some are found below.
All in all, these errors don't impede from playing the game at all. I've made some assumptions, so if other players of this game feel these are wrong, I'll welcome your comments.


3.24 Graph: example of ZOC is wrong. There is no swamp in RtM. Marsh hexes are allowed for any counter, even with no road/trail

3.26 should be changed for the more appropriate text in Note (d) of the TEC. The need for a bridge to cross a river applies to ALL orange-circle MA units, not just to anti-tank and anti-aircraft orange-circle MA units (there are many motorized infantry units in RtM that are orange-circled)
3.72 a
Rtl specifies 2MPs reduced due to disruption, AFTER halving MA.
RtM specifies it to be BEFORE.
HOWEVER, the example in RtM 6.14a still keeps the order specified in RtL for MA reductions. Is this sample wrong and the designer really wanted to correct the rule from RtL to RtM?

6.14a needs following additions: specify the 2 MP reduction to all non-motorized units out of supply, ad indicate tat overruning is not possible to eligible units that are out of supply. This is correctly indicated in 8.16 & 8.52 Note 1.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
olivier R
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
For 3.26 and crossing rivers, I think it is the rules that are correct; the chart is wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Guttag
United States
Fairfax
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pepe le moko wrote:
For 3.26 and crossing rivers, I think it is the rules that are correct; the chart is wrong.


In general, the rulebook is more likely to be correct than the text in the charts. Sometimes the text on the charts has to be abbreviated for space.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Neal
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
On the q about r 3.72 whether the -2 mps for disruption is before or after oos halving, my guess is the change is correct and the example that contradicts it is just a cross-reference that has been missed. I think deducting 2 mps after halving is too harsh as it reduces the slowest Ruskies from 4 mps to nothing which is surely excessive and leaves even the fastest units with 7 almost immobile with 1.5 mps. The other way leaves a more reasonable 1mp and 2.5 mps respectively, very low but not static.

A good spot by the OP.

I haven't got round to playing these yet but they're high on my list.

 
 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.