Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Next War: Taiwan» Forums » Rules

Subject: Two questions regarding clearing operations and move as a stack rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
X ray
msg tools
On clearing operations, rule 8.4.1.3 says: Units under a Clearing Marker may withdraw from the hex by using their entire Move-ment Allowance as long as the withdrawing units do not enter a hex in an EZOC. The marker may only be removed if all the units, as above, leave the hex, all units under the marker are eliminated, or they success-fully conduct the Operation. A new Marker may not be placed in the same turn one was removed.
So my understanding, based on the bolded part above, is only when the unit / stack withdraw voluntarily, eliminated, or complete the clearing operations successfully, the clearing marker can be removed. And I saw somewhere else Mitch said if the unit / stack leaves the hex due to retreat from combat, you can put the clearing back in the same turn (which is actually not consistent with the underlined sentence, but anyway).
So, just want to understand what's the rationale for this rule? In an initiative turn where one side has multiple segments of combat and movements, if my units occupying a single enemy hex under a clearing marker are eliminated in a previous segment, and I send another troop to take the hex back in, why can't I still try to do clearing this turn? And in essence, what's the difference between the situation above vs. the situation that my units in that hex were forced to retreat after losing battle in a previous segment, then I take the hex back using the same units (or, more likely, different units that are stronger), but in the latter situation I would be allowed to put another clearing marker and continue the clearing operation in the same turn?
I saw some comments that this rule is to prevent people from trying to get a clearing marker with lower # on it by leaving the hex and come back. If that's the rationale, wouldn't it be simpler to just say:
Once a clearing marker is placed, it may not be removed until: a) the clearing operation is successful, or b) there is no enemy unit present in the hex which contains a clearing marker during the Reorganization Phase.
So in this case the attacker can be freely in or out of that hex during the turn for whatever reason but he can't change the value of the marker until at least the next turn in any case. Same effect.

My next question is on movement as a stack. Rule 8.5.1 says:
Using Ground Movement, ground units move individually or as a stack from hex to adjacent hex paying the appropriate terrain costs. Units which begin the friendly Movement Segment stacked together may move as a stack but may not split or “drop off” units during movement. Moving stacks may not “pick up” any units while moving.

So my question is what's the benefit of moving as a stack? If units in a stack have different MAs, i.e. infantry and armor together, do they have to stop according to the lowest MA of the stack, or they can move up to the highest MA? If they have to stop based on the lowest MA, then what's the point to move as a stack? Can't find any explanation in the rules.

Thanks!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clearing - the inability to move back in and place another marker should only be applied if you voluntarily withdrew; not if you retreated or were eliminated

The rationale being primarily that you, as a commander, need to know that once you start the clearing operation, at least one of those units needs to remain committed to it. It's a difficult operation as it is without having the chaos of trying to relieve the units already engaged. If you get kicked out of the hex, though, you can go back in. I'll have to make sure the wording in the rule is clear in the next version of the rules.

Stack Moving - no real benefit or detriment except when exiting/entering ZOC due to the +1MP cost
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X ray
msg tools
Toadkillerdog wrote:
Clearing - the inability to move back in and place another marker should only be applied if you voluntarily withdrew; not if you retreated or were eliminated

The rationale being primarily that you, as a commander, need to know that once you start the clearing operation, at least one of those units needs to remain committed to it. It's a difficult operation as it is without having the chaos of trying to relieve the units already engaged. If you get kicked out of the hex, though, you can go back in. I'll have to make sure the wording in the rule is clear in the next version of the rules.

Stack Moving - no real benefit or detriment except when exiting/entering ZOC due to the +1MP cost

Thanks Mitch for the quick feedback.

So on stack moving, rule 8.2.2 says:
It costs an additional Movement Point to enter an EZOC hex which has no friendly units present (including Airmobile Movement if landing in that hex).
And,
It costs an additional Movement Point to exit an EZOC (including Airmobile Movement if beginning movement in the hex) if doing so leaves no friendly units in the hex.
So, based on the above, in the case of individual movement, only one unit (being the first to enter or last to leave the EZOC) needs to pay for the additional 1 MP, but in the case of stack movement, all units in the stack will have to pay the additional 1 MP. Really no point to do any stack movement then.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Correct.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X ray
msg tools
Toadkillerdog wrote:
Clearing - the inability to move back in and place another marker should only be applied if you voluntarily withdrew; not if you retreated or were eliminated

The rationale being primarily that you, as a commander, need to know that once you start the clearing operation, at least one of those units needs to remain committed to it. It's a difficult operation as it is without having the chaos of trying to relieve the units already engaged. If you get kicked out of the hex, though, you can go back in. I'll have to make sure the wording in the rule is clear in the next version of the rules.

Stack Moving - no real benefit or detriment except when exiting/entering ZOC due to the +1MP cost

Sorry, me again.
Regarding removal of clearing marker after withdraw, is the below scenario possible as:
a) units under a clearing marker cannot attack;
b) if you voluntarily withdraw all of your units under a clearing marker, the clearing marker will be removed and will not be put back in the same turn; and,
c) there's no rule prohibiting the withdrawn units (or any other friendly units) to re-enter the hex again in the same turn (and I don't see why it would make sense to prohibit such anyway).
Therefore, during an initiative turn, one could attack a city / urban / installation hex and occupy it in the initial movement / combat segment of the initiative phase, and be put under a clearing marker. Then in the exploitation segment voluntarily withdraw fully from this hex, by expanding all its MA, and remove the clearing marker. Then in the basic movement phase, he could move these units (or other friendly units nearby) back in to this hex again. Now, since the rules say you can't put a clearing marker back in the same turn, these units will be in this hex and not under a clearing marker. And since they are not under a clearing marker, again according to the rules they can now attack adjacent enemies, which would have been impossible if he stayed in the hex after the first time he occupies it for the rest of the turn.

So my question is: is this considered as an abuse of the rules? And if yes, how can we prevent it (again I don't think simply prohibiting units from re-enter a hex, which is previously occupied by friendly units but not cleared yet, makes much sense)?
Thanks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XrayMan wrote:
Toadkillerdog wrote:
Clearing - the inability to move back in and place another marker should only be applied if you voluntarily withdrew; not if you retreated or were eliminated

The rationale being primarily that you, as a commander, need to know that once you start the clearing operation, at least one of those units needs to remain committed to it. It's a difficult operation as it is without having the chaos of trying to relieve the units already engaged. If you get kicked out of the hex, though, you can go back in. I'll have to make sure the wording in the rule is clear in the next version of the rules.

Stack Moving - no real benefit or detriment except when exiting/entering ZOC due to the +1MP cost

Sorry, me again.
Regarding removal of clearing marker after withdraw, is the below scenario possible as:
a) units under a clearing marker cannot attack;
b) if you voluntarily withdraw all of your units under a clearing marker, the clearing marker will be removed and will not be put back in the same turn; and,
c) there's no rule prohibiting the withdrawn units (or any other friendly units) to re-enter the hex again in the same turn (and I don't see why it would make sense to prohibit such anyway).
Therefore, during an initiative turn, one could attack a city / urban / installation hex and occupy it in the initial movement / combat segment of the initiative phase, and be put under a clearing marker. Then in the exploitation segment voluntarily withdraw fully from this hex, by expanding all its MA, and remove the clearing marker. Then in the basic movement phase, he could move these units (or other friendly units nearby) back in to this hex again. Now, since the rules say you can't put a clearing marker back in the same turn, these units will be in this hex and not under a clearing marker. And since they are not under a clearing marker, again according to the rules they can now attack adjacent enemies, which would have been impossible if he stayed in the hex after the first time he occupies it for the rest of the turn.

So my question is: is this considered as an abuse of the rules? And if yes, how can we prevent it (again I don't think simply prohibiting units from re-enter a hex, which is previously occupied by friendly units but not cleared yet, makes much sense)?
Thanks.


You can't enter the hex again because entering the hex requires placing a Clearing Marker [8.4.1]...which now can't be placed because you voluntarily withdrew.

It's a bit arbitrary, but it represents that those hexes can be serious obstacles to any attack, and they must be dealt with.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X ray
msg tools
Toadkillerdog wrote:
XrayMan wrote:
Toadkillerdog wrote:
Clearing - the inability to move back in and place another marker should only be applied if you voluntarily withdrew; not if you retreated or were eliminated

The rationale being primarily that you, as a commander, need to know that once you start the clearing operation, at least one of those units needs to remain committed to it. It's a difficult operation as it is without having the chaos of trying to relieve the units already engaged. If you get kicked out of the hex, though, you can go back in. I'll have to make sure the wording in the rule is clear in the next version of the rules.

Stack Moving - no real benefit or detriment except when exiting/entering ZOC due to the +1MP cost

Sorry, me again.
Regarding removal of clearing marker after withdraw, is the below scenario possible as:
a) units under a clearing marker cannot attack;
b) if you voluntarily withdraw all of your units under a clearing marker, the clearing marker will be removed and will not be put back in the same turn; and,
c) there's no rule prohibiting the withdrawn units (or any other friendly units) to re-enter the hex again in the same turn (and I don't see why it would make sense to prohibit such anyway).
Therefore, during an initiative turn, one could attack a city / urban / installation hex and occupy it in the initial movement / combat segment of the initiative phase, and be put under a clearing marker. Then in the exploitation segment voluntarily withdraw fully from this hex, by expanding all its MA, and remove the clearing marker. Then in the basic movement phase, he could move these units (or other friendly units nearby) back in to this hex again. Now, since the rules say you can't put a clearing marker back in the same turn, these units will be in this hex and not under a clearing marker. And since they are not under a clearing marker, again according to the rules they can now attack adjacent enemies, which would have been impossible if he stayed in the hex after the first time he occupies it for the rest of the turn.

So my question is: is this considered as an abuse of the rules? And if yes, how can we prevent it (again I don't think simply prohibiting units from re-enter a hex, which is previously occupied by friendly units but not cleared yet, makes much sense)?
Thanks.


You can't enter the hex again because entering the hex requires placing a Clearing Marker [8.4.1]...which now can't be placed because you voluntarily withdrew.

It's a bit arbitrary, but it represents that those hexes can be serious obstacles to any attack, and they must be dealt with.

Thanks for the swift feedback as always!
Agreed with the rationale, though the rules can be written in a clearer way, i.e. instead of saying "a new marker may not be placed in the same turn one was removed", it could say something like "no friendly units may enter such hex again in the same turn if all units under a clearing marker withdraw from the hex in a previous segment [and the hex has not been entered by enemy since then]".
The reason for the part in the square brackets is if you withdraw all your units from the hex, then the enemy (or the side which the hex originally belongs to) enter the hex (and may or may not leave from it), by which it claims back the sovereignty of the hex, I presume in this case you can then retake this hex and put a clearing marker back on it again anyway.
Or not?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're making my head hurt again...cool

I would say that yes, if the enemy decides to enter the hex, and you attack and force them to retreat, you can then advance into the hex and place a Clearing Marker representing a renewed fight for the hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X ray
msg tools
Toadkillerdog wrote:
You're making my head hurt again...cool

I would say that yes, if the enemy decides to enter the hex, and you attack and force them to retreat, you can then advance into the hex and place a Clearing Marker representing a renewed fight for the hex.

My deepest apologies for that!!! We still need your head to work well for the next game in this series!
Though I would argue even if the enemy did not stay in the hex, but just enter and then exit, the effect should be the same and you can then advance into it and start clearing operation again. Of course the enemy himself needs to consider if he would like to do so to facilitate your coming back to the hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XrayMan wrote:
Toadkillerdog wrote:
You're making my head hurt again...cool

I would say that yes, if the enemy decides to enter the hex, and you attack and force them to retreat, you can then advance into the hex and place a Clearing Marker representing a renewed fight for the hex.

My deepest apologies for that!!! We still need your head to work well for the next game in this series!
Though I would argue even if the enemy did not stay in the hex, but just enter and then exit, the effect should be the same and you can then advance into it and start clearing operation again. Of course the enemy himself needs to consider if he would like to do so to facilitate your coming back to the hex.


Understood, and feel free to play it that way. The issue is the rules weight required to cover all those situations. As long as you're following the general intent that the attacker decided to back off (you could consider that it was declared a "free city" or "under truce"). As soon as the defender violates that, it's open game again. Of course, a savvy defender will use that as a now inviolable flank to anchor another attack somewhere else.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X ray
msg tools
Thanks!
Yes. Sometimes it's a bit unclear by just reading the rules, so appreciate you have been such a great support to all of us!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Land
United States
Ballwin
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're welcome. Hope you're enjoying the game.
 
 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.