Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If a hidden Japanese unit is "Hit" but draws a "No-Hit" marker, should it still be revealed? We had this situation come up yesterday and agreed that the rules-as-written seem to define a "Hit" as occurring regardless of the results of the hit and revealed the unit but with the "No-Hit" marker underneath it in the same manner as any other "Hit" unit. But this does seem to fly in the face of the intent of the marker, and the rulebook is a bit ambiguous in section 7.4.2 where it states "The "No-Hit" Marker is placed face down under the Japanese unit as if it were a hit." (I added the underscore).

Also, in FF10 there is a FF-specific rule that requires a Japanese unit to remove (not eliminate) a reinforcement unit from the game at the end of each round that the player has negative Bushido. The question is, do these units count as eliminated per the US VP requirements? In this scenario this is an extremely important question because the US player needs to eliminate quite a few Japanese units to offset the free VPs the Japanese player receives at the end of each round, and 21 of the Japanese player's 25 units start the game as reinforcements. We agreed that they do count as eliminated for exactly this reason; otherwise the Japanese player could conceivably win simply by losing a single unit in round 1 or 2 thus gaining negative Bushido potentially for the remainder of the game and thus denying the US the ability to eliminate sufficient units to offset the Japanese free VPs! Our rationale is that the removed units represent incoming reinforcements that were killed by the US coastal artillery prior to reaching the front.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim McCormley
United States
SD
California
flag msg tools
OUCH!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CaseyN60 wrote:
If a hidden Japanese unit is "Hit" but draws a "No-Hit" marker, should it still be revealed?
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of 7.4.2 clarify it.

1st No-Hit: No-Hit marker stays hidden on the unit to deceive the American player.
2nd Hit:
a) Real hit. Reveal the "No-Hit" marker and replace it with the new real hit.
b) No-Hit. Reveal that it was "No-Hit" and discard. Leave the original "No-Hit" in place.

The general rule for revealing hit markers is at the top of p9: "A player only needs to reveal a Hit Marker to his opponent when the hit unit's affected stats are used in play."

Quote:
Also, in FF10 there is a FF-specific rule that requires a Japanese unit to remove (not eliminate) a reinforcement unit from the game at the end of each round that the player has negative Bushido.
Since they are eliminated from your reinforcement pool and not from the board, I don't see why they would be considered eliminated. They never existed in the first place.

Their removal is dictated by a negative Bushido rating, so I would tend to look at it as reluctant reinforcements rather than eliminated units. But that's just me.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the feedback! But I'm not sure if 7.4.2 clarifies it (for me, at least).

We certainly referred to this rule (which you somewhat paraphrased; the rule explicitly requires placing the No Hit marker beneath the unit unrevealed, but the hidden unit isn't on the map to begin with). Which implies that you need to place the unit on the board above the unrevealed No Hit marker. But the issue isn't really whether or not to put the unit marker on the board; regardless of how the rule is interpreted the opposing player would obviously realize that a hidden unit is in that hex because the Japanese player drew the hit effect chit in the first place. The real issue is the collateral effect of having to place a hidden unit on the board due to opposing fire, which (per 19.0.3) reveals all other hidden units in the same hex. So by having to place the hidden unit that pulled the No Hit chit, it can also reveal other units. In our game this wasn't the situation so I simply placed the unit on the board and we soldiered on.

On your second point, it is very important to understand that (per the Firefight) they weren't eliminated from the pool, they were removed. And the wording is important because the VP condition explicitly uses the word eliminated. Which more strongly supports your (and my) opinion. Unfortunately, the way that the victory conditions in this scenario are defined, the US player needs to either (1) reduce the Japanese player's Bushido to -5 (doable) or (2) eliminate a minimum of 21/25 (more if the Japanese player scores any VP of his own) simply to offset the Japanese player's free VP, and this becomes impossible to achieve if the Japanese player loses even a single unit in the first two rounds and never recovers from negative Bushido!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim McCormley
United States
SD
California
flag msg tools
OUCH!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CaseyN60 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! But I'm not sure if 7.4.2 clarifies it (for me, at least).
Ahem...I missed that little detail that you were referring to a hidden unit. Doh!

Quote:
The real issue is the collateral effect of having to place a hidden unit on the board due to opposing fire, which (per 19.0.3) reveals all other hidden units in the same hex. So by having to place the hidden unit that pulled the No Hit chit, it can also reveal other units. In our game this wasn't the situation so I simply placed the unit on the board and we soldiered on.
Yeah...it seems like a "No-Hit" is still just a "hit" and therefore the unit is subject to all of the standard effects of a hit.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the way that the victory conditions in this scenario are defined, the US player needs to either (1) reduce the Japanese player's Bushido to -5 (doable) or (2) eliminate a minimum of 21/25 (more if the Japanese player scores any VP of his own) simply to offset the Japanese player's free VP, and this becomes impossible to achieve if the Japanese player loses even a single unit in the first two rounds and never recovers from negative Bushido!
Well let's see...

Starting on round 2, the special artillery rules for the U.S. allow them to target 3 Japanese units in the reinforcement pool. I think any units killed by that special rule should count toward U.S. VP. It's different than the Bushido rule where the units are simply removed.

According to 2.4 of the main rulebook, whenever a side reaches 20 VP the game ends immediately and that side wins. So maybe it's better for the U.S. player to race to 20 VP? That's 3-4 Japanese units per turn. If the reinforcement pool can generate VP after round 2, that seems doable.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
armor_11 wrote:
Well let's see...

Starting on round 2, the special artillery rules for the U.S. allow them to target 3 Japanese units in the reinforcement pool. I think any units killed by that special rule should count toward U.S. VP. It's different than the Bushido rule where the units are simply removed.
Agreed, and that's exactly the approach that my opponent took, although he didn't start targeting the reinforcements until round 4 after realizing the futility of chasing my on-board units with arty. The 105mm has a 5AR and the 75mm a 4AR vs the flank 10DR on all of my reinforcements so they were dying in droves (he was averaging about 3 per round). Which is exactly what prompted the issue in the first place; if too many reinforcements were removed from play without generating VPs or negative BP he simply couldn't kill enough to overcome the Japanese special free VP rule.[/q]

armor_11 wrote:
According to 2.4 of the main rulebook, whenever a side reaches 20 VP the game ends immediately and that side wins. So maybe it's better for the U.S. player to race to 20 VP? That's 3-4 Japanese units per turn. If the reinforcement pool can generate VP after round 2, that seems doable.
I believe that approach is the best one but the US player would never reach 20VP or even close. However, the US player would most likely reduce the Japanese Bushido to the -5 threshold and win at the end of that round. Say that starting in round 2 he eliminates exactly 3 Japanese units by artillery/turn per the VP conditions and the Japanese never gains any VP by destroying US defenses or units. This would be offset by the free Japanese VP every turn, so if the game lasts the full 7 rounds (ie, the Japanese player somehow keeps his Bushido > -5) the end-of-round VPs would be thus:

Remaining
Round VP Change End Rnd VP Reinforcements
1 JP gains 1 free VP JP+1 18-3 = 15
2 US+3, JP+2 = +1 US Even 15-3-1 = 11
3 US+3, JP+3 = No Ch Even 11-3-1 = 7
4 US+3, JP+4 = +1 JP JP+1 7-3-1 = 3
5 US+3, JP+5 = +2 JP JP+3 3-3 = 0
6 JP+6 = +6 JP JP+9
7 JP+7 = +7 JP JP+16

Even if the US player still has all 7 fortifications occupied, another US+7 still gives a JP+9 victory.

This was pretty much how our game went, just a couple rounds later. For my part, it was simply rushing the Japanese units as quickly as possible across the river for 1BP each to keep my BP above -5. I had no problem running my units at the US (it really does encourage the Bonzai approach!) because the Japanese player receives an immediate +1VP if he can drive or draw a US unit out of its hasty defense and another +1VP if he can kill it, it was clear that the US wasn't going to win by VP and I was also hoping to draw some arty back to the board to bring in more reinforcements (my opponent didn't fall for it). I brought my mortars in early hoping to get some indirect fire but the night rules really made combat beyond a couple of hexes almost impossible.

Heh - I guess this question turned more into an AAR. It was a fun and very different style of scenario and brought in rules we hadn't seen in AtB. The final VP score was a Japanese win but I was very close to losing by BP, making it a surprisingly close game, albeit somewhat asymmetrical and with a lot of combat that didn't occur on the actual map.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls