Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

1914: Glory's End / When Eagles Fight» Forums » Rules

Subject: WEF: minor questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeffrey Miller
United States
Fayetteville
North Carolina
flag msg tools



Here are some things I'm still not sure about:

1. Does a retreating stack have to retreat as a stack, or can they split up?

Ted clarified earlier that the retreat priority is to an empty hex, but if none is available, you can retreat into an occupied hex (keeping in mind that if that occupied hex is attacked and suffers losses the units you retreated into that hex are destroyed). Rule 8.3 makes it clear over-stacking isn't permitted at any time. As far as retreating as a stack, I don't see why, if the retreat priority is followed, splitting up should not be allowed, so that is how I would play.

2. Does a fortress unit defending in a hex alone receive the -1 DRM (ignoring the exception for Kovno) and is it subject to the Concentric Assault DRM?

The rules use the phrase "Units defending in" get the modifier bonus, so I would say, 'no' the fortress counter by itself does not.

3. Are the Strategic move/turn limitations by 'unit' or by 'corps'?

The rules say 'unit' and the table on the map says 'by Corps'. Without confirmation, I would play 'by Corps'

But these three are really the only questions I had. And none of the above preclude playing the game, as I think my own answers to my questions make sense.

The rules are actually pretty tight and well-written. However, the way the rulebook was constructed the answer to a particular inquiry could be in a couple of places, and you might have to hunt around a bit to find an answer. However the rules are not long, so the answers are generally to be found, with a touch of patience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Cornthwaite
United Kingdom
London
Greater London
flag msg tools
mb
I set out below my responses to your queries, using your paragraph numbering:

1. It seems rather curious for a defeated stack to splinter as it retreats, and I note that in a separate posting that you made on this site on 14 March (in the thread entitled 'WEF Retreat as stack or not?') you said that "the stack has to stay together". However, I can see nothing in the rules that prohibits splintering; on the contrary, the second sentence of Rule 12.5 seems to permit it. So, on balance, I agree with the interpretation in paragraph 1 of your posting dated 15 March in the thread under reply.

2. As I observed in a posting that I made on this site on 8 October 2016 (in the thread entitled 'Fortress Modifiers in WEF'), the issue of whether a fortress counter defending alone qualifies for the -1 DRM is quite an important one given the number of fortresses in the game. It's unfortunate that the rules are opaque on this point, but I believe that there is a sentence in the rulebook that provides the vital clue to the correct interpretation. This sentence is to be found in the section of the Player's Notes on page 18 entitled 'The Osewiec Gambit', which is an example provided by the designer of an opening gambit in the historical scenario, and it states that "... [t]he 1, 17 XXX and 3R XX attack Osewiec (2816) at 5:1 with +1 to the die roll". The answer to how this +1 DRM has been calculated by the designer seems to me as follows. The attacking German forces earn a +2 DRM from the fact that they outnumber the defender by 7:1 (see Rule 13:12) and a +1 DRM from the participation of full-strength and supplied Active Corps in the attack (see Rule 13:19), thus totalling a gross DRM of +3. But since their net DRM (see Rule 13.11) is stated by the aforesaid example to be only +1, the defending Russian fortress of Osewiec must have qualified for a -2 DRM. How? As one of the two minus DRMs is attributable to Osewiec's riverine location (see Rule 13.13), the other must, by a process of elimination, have been earned by the fortress counter, notwithstanding the absence of any Russian field units therein. On the basis of the foregoing I interpret the second sentence of Rule 13:15 to mean that a defending fortress counter, whether or not accompanied by field units stacked with it, will receive a -1 DRM in addition to any other modifiers.If that interpretation is correct, I think it likely that fortress counters will also be immune from the concentric assault DRM under Rule 13.16, whether or not stacked with field units.

3. You are right - there is a direct inconsistency between the rules and the map (which I hadn't noticed when I played the game). My inclination would be to apply the limitations to units rather than to corps, for two reasons. Firstly, Rules 11.3 - 11.5 refer repeatedly - eight times! - to 'units'. Secondly, my experience is that when there is an inconsistency between a rulebook and a map, it is the former that is more likely to be correct.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey Miller
United States
Fayetteville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Thanks Jonathan.

1. Yes, I think we agree now, stacks should be allowed to splinter in retreat, if desired.

2. Hmm..although I did read the rules carefully, I actually didn't read the players note covering the Osewiec Gambit, and thus never noticed the example using the -1 DRM. I'll accept that example as evidence the -1 DRM should apply to fortress units alone, and change my previous opinion. My previous opinion was based on the second sentence of 13.5: "Units defending in fortresses receive a –1 DRM in addition to any other modifiers" So I was focused on the word 'units'..the first sentence of 13.5, however: "The fortress infantry counters represent both those garrison troops and the defensive works they occupy" seems to give enough wiggle-room to support your interpretation. The example in the players note is enough to satisfy me.

3. I have no problem with a player choosing to abide by 'units' as the agreed upon limitation, instead of 'corps'..I figure a German or Austrian Cavalry Division or German Heavy Artillery Battalion would take up as much rail capacity as a regular infantry corps. Besides, I wouldn't know how to tabulate such forces if they moved by rail (what would be their corps equivalent?).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Cornthwaite
United Kingdom
London
Greater London
flag msg tools
mb
You're welcome, Jeffrey.
 
 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.