Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Demyansk Shield: the Frozen Fortress, February-May 1942» Forums » Rules

Subject: Replacement Types rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rule 15.12 restricts Replacement Points from being used to rebuild Armor, Artillery, Rocket Artillery, and Parachute units.

For this rule, are Armored Cavalry (which is a hybrid infantry/armor unit) considered to be pure armor, and therefore cannot be rebuilt?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Haggett
United States
Riverside
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Reconnaissance (with the armored cavalry symbol) is listed as a unit type. Since it is not prohibited, I would allow it to be rebuilt.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The use of the term "Reconnaissance" along side the standard NATO designation for an Armored Cavalry symbol doesn't negate the fact that this is type of an Armored Unit.

If one went strictly by the symbol on page 2, then the only pure armor units in the game are those from the 203 Armor Bn. The Armored Car symbol on the AA18/18 unit isn't really Armor either.

Other than Randy, (I hate to always be bothering him or forcing him to be spreading his time between multiple threads just because there are whiners who complain when you ask questions like this over on the Legion forum because "you're posting in the wrong place" - it's just too much of an imposition to force him to be jumping all over the place like some gymnast while he's trying to produce games) is there anyone from the design team who frequents the BGG forums who can give us a definitive answer?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
Cundiff wrote:
For this rule, are Armored Cavalry (which is a hybrid infantry/armor unit) considered to be pure armor, and therefore cannot be rebuilt?


As I read the rules, the definitions are strict and unambiguous: armor is a unit with tank silhouette; artillery, rocket artillery & parachute units all use NATO symbols. Armored Cavalry (recon unit) has its own distinct NATO symbol (different from all armor, artillery, rocket artillery and parachute units) therefore it can be rebuilt.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The use of a silhouette and a Nato symbol that means the same thing is a matter of "semantics" the type that rules lawyers like to complain about.

Also, the Armored Car unit isn't a tank, so what about it?

I need a definitive ruling from the design team so I can get the attributes correct in Vassal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
Cundiff wrote:
The Armored Car unit isn't a tank, so what about it?


Is it silhouetted, annotated with either rocket artillery, parachute or artillery?

If you can answer the above question, you know the answer to original question too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
it is silhouetted, but it's not a tank silhouette. And thus, not being a tank or armor the question is still in the air.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
Cundiff wrote:
it is silhouetted, but it's not a tank silhouette. And thus, not being a tank or armor the question is still in the air.



I see--I don't have countersheet by the hand. The question remains, true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Until I am told it is fish or foul I have no way of knowing. Leaving one to draw a conclusion that isn't evident creates ambiguity. Just because a tank that is silhouetted cannot be replaced doesn't mean a silhouetted armored car is a tank.

And a Nato symbol that indicates armored cavalry doesn't mean it is infantry or armor, because there is NO agreed upon silhouette for Armored Infantry (one might use a half track, but that's not a universal symbol). Thus you can think, "because the designer didn't have a handy symbol he fell back upon a NATO designation, and thus the Armored Cavalry NATO symbol could still mean armor ... or maybe not.

Ambiguous.

I need specific demonstrable verbiage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stewart Thain
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grouchysmurf wrote:
Cundiff wrote:
it is silhouetted, but it's not a tank silhouette. And thus, not being a tank or armor the question is still in the air.



I see--I don't have countersheet by the hand. The question remains, true.


I believe it is clear from 2.2.4.j that all silhouetted units are "armor" for the purposes of the game, and that includes the armoured car. To argue otherwise would imply that only the Panzer IV units are "armor" (the silhouette in used in 2.2.4.j), not the Soviet T-34 units, which would be ridiculous.

The real world meaning of NATO symbols is irrelevant. Rule 2.2.4.j defines that symbol as "reconnaissance", therefore, in this game, those units are not "armor". If they had been intended to be armoured then a silhouette would appear on the counter.

For me, there is no ambiguity, and no issue here.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
macbeth77 wrote:
I believe it is clear from 2.2.4.j that all silhouetted units are "armor" for the purposes of the game, and that includes the armoured car. To argue otherwise would imply that only the Panzer IV units are "armor" (the silhouette in used in 2.2.4.j), not the Soviet T-34 units, which would be ridiculous.


Stewart, if you have some spare time, please check out rules [1] for Normandy'44 from GMT, in particular section 2.3.3 where it itemizes all unit types--consider the difference between what it says there and what it says in rulebooks for DS. I agree with your interpretation but I also agree with a statement that it does not cost much effort to write rulebooks in away that leaves little space for ambiguity.

[1]. http://www.gmtgames.com/normandy44/N44-RULES-2ndEdition.pdf
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stewart Thain
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grouchysmurf wrote:
macbeth77 wrote:
I believe it is clear from 2.2.4.j that all silhouetted units are "armor" for the purposes of the game, and that includes the armoured car. To argue otherwise would imply that only the Panzer IV units are "armor" (the silhouette in used in 2.2.4.j), not the Soviet T-34 units, which would be ridiculous.


Stewart, if you have some spare time, please check out rules [1] for Normandy'44 from GMT, in particular section 2.3.3 where it itemizes all unit types--consider the difference between what it says there and what it says in rulebooks for DS. I agree with your interpretation but I also agree with a statement that it does not cost much effort to write rulebooks in away that leaves little space for ambiguity.

[1]. http://www.gmtgames.com/normandy44/N44-RULES-2ndEdition.pdf


Different game producer, different game designer - there are going to be differences in rule writing style.

If you are saying that most/all rules are capable of being improved for clarity then I'd agree with that. I also acknowledge that games need to be published once they are good enough, rather than held back for endless refinement.

To return to the point. For me, the intent is clear, as the alternative interpretations are full of contradictions and therefore cannot be correct.

Would I complain if the rules were more explicit? Of course not, but equally I wouldn't ask for these rules to be changed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Łukasz
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
Non vi sed virtute, not armis sed arte paritur victoria.
badge
e^{i · π} + 1 = 0
Avatar
mb
macbeth77 wrote:
I also acknowledge that games need to be published once they are good enough, rather than held back for endless refinement.


"Good enough" is a plague of modern world--it is an alleged extenuation of mediocrity that is summoned way too often to justify obvious bugs, fudges, typos, ambiguities and plethorea of other slips which on one hand are not serious enough to spoil the fun but on the other leave a bad taste in your mouth as the other side would think that you or your money are not worth the extra effort, which, when taken, could have made your life a tad better.

macbeth77 wrote:
Of course not, but equally I wouldn't ask for these rules to be changed.


As everybody in this thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stewart Thain
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grouchysmurf wrote:

"Good enough" is a plague of modern world--it is an alleged extenuation of mediocrity that is summoned way too often to justify obvious bugs, fudges, typos, ambiguities and plethorea of other slips which on one hand are not serious enough to spoil the fun but on the other leave a bad taste in your mouth as the other side would think that you or your money are not worth the extra effort, which, when taken, could have made your life a tad better.


"Good enough" is recognition of the trade-off between production cost and receiving return on that investment, whether we are talking the actual costs of manufacturing or the designer's time and intellectual effort, particularly true for a hobby rather than an essential of life.

One final note on the silhouette for "armor" in the rule book. I'm not 100% convinced it exactly matches any of the counters. Certainly, the counters have colour drawings rather than black silhouettes, but even then, I'm not sure it is one of the counter symbols blacked out. I think it is just a generic silhouette representing "armor".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For me the main problem is the understanding between the use of Nato standard symbols which have specific definitions and trying to somehow "redefine" them into something else. Why use a standard infantry, or engineer, or artillery symbol understanding them to be exactly what they are, and then try to change course to make an armored cav unit into a recce unit by whim and expect people to understand it differently?

For myself, I'd tend to agree that the Armored Car symbol could be construed as an armored unit ... sort of, since the reference in the replacement rules indicate that replacements are for infantry only due to lack of spares and difficulty in their arrival in "theater". Seems obvious the designer desired to indicate the difficulty of obtaining replacements for heavy equipment, of which armored cars would be a constituent.

HOWEVER, you cannot then use the Armored Cav symbol and try to convince me that it also doesn't utilize the same heavy equipment. You cannot redefine it as recon and expect me to believe that a recon unit can receive replacements because after all it ALSO uses the same heavy equipment [i.e. armored cars and half tracks].

The real problem here isn't the use of the armored car silhouette, it's the lack of a silhouette on an obviously armored unit (the Recon unit or Armored Cav unit as depicted on the counter).



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stewart Thain
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cundiff wrote:

The real problem here isn't the use of the armored car silhouette, it's the lack of a silhouette on an obviously armored unit (the Recon unit or Armored Cav unit as depicted on the counter).


The real problem here is that you are trying to import your real world knowledge into the game rules. NATO symbol definitions in the real world are irrelevant. All that matters is what the game rules define them to be.

If the counter has a silhouette, it is "armor" and can't have replacements.
If the counter has the NATO armoured cavalry symbol, it is "reconnaissance" and it is not "armor".

(I don't recall if the rules allow replacements for "reconnaissance" or not, but that is what matters.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cundiff
United States
St. Bernice
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alright, bottom line, I need word from the DESIGN TEAM ONLY

Armored Car { Armor or NOT }

Armored Cav (whether you wish to call it Recce or not) [ Armor or Not ]

Proper attribution is required in the module.

Other than design team need not apply.

 
 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.