Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Following my last thread.

So the TWO rolled by Infiltration rule looks like a real benefit ONLY if rolled by the ATTACKER and, being a roll low enough to harm (eliminate etc...) his enemies, it looks like a mean to advance one location more during CC. Was this the real intent of this rule?
I'm not completely convinced on this. Why Infiltration should advantage the ATTACKER more than the DEFENDER?
If this was the intent I think the rule would have been written using more likely the terms ATTACKER and DEFENDER in capital letter. It would have been much more clearer. The fact it is not so, makes me having some doubts. And going deeper into the words makes my doubts growing.
The matter is only about the DR of TWO, the 12 is easier because being implemented by the enemy units, can take less into account the "dice roll sequence".
I don't know Who wrote this rule in the depth of time, but I THINK it was made to give some more unpredictabilty to CC and a chance to survive for the poor hopeless units attacking with low odds.
The following analisys can be quite useless, having Klas already kindly answered to my questions and Alan pointed me to an interesting article, but you are welcome to spend two minutes in reading it.

A11.22 INFILTRATION
"The simultaneous nature of CC is momentarily suspended following an Original CC DR of 2/12."....

It makes no references to ATTACKER or DEFENDER, so if either make one of those rolls, CC is not simultaneous anymore, and, I THINK this means the 2 or 12 take the precedence on the "other" results: If the ATTACKER rolls a 12, the DEFENDER can withdraw before rolling his dice, if the ATTACKER rolls a 2, he can withdraw before the DEFENDER rolls his dice. In the majority of the CCs the ATTACKER would eliminate the DEFENDER with the 2, and, having he advanced in the now CC location most likely with favorable odds, why should he take/hope-in the benefit of Infiltration? To "jump off" the enemy unit? It could be, but the chances to roll 2 are too low to rely on this. It looks like the infiltration following the 2 DR has been tought for the DEFENDER, not for the ATTACKER, allowing he (the DEFENDER) to withdraw from desperate CCs.
..."Provided it has not been eliminated/captured/pinned, any Infantry/Cavalry unit which rolls an Original 2 CC DR may withdraw from CC/Melee immediately thereafter in the same CCPh without being attacked...."
This is the tricky part. IF the simultaneous nature has been suspended, as stated above, the unit which rolls 2 cannot have been "already" eliminated, so it looks like this line refers to the 11.3 sequential CC provisions. Otherwise there are some contraddictions: Note that the words "without being attacked" and "provided it has not been eliminated[...]" are in contrast if this rule takes into account only the ATTACKER DR rolled before the DEFENDER's: - if the ATTACKER eliminates the DEFENDER and the DEFENDER rolls 2, the DEFENDER "has been eliminated" but he can withdraw "without being attacked". But the DEFENDER was already been "attacked" rolling he after the ATTACKER. So why write this rule this way? You can answer that "without being attacked" refers only to the fact that if the ATTACKER rolls its 2 he can withdraw before the DEFENDER rolls its dice, but in this case it is not possible he(the ATTACKER) "has already been eliminated" since no dice are rolled by the DEFENDER yet. So again, why write this rule this way?
Further thoughts: assuming that to implement the 2 result the DEFENDER should have not been already eliminated, what is the real benefit in withdrawing, since in the most cases this low roll harms (eliminates etc...) the enemy leaving him in the location with no/less enemies?
The common interpretation makes this rule giving more the benefit of moving one location further in CCPh, more than allowing units to save themselves, as I noted above. But if this is the intent, why use the word "withdraw" instead of "move, advance or better INFILTRATE"?
Last note: A11.3 SEQUENTIAL CC begins with the words: "There are three OTHER (my capital) instances in which CC is not considered simultaneous"... Doesn't this should mean the preceding paragraph is about one OTHER instance of sequential CC?

Perhaps my english knowledge is confusing my understanding of the rule, perhaps not.
With only 40 games under my belt, I have most likely not experienced all the application of this rule.
Feel free to point out all my misinterpretation.
Be merciful.
Thanks for your time.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Qwirz wrote:
Following my last thread.

(For the benefit of future readers: A very important question about Infiltration and CC)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Qwirz wrote:
Following my last thread.

(For the benefit of future readers: A very important question about Infiltration and CC) :)

Thanks Russ. I forgot to insert the link.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Just to point out that even though CC is normally simultaneous, the rules are clear that the ATTACKER does roll/resolve his attacks first - so, yes, the ATTACKER does have an advantage in that regards.

A11.12:
"...Barring sequential CC, each side in a Location must designate all of its attacks in that Location prior to the resolution of any of them (ATTACKER designating his first). The DEFENDER then designates all of his attacks, after which the ATTACKER resolves all of his previously declared attacks. The DEFENDER then resolves all of his attacks—even if those units have been eliminated, Reduced, or captured...."
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Of Course, Klas, thanks.
But the results are implemented after both players rolls. EXCEPT if the ATTACKER rolls 2/12. In which case he (if 2 is rolled) or the DEFENDER (if 12 is rolled by the ATTACKER) have to decide to take immediately the benefits of Infiltration. IF the DEFENDER, after the ATTACKER's rolls, roll 2/12,..........
.....see my post above
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Qwirz wrote:
Of Course, Klas, thanks.
But the results are implemented after both players rolls. EXCEPT if the ATTACKER rolls 2/12. In which case he (if 2 is rolled) or the DEFENDER (if 12 is rolled by the ATTACKER) have to decide to take immediately the benefits of Infiltration. IF the DEFENDER, after the ATTACKER's rolls, roll 2/12,..........
.....see my post above

Yes, as the rule says "The simultaneous nature of CC is momentarily suspended..."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vocabulary put aside,it really can be interesting for a Defender to be able to move out of a Location by rolling snakes - or because the Attacker rolled boxcars.
Quit like when the Defender infiltrates by winning an Ambush.
It allows him to get out of an awkward situation (e.g. when the enemy has swamped his side's defense line) and have much more tactical choices during his coming player turn than if locked in Melee.
That the Attacker has a slighter advantage is quite reasonable, as he is most of the times the initiator of the CC situation - and thus has the upper hand over a Defender who is more in a reactive posture.
But of course generalities suffer many exceptions.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, dont forget that this is PER attack.
If a side has several cc rolls, he cannot wait to know the outcome of his other rolls before deciding what to do with the 2/12 roll of the current unit(s)

A defender rolling these with his rolls has the advantage of hindsight, as he already knows the outcome of the attacker's attacks, so can more precisely choose the most convenient option. Ie he could choose to stay if the attacker rolled badly

An attacker can only guess his chances of what following rolls may bring.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin wrote:
Vocabulary put aside,it really can be interesting for a Defender to be able to move out of a Location by rolling snakes - or because the Attacker rolled boxcars.
Quit like when the Defender infiltrates by winning an Ambush.
It allows him to get out of an awkward situation (e.g. when the enemy has swamped his side's defense line) and have much more tactical choices during his coming player turn than if locked in Melee.
That the Attacker has a slighter advantage is quite reasonable, as he is most of the times the initiator of the CC situation - and thus has the upper hand over a Defender who is more in a reactive posture.
But of course generalities suffer many exceptions.


This was exactly the intent I THOUGHT this rule was written for.
Unfortunately it was not...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is exactly written for that purpose.
It adds a little unexpected spice to CC and that is what makes ASL shine.
The rule has been around for about 33 years now.
You are the only one who whines about it.
Guess who may have got things wrong?
Adapt (i.e. accept how the rule works) and overcome (make the best of the system).
And forget about bogus realty arguments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin,
I'm getting more confused now.
In your post above you said "it really can be very interesting for a defender to able to move out of a location by rolling snakes..." And this made me commenting as I did: That this was what I THOUGHT. Perhaps yours was sarcasm and I did not understand it. But I was not trying to convince anyone I was right. Not even myself.
The rule says, and now I ACCEPT, that if the DEFENDER rolls snakes he can withdraw, "provided it was not eliminated".
I THOUGHT, and this is the only thing I was "whining" about, he could have been safe regardless the ATTACKER result. My misinterpretation. Kindly clarified. No more "whining". I swear.
I should begin to consider I have problem in translating.......BTW what does BOGUS REALTY mean????
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understood that you contested that the rule allows a defender, on some rare occasions, to be able to pull out of a CC situation, with the comment : "Unfortunately it was not."
It ringed as, following what I explained of the usefulness of the rule for the Defender, you considered that it did not work that way.
As you debated previously by presenting a form of reality arguments (why should the attacker have an advantage ? Why call the rule Infiltration rather than Withdrawal?) to contest the validity of the rule, I simply underlined that reality arguments are bogus : it is a general fact that invoking "reality" to reject or to justify a rule leads nowhere most often.
It may be possible that we are not understanding one another well here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh no!
What I intended was the exact opposite!
I really liked the possibility given by the rule to an overwhelmed DEFENDER to withdraw! And I liked it so much that I interpreted the rule as he would have this chance DESPITE the ATTACKER roll outcome. I read this through the lines but I was wrong, as Klas and other fellow gamers pointed.
I made no useless reality arguments, just "linguistic/logical/grammatical" one.
WHen you wrote your line two posts above, I just thought that was also your opinion it would have been "interesting for a Defender to be able to move out of a Location by rolling snakes" regardless the ATTACKER roll.
That's why my comment about "unfortunately it is not"; that was just to say that "unfortunately" the DEFENDER has to survive the ATTACKER roll in order to withdraw after rolling his 2.
That's all.
I didn't mean to criticize my favourite reading (ASL Rule Book). I really like to play games as written. I hate House Rules. And that's why I go so deeply in trying to understand rules well, and that's why I love discuss them.
Sorry I was not able to explain clearly.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well things are clear now.
I don't mind that the Defender has the risk of being harmed before rolling snakes.
Note that if the Attacker rolls boxcars,the Defender can run away unharmed (most of the time, as a 12 rarely does any damage).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riccardo Rigillo
Italy
Rome
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Qwirz wrote:

I didn't mean to criticize my favourite reading (ASL Rule Book). I really like to play games as written. I hate House Rules. And that's why I go so deeply in trying to understand rules well, and that's why I love discuss them.



Congrats!
Really a philologus! and so am I!
3 
 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.