Recommend
21 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Lincoln» Forums » Rules

Subject: Illustrated Examples of Play [Picture Heavy] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Example A - Withdrawal before Combat and Fort



It is the Union turn. The Union player plays a card for the Movement Action.

Step 1.
The two Union armies move from Union controlled Kentucky to the Confederate controlled Nashville location. Union plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 4.

Step 2.
The Confederate player chooses to withdraw the 1 strength army to other half of the Nashville location. The fort cannot withdraw. Combat occurs between the Union armies and the fort.

Step 3.
The Confederate player chooses to not play a card for Leadership. The combined Union strength is 5+4=9. A Fort has a strength of 3. The Confederate strength is 3+0=3.
The Union wins the combat.
The losing Confederate player must lose half rounded up of the counters i.e 1 counter. The fort counter can be counted for losses and is returned to stock. The winning Union must lose half rounded down of the Union counters i.e. 1 counter. The Union player loses the 2 strength army counter, which is returned to stock.

It is now the end of the Union Movement Action. The Nashville Location is now Contested.

Example B - Combat and Fort



It is the Union turn. The Union player plays a card for the Movement Action.

Step 1.
The two Union armies move from Union controlled Kentucky to the Confederate controlled Nashville location. Union plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 4.

Step 2.
The Confederate player chooses to not withdraw.
Combat occurs between the Union armies, and the Confederate army and fort. The Confederate player plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 5.
The combined Union strength is 5+4=9. A Fort has a strength of 3. The Confederate strength is 3+1+5=9.

The defender wins ties; therefore the Confederate wins the Combat.

The winning Confederate player must lose half rounded down of the counters i.e 1 counter. The fort counter can be counted for losses, but the wiser choice would be to lose the 1 strength army instead.

The losing Union must lose half rounded up of the Union counters i.e. 1 counter. The Union player loses the 2 strength Army counter, which is returned to stock.

Step 3.
The Union retreats the remaining 3 strength army back to Kentucky.

It is now the end of the Union Movement Action. The Nashville location is still Confederate controlled.

Example C - Combat and Fort in a Contested Location



It is the Union turn. The Union player declares an attack action in the contested Nashville location. No card is played to perform this action as the location is contested.

Step 1.
All of the Union strength in upper half of Nashville must take part in the combat. The Union plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 4.

Step 2.
The Confederate player chooses to not withdraw. Combat occurs between the Union armies and the Confederate army and fort. The Confederate player plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 2. The Confederate also plays a ‘High Ground’ Benefit card for an additional 2 strength. The Leadership cards are revealed and the combat totals are calculated. The combined Union strength is 5+4=9. A Fort has a strength of 3. The Confederate strength is 3+1+2+2=8.
The Union wins the Combat.

Step 3.
The losing Confederate player must lose half rounded up of the counters i.e 1 counter. The fort counter can be counted against losses, but the fort cannot retreat.

If the Confederate chose to lose the 1 strength army as the combat loss, then the fort would also be lost as a fort cannot retreat. The wiser choice would be to lose the fort as a combat loss and then retreat the 1 strength army. The Confederate must then retreat the 1 strength army to an adjacent location. There are two adjacent locations, therefore the Confederate must choose to retreat the army to one of those locations.

The losing Union must lose half rounded up of the Union counters i.e. 1 counter. The Union player loses the 2 strength Army counter.

It is now the end of the Union Movement Action. The Nashville location is no longer contested, it is Union controlled.

Edit: Initial. Examples A,B,& C added.
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Edit: I have placed all the examples in the first post of the thread. I will update or clarify as required. Post comments or corrections below.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Collins
United States
Hawthorne
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I believe your Example A Step2 is incorrect. Combat does not occur between the remaining fort and the Union forces. Being unable to withdraw the fort is eliminated without combat. See, rules P.9 Withdrawal, "You cannot withdraw a fort, so it must remain in the half of the location it is
placed. It will be eliminated if you withdraw from its location."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chuck - that quote comes from the 'draft' rule book - the rulebook that shipped with the game reads - "You cannot withdraw a fort, so it must remain in the half of the location it is placed. If you withdraw and leave one or more forts behind then combat occurs between the forts and the enemy".
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Example D - Losing Combat with Fort in other half of Location



This is one example where I am not completely sure I am correct. I value peoples input. Here is shown what the printed rules say.


It is the Union turn. The Union player plays a card for the Movement Action.

Step 1.
The four Union armies move from Union controlled Kentucky to the Confederate controlled Nashville location. Union plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 4.

Step 2.
The Confederate player chooses to not withdraw. Combat occurs between the four Union armies, and the three Confederate armies. The fort does not take part in the combat as it is located in the other half of the location.


The Confederate player plays a card (face down) for Leadership; the Leadership value of the card is 5.
The combined Union strength is 11+4=15.
The Confederate strength is 6+5=11.

The Union wins the Combat.

The losing Confederate player must lose half rounded up of the counters i.e 2 counters. The Confederate chooses to lose the 2 strength and the 1 strength army counters, which are returned to stock. The remaining Confederate 3 strength army must also retreat.

The Union must lose half rounded down of the four Union counters i.e. 2 counter. The Union player loses the 2 strength and one of the 3 strength Army counters, which are returned to stock.

Step 3.
The Confederate retreats the remaining 3 strength army back to an adjacent friendly controlled location, either Fort Henry & Donelson or Chattanooga. For our purposes, the surviving Confederate 3 strength army retreats to the Fort Henry & Donelson location.

What happens to the fort in the lower half of Nashville?


Is this the situation after the losing armies have retreated?

The rules state that the remaining army counters must move to the next connected friendly controlled location. Forts's are not mentioned because forts cannot retreat.

It is now the end of the Union Movement Action. The Nashville location is now contested.

Folks, this is what I see from this situation. Please correct me if I am wrong etc.

Edit: Initial. Image size changed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Byrens
United States
Yorba Linda
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think clearly the fort would be gone - a fort doesn't count as an army, so it can't control the space. Since it can't control the space, Union takes the space and the fort is destroyed. Of course, this is only based on "logic"! I am not a rules lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
civplayer wrote:
I think clearly the fort would be gone - a fort doesn't count as an army, so it can't control the space. Since it can't control the space, Union takes the space and the fort is destroyed. Of course, this is only based on "logic"! I am not a rules lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I would argue that Tim is correct on Example D. The rulebook identifies a Fort as a "Unit". Thus, the remaining Fort (as a valid Unit), causes the Nashville location to be contested. It would also be capable of defending itself in the event of a future Union attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
If you're reading this PSC, Hi! By the way, it's diagrams like these that need to be in the rulebook for a game like this.

Also, you will find that the questions posted above and in several other threads, are the types of questions which would be routinely asked and resolved during playtesting; this being the necessary stage that game manufacturers should fulfil before releasing their product to market.

I trust you will therefore appreciate all the time and effort spent by Tim and the many other backers who have likewise been trying to unravel your inadequate rulebook and fathom out how to play this game properly.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar

Example C Step 3.
The rules on retreats (Combat Step 7), only mention Army Tokens retreating. Thus Forts are not required to (and indeed cannot) retreat. So in your example, wouldn't the Confederates have the option to use the 1 army as the battle casualty, thus keeping the Fort, thus causing Nashville to remain contested?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar

These odd situations wouldn't be such a headache if Forts were deemed to be immediately destroyed if abandoned during a conflict. The rules don't say any such thing though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
civplayer wrote:
I think clearly the fort would be gone - a fort doesn't count as an army, so it can't control the space. Since it can't control the space, Union takes the space and the fort is destroyed. Of course, this is only based on "logic"! I am not a rules lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


As much as I like to argue with Rick, because he is Rick and I like to argue with him. I disagree that forts cannot control a location. If only the rules would clearly say that.

I think the rules do say that!

The final question on page 16 says that the presence of friendly or enemy UNITS is used to determine if a location is controlled or contested.

Here it mentions UNITS, on page 8 there is the Deploy unit action. A fort is included in the Deploy unit action. Therefore we are saying that an army or a fort are UNITS.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Highland Cow wrote:

Example C Step 3.
The rules on retreats (Combat Step 7), only mention Army Tokens retreating. Thus Forts are not required to (and indeed cannot) retreat. So in your example, wouldn't the Confederates have the option to use the 1 army as the battle casualty, thus keeping the Fort, thus causing Nashville to remain contested?




Ohhhh, that is nasty.

Edit: I understand your reasoning but that is such a wonky situation.


If your reasoning is true, the Confederate army takes the loss and the fort survives because it cannot retreat. Very wonky.

Despite winning the battle the Union does not take control of the battle location due to the fort. The union would need to battle again, and win again, in the location against the lone fort to eliminate it.

In the mean time, if the Confederate could deploy a lone army unit into the contested Nashville. thus the whole process would need to be repeated.

The only way for the Union to take contested Nashville would be to attack in consecutive actions and win both battles.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Collins
United States
Hawthorne
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Aye, there's the rub. I have not received my game yet and only have access to the pdf version of the rules. The rule there stated appears quite clear. However, it appears the rules shipped with the game changed the language resulting in substantial confusion. On the one hand, the draft rules imply that forts are simply a 3 value unit that can't move. Thus if the fort were required to move (either by Withdrawal or Retreat) and can't, it would be eliminated. On the other hand, the shipped rules imply that forts are a unique type of unit that can be split off and abandoned (either by Withdrawal or Retreat) and still contest and/or control locations until they are actually defeated in combat. Both approaches appear viable and thematically defensible. It will be interesting to see which approach the designer intended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ckc1stcav wrote:
Aye, there's the rub. I have not received my game yet and only have access to the pdf version of the rules. The rule there stated appears quite clear. However, it appears the rules shipped with the game changed the language resulting in substantial confusion. On the one hand, the draft rules imply that forts are simply a 3 value unit that can't move. Thus if the fort were required to move (either by Withdrawal or Retreat) and can't, it would be eliminated. On the other hand, the shipped rules imply that forts are a unique type of unit that can be split off and abandoned (either by Withdrawal or Retreat) and still contest and/or control locations until they are actually defeated in combat. Both approaches appear viable and thematically defensible. It will be interesting to see which approach the designer intended.


Chuck,

Ignore the draft rules completely in anything other than a general overview of the game. Not only have the rules changed, but an important FAQ section on pages 16/17 is missing.

Check you PMs

Tim

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Collins
United States
Hawthorne
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Regardless, You're still facing the same dilemma and I have yet to see or hear a definitive answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Byrens
United States
Yorba Linda
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
civplayer wrote:
I think clearly the fort would be gone - a fort doesn't count as an army, so it can't control the space. Since it can't control the space, Union takes the space and the fort is destroyed. Of course, this is only based on "logic"! I am not a rules lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


As much as I like to argue with Rick, because he is Rick and I like to argue with him. I disagree that forts cannot control a location. If only the rules would clearly say that.

I think the rules do say that!

The final question on page 16 says that the presence of friendly or enemy UNITS is used to determine if a location is controlled or contested.

Here it mentions UNITS, on page 8 there is the Deploy unit action. A fort is included in the Deploy unit action. Therefore we are saying that an army or a fort are UNITS.


Yep, I stand corrected!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Highland Cow wrote:

Example C Step 3.
The rules on retreats (Combat Step 7), only mention Army Tokens retreating. Thus Forts are not required to (and indeed cannot) retreat. So in your example, wouldn't the Confederates have the option to use the 1 army as the battle casualty, thus keeping the Fort, thus causing Nashville to remain contested?




Ohhhh, that is nasty.

Edit: I understand your reasoning but that is such a wonky situation.


If your reasoning is true, the Confederate army takes the loss and the fort survives because it cannot retreat. Very wonky.

Despite winning the battle the Union does not take control of the battle location due to the fort. The union would need to battle again, and win again, in the location against the lone fort to eliminate it.

In the mean time, if the Confederate could deploy a lone army unit into the contested Nashville. thus the whole process would need to be repeated.

The only way for the Union to take contested Nashville would be to attack in consecutive actions and win both battles.



Agreed, very wonky and I'd suggest, unacceptable. Whilst such wonkyness appears to be entirely within the rules, I cannot believe that this was the design intent.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I suspect that wonky fort situations wouldn't occur if forts are deemed to be destroyed if abandoned during Combat (i.e. by withdrawal, casualties or retreat).

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Dennis
Wales
Llanon
Ceredigion
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Can I make the following suggestion for a rules amendment for the case of
”Losing combat with fort in other half”?

When the Union player makes a successful attack on one half and the Confederate player retreats to another location, the Union player may make an attack on the fort as a free action.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Highland Cow wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Highland Cow wrote:

Example C Step 3.
The rules on retreats (Combat Step 7), only mention Army Tokens retreating. Thus Forts are not required to (and indeed cannot) retreat. So in your example, wouldn't the Confederates have the option to use the 1 army as the battle casualty, thus keeping the Fort, thus causing Nashville to remain contested?




Ohhhh, that is nasty.

Edit: I understand your reasoning but that is such a wonky situation.


If your reasoning is true, the Confederate army takes the loss and the fort survives because it cannot retreat. Very wonky.

Despite winning the battle the Union does not take control of the battle location due to the fort. The union would need to battle again, and win again, in the location against the lone fort to eliminate it.

In the mean time, if the Confederate could deploy a lone army unit into the contested Nashville. thus the whole process would need to be repeated.

The only way for the Union to take contested Nashville would be to attack in consecutive actions and win both battles.



Agreed, very wonky and I'd suggest, unacceptable. Whilst such wonkyness appears to be entirely within the rules, I cannot believe that this was the design intent.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I suspect that wonky fort situations wouldn't occur if forts are deemed to be destroyed if abandoned during Combat (i.e. by withdrawal, casualties or retreat).



My view is that any forts are eliminated if the Confederates lose a battle in the same location.

This will also deal with a battle in one half, and a fort in the other half, of the same location.

If any forts are in the same half as the battle, and the Confederates lose the battle, then the forts should be taken as losses cos they are going to be eliminated anyway.

If the fort is in the other half of a location, then the Confederate may want to withdraw to that half. This will at least allow the fort to be counted in a future battle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Byrens
United States
Yorba Linda
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:



My view is that any forts are eliminated if the Confederates lose a battle in the same location.

This will also deal with a battle in one half, and a fort in the other half, of the same location.

If any forts are in the same half as the battle, and the Confederates lose the battle, then the forts should be taken as losses cos they are going to be eliminated anyway.

If the fort is in the other half of a location, then the Confederate may want to withdraw to that half. This will at least allow the fort to be counted in a future battle.


Ah, so you agree with my logic
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Highland Cow wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Highland Cow wrote:

Example C Step 3.
The rules on retreats (Combat Step 7), only mention Army Tokens retreating. Thus Forts are not required to (and indeed cannot) retreat. So in your example, wouldn't the Confederates have the option to use the 1 army as the battle casualty, thus keeping the Fort, thus causing Nashville to remain contested?




Ohhhh, that is nasty.

Edit: I understand your reasoning but that is such a wonky situation.


If your reasoning is true, the Confederate army takes the loss and the fort survives because it cannot retreat. Very wonky.

Despite winning the battle the Union does not take control of the battle location due to the fort. The union would need to battle again, and win again, in the location against the lone fort to eliminate it.

In the mean time, if the Confederate could deploy a lone army unit into the contested Nashville. thus the whole process would need to be repeated.

The only way for the Union to take contested Nashville would be to attack in consecutive actions and win both battles.



Agreed, very wonky and I'd suggest, unacceptable. Whilst such wonkyness appears to be entirely within the rules, I cannot believe that this was the design intent.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I suspect that wonky fort situations wouldn't occur if forts are deemed to be destroyed if abandoned during Combat (i.e. by withdrawal, casualties or retreat).



My view is that any forts are eliminated if the Confederates lose a battle in the same location.

This will also deal with a battle in one half, and a fort in the other half, of the same location.

If any forts are in the same half as the battle, and the Confederates lose the battle, then the forts should be taken as losses cos they are going to be eliminated anyway.

If the fort is in the other half of a location, then the Confederate may want to withdraw to that half. This will at least allow the fort to be counted in a future battle.

Doesn't this run into a contradiction with the idea that you can withdraw to the other half of a location if attacked but that any fort in the withdrawn from half will still battle. What if you have a fort in the other half as well? Surely that will not be lost if the Confeds lose the battle in the other half of the location?

The games I have played we played believing the intent was that a location could only become contested if one side withdrew before combat - this therefore resulted in forts that were in the withdrawn from half being lost. I agree though that some of the wording highlighted in these threads indicate that the fort's can fight even if the rest of the units withdraw - this seems very powerful for the Confeds - i.e. the fort allows you to both fight and withdraw.

Given the change in wording on this subject between .pdf rules and printed rules it does seem that there was a change in intent and that some things are left betwixt and between.

PSC/MARTIN?!........ sometime soon please - has anyone contacted PSC recently about an official faq or rulings on these issues?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
California
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
civplayer wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:



My view is that any forts are eliminated if the Confederates lose a battle in the same location.

This will also deal with a battle in one half, and a fort in the other half, of the same location.

If any forts are in the same half as the battle, and the Confederates lose the battle, then the forts should be taken as losses cos they are going to be eliminated anyway.

If the fort is in the other half of a location, then the Confederate may want to withdraw to that half. This will at least allow the fort to be counted in a future battle.


Ah, so you agree with my logic


Partially.... perhaps. I am leaning towards the simple and clean rule of forts in a losing battle. My concern is the edge case that the Union is never being able to destroy a fort unless the Union hits the same area twice in consecutive actions.


Having a fort being placed in the half location adds a bunch of complexity that is not adequately dealt with in the current rules.

I envisage each fort to be the massive and garissoned defensive works like those around Vicksburg. The positioning is critical as each whole map location is a large physical area. A fort can control or contest a location but can also be outflanked or bypassed by an army.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The only application of the rules that makes sense for forts losing a battle is to eliminate the fort. This is because (1) all units that lost a battle must retreat to an area they control; (2) if they are unable to retreat to an area they control, they are eliminated; and (3) a fort is unable to retreat to an area it controls because it is inherently unable to move, so unable to retreat.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
Race Bannon wrote:
The only application of the rules that makes sense for forts losing a battle is to eliminate the fort. This is because (1) all units that lost a battle must retreat to an area they control; (2) if they are unable to retreat to an area they control, they are eliminated; and (3) a fort is unable to retreat to an area it controls because it is inherently unable to move, so unable to retreat.


I agree that this is the most sensible conclusion. I suspect that the otherwise weird and fiddly situations caused by abandoned forts, probably weren't the intentions of the designer.
 
 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.