Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Raid on St. Nazaire» Forums » Rules

Subject: Remnant consolidation confusion. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonny Lawless
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
Four crazy kids and happy as a clam!
badge
My name is Glenn! Long have I carried Cyrus's hopes and dreams, and now I bear the Masamune as well! Henceforth, I claim them as my own! I shall slay the Fiendlord Magus and restore our honor!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm reading through the rules looking to start my first game soon, and I came across some confusion in rule 10.6 and its example.

The rule reads:

Quote:
10.6 REMNANT CONSOLIDATION
At the end of each game turn, any area or holding zone containing no Commandos and two or more German units whose combined strength does not exceed 6 must combine into one larger unit whose total strength equals that of the two replaced units provided there are sufficient replacement units available in the "dead" or remnant pile to accommodate the switch. Any excess strength points after the switch remain as excess remnants. Only two such units in each area or holding zone may consolidate per turn and the consolidation must creat the strongest possible unit from the available remnants.


The example immediately follows, and reads:

Quote:
EXAMPLE: Two 4-strength units occupy the 705th Bn Holding Zone box at the end of the game turn. They are exchanged for a 6-strength and a 2-strength Stosstrupp unit.


To my mind the example contradicts the rule, because the combined total of the two 4-strength units exceeds 6 and would not need to be consolidated. Am I reading this wrong?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yiannis Avramandis
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2X4=6+2

I think the consolidation is correct.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Pavitt
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reading the rule, you are correct, it is wrong. Get rid of the word "combined", so that each unit is less than 6, and the example makes sense.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joris
Netherlands
Haarlem
Noord-Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the example is right, at least that's how I always played it.
I used thissequence of play, which is pretty clear.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonny Lawless
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
Four crazy kids and happy as a clam!
badge
My name is Glenn! Long have I carried Cyrus's hopes and dreams, and now I bear the Masamune as well! Henceforth, I claim them as my own! I shall slay the Fiendlord Magus and restore our honor!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Emil 109 wrote:
2X4=6+2

I think the consolidation is correct.


Of course that consolidation is correct. What I want to know is why the example is consolidating units with a combined strength of 8, when it states you consolidate forces whose combined strength is 6 or less?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonny Lawless
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
Four crazy kids and happy as a clam!
badge
My name is Glenn! Long have I carried Cyrus's hopes and dreams, and now I bear the Masamune as well! Henceforth, I claim them as my own! I shall slay the Fiendlord Magus and restore our honor!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
YosT wrote:
I think the example is right, at least that's how I always played it.
I used thissequence of play, which is pretty clear.


The sequence of play you link to states:

Quote:
a) Consolidate German Remnants:
• Area/Holding Zone w/o Commandos, holding multiple units w/combined strength £ 6, must combine into
one larger unit (provided enough replacements in dead/Remnant pile)
• Only two such units per Area/Holding Zone may consolidate per turn, creating strongest possible unit.


Following this, an example where you consolidate two forces whose combined strength is 8 would seem wrong.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have always played it as Darrell says: getting rid of the 'combined' word and always trying to create 6-strength units.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joris
Netherlands
Haarlem
Noord-Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonnylawless wrote:
YosT wrote:
I think the example is right, at least that's how I always played it.
I used thissequence of play, which is pretty clear.


The sequence of play you link to states:

Quote:
a) Consolidate German Remnants:
• Area/Holding Zone w/o Commandos, holding multiple units w/combined strength <= 6, must combine into
one larger unit (provided enough replacements in dead/Remnant pile)
• Only two such units per Area/Holding Zone may consolidate per turn, creating strongest possible unit.


Following this, an example where you consolidate two forces whose combined strength is 8 would seem wrong.


Doh! I must have always read it wrong. I thought it said:
Area/Holding Zone w/o Commandos, holding multiple units w/combined strength >= 6, must combine into one larger unit
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonny Lawless
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
Four crazy kids and happy as a clam!
badge
My name is Glenn! Long have I carried Cyrus's hopes and dreams, and now I bear the Masamune as well! Henceforth, I claim them as my own! I shall slay the Fiendlord Magus and restore our honor!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Update on this:

I got the issue of the General featuring this game, which came with a Q&A section that included the following:

Quote:
10.6 Errata
Delete "with a strength less than 6" and substitute "units, each with a strength less than 6.


So it looks like the example is right and the rule needed a little tinkering.
4 
 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.