Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Victory: The Blocks of War» Forums » Rules

Subject: Supply Attrition question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
terry mendoza
msg tools
I just purchased the game, and I am pretty sure I don't understand when Supply Attrition takes place. I'm looking at Version 2.2 of the rules, so please bear with me.

Does supply attrition happen at the end of every player turn, or at the end of the game turn?

In section 7.4 (pg 9) it says:

"At the end of each Player Turn, after hex control changes occur, check if any enemy units are out of supply. Each unsupplied Air or Army unit loses one step."

So this seems pretty straight forward. Supply attrition happens at the end of the player turns. So if you are playing a 5 player game, and you are the first in the player rotation, and the second player cuts a 4cv unit off from a supply line, then this army unit will take a 1cv hit at the end of every player turn and will be eliminated before the end of the game turn right?

But on the last page (pg 12) under the Sequence of Play, the rules list Supply Attrition at the end of the game turn:

"[5] PRODUCTION (Simultaneous)
Determine Supply Status of Enemy Units
Unsupplied Army/Air Units immediately lose 1 step."

So if you had a 4cv army unit that gets cut off from supply, it only takes a 1cv hit during that game turn, rather than a 4cv hit.

Which one is correct?

I'm sure I'm missing something very obvious, but any help would be greatly appreciated!

For reference, I am looking at the rules version 2.2 from their website. The link says version 2.0, but the document says version 2.2:
http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/3500/victory2.0rules....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's kinda wonky, and I had questions about it too. The supply attrition in a 2-player game is checked at the end of each player's turn, for the OTHER player's units.

In a multi-player game, supply is checked for all units at the end of the GAME turn. This gives an advantage to players moving later in the turn order, which is why you're supposed to rotate start player (or choose randomly each turn) when playing multi-player.

Hope this helps.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
terry mendoza
msg tools
Thanks! That actually makes some sense. I'm kinda wondering where this is written in the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bigred1vet wrote:
Thanks! That actually makes some sense. I'm kinda wondering where this is written in the rules.


Well, it's not written anywhere for multiplayer - I'd gotten an email clarification (or maybe it was on the CG forums) from Grant himself on the multiplayer supply timing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Pressler
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
OMG! Overtext! How long have I been sleeping?! OVERTEXT! Also, I'm a DESIGNER now?! Sweet! OVERTEXXXXXXT!
badge
HO HO HO! Give me some money!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep. It's weird. I was never sure why each player does not just check for it at the end of THEIR OWN player turn. That might result in less overall supply attrition being dealt, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I need to get this back to the table.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
terry mendoza
msg tools
hmm. This seems to be a pretty big part of the rules to have been omitted. Was it included in the 1.0 rules and accidentally dropped? Or have people just house ruled it or figured it out on their own this entire time?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GaryP wrote:
Yep. It's weird. I was never sure why each player does not just check for it at the end of THEIR OWN player turn. That might result in less overall supply attrition being dealt, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I need to get this back to the table.


I think in a game that is widely considered to be too slow and too much about attrition, it sounds like a good thing that at least you have a realistic chance to encircle enemy units and cause some damage from lack of supplies.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking at the 2.2 ("2.0") rules online now, and the game turn sequence list is quite clearly for two players only ("Both players roll..." etc) even though it is not spelled out.'

The table on the back of the rulebook actually has a supply check both in each player turn and in the production step. Obviously something is missing. I think the explanation above about one being for two players and the other for multiple players make sense.

Wish there was a 2.3 rulebook with some minor fixes for this and how to use marines (only problems with the rulebook that comes to mind; did I forget something?).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pelni wrote:
GaryP wrote:
Yep. It's weird. I was never sure why each player does not just check for it at the end of THEIR OWN player turn. That might result in less overall supply attrition being dealt, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I need to get this back to the table.


I think in a game that is widely considered to be too slow and too much about attrition, it sounds like a good thing that at least you have a realistic chance to encircle enemy units and cause some damage from lack of supplies.


It depends on the scenario. 'Pick 2 maps and fight' is indeed duller than dishwater, but there are a number of excellent scenarios where supply is a valid consideration, and that aren't just 'line up and bash into each other' with production exceeding supply. Check out the 2-player scenario entitled 'Weserubung' which was obviously extensively play-tested and is a LOT of fun.

(Shameless plug for my session report)

It's a good game marred by lack of support from CG; they just didn't think through the need for good scenarios. Contrast that with something like Avalanche's Panzer Grenadier system (too complicated for me personally, but pretty good from what I hear) where each product comes with literally dozens of scenarios...that's what this game needs.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M@tthijs
Netherlands
Venlo
flag msg tools
This user is outstanding in mediocre videogaming
badge
Did you visit my www.kobudovenlo.nl? It has game info
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cannoneer wrote:
[...] Avalanche's Panzer Grenadier system [..] where each product comes with literally dozens of scenarios...that's what this game needs.
So,... shouldn't we be posting scenarios and post playtest results in here?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
_Kael_ wrote:
cannoneer wrote:
[...] Avalanche's Panzer Grenadier system [..] where each product comes with literally dozens of scenarios...that's what this game needs.
So,... shouldn't we be posting scenarios and post playtest results in here?


We could - nothing wrong with that. But I'm of the opinion that quality scenarios are the game publisher's job. Nothing necessarily wrong with fan-made ones, though those will always be hit or miss when it comes to playability and balance.

I generally buy games to play them, not to (re)design them. Yes, Victory's a 'kit game' and I have experimented with map configurations and some scenario-specific rules before, but those scenarios that come with the Avalanche games at least have the benefit of having been designed by the publisher (whether they're actually any good, I have no idea).
1 
 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.