How have you handled MP-costs of VCA-changes on Woods Roads (B13.41) in the past?

[von Marwitz]

In another thread, the question about MP-costs of VCA-changes on Woods Roads (among other special Roads) came up.

It seems to be the observation of many, that this was handled as 1MP for a VCA-change across a road-hexside and 2MP across a non-road-hexside by an awful lot of players including experienced ones.

Now there is a Q&A around for some time that says the cost is 2MP / 4MP.

From Q4 Vehicle is on the road in a wood road hex. If it is a penalty is that doubled to a 2 MP penalty (total cost of 3MP) for changing VCA to / from / through (aka; across) a hexside that does not contain a road hexside?

A. Changing VCA across a non-road hexside while on a woods-road costs 4 MP. Normal cost 2 MP per D2.11, doubles to 4 MP per B13.41.

This surprised me when I came across it, as it did others. Some state, that the answer given in this Q&A should be regarded as an error. I will not judge on the latter.

Still, I think that Q&A might have unforseen consequences that can affect a whole lot of games in practice:

If a great number of players always played it 1MP / 2MP, then maybe a vast number of scenarios may have been play-tested and designed with this MP expenditure in mind and not with 2MP / 4MP as now decreed by Q&A.

Passing through woods along a road happens often. If the MP expenditure necessary for this is misinterpreted, this might screw up a setup in a wink before the game even started. This could, in turn, also affect countless games in tournaments with unhappy consequences if both players interpreted the required MP expenditure differently. Or it could break scenario-designs.

The objective of this poll is to find out the scope of the issue:

How have the lot of you actually played it in the past? As a player? As a play-tester? As a scenario-designer?


von Marwitz

 

[Larry]

I don't think that I ever saw anyone differentiate road and non-road hexsides on a woods-road hex. My recollection without looking at log files is 1 and 1. But I have played rules wrong for a very long time and look forward to being disabused when the rules text supports the play described in the PS.

This forum is a large and robust disabusement center where players get to complain that they don't like being disabused. The only time that I can recall complaining worked was the infamous bridge TEM issue.

But most of the other peculiarities that persisted through the hobby have dissipated because of the healthy and robust discussion moderated by Klas with an authoritative PS to end the debate.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I don't think that I ever saw anyone differentiate road and non-road hexsides on a woods-road hex. My recollection without looking at log files is 1 and 1. But I have played rules wrong for a very long time and look forward to being disabused when the rules text supports the play described in the PS.

This forum is a large and robust disabusement center where players get to complain that they don't like being disabused. The only time that I can recall complaining worked was the infamous bridge TEM issue.

But most of the other peculiarities that persisted through the hobby have dissipated because of the healthy and robust discussion moderated by Klas with an authoritative PS to end the debate.

However, there have been plenty of additions, corrections (very few-mostly deletions of a part of a rule), and clarifications added to the ASLRB because of discussions initiated on this forum as well as others. If nothing else, it has resulted in a wealth of Q&A's answered with regards to rule knowledge and application.

 

[Larry]

We agree. In the broad scheme of any ASL game, this is pretty small potatoes.

 

[von Marwitz]

So far, most people who have participated in the poll handled it 1MP/2MP in the past.

But "n" is still too low to make a statistically firmer assessment.

von Marwitz

 

[volgaG68]

I just changed my vote back to choice #1 only. This morning I reviewed the small handful of scenarios I have PT'd and realized this rule never came into effect during them. Had it came into effect, yes, I apparently would have played it 'wrongly'.

 

[Stewart]

I'd be agreeable (yeah, I know that's a stretch) to having different penalties based on VEHICLE Size.
Maybe Normal has the 2x pen.
Large 3x
XLarge 4x
Small no pen
XSmall no pen


Also, same penalties for moving through Forest Road with these big vehicles taking up the entire road.

 

[Philippe D.]

You start with target size, and then comes another brilliant idea: the penalty should also depend on gun barrel length. Pretty soon, you get a new table to cross-reference vehicle size and barrel length for the exact penalty. All for a rule that comes up in 1% of games, and for MP values that are heavily abstracted anyway. Oh, and a rule that 75% of players play wrong anyway.

I say let's KISS.

 

[DVexile]

Well, looks like less than 1 in 10 play it by the PS. Which to me implies most all playtesting and ROAR uses 1/2 rather than 2/4. Seems like a good argument for an errata to clarify the rule and make the rule align with the reality of how scenarios are being designed, played, and balanced.

 

[bendizoid]

Luckily, most scenarios won’t be effected so the damage on this ruling will only taint 5-10% of the scenarios.

 

[EJ1]

I’d like to hear from a good representation of the scenario designers before advocating for a rules change. Maybe they got it right and it’s simply hoi polloi, like me, who have played it wrongly. Correctly driving vehicles up the Dinant heights is certainly a new experience for me.

 

[Larry]

100 scientists signed a paper that Einstein's theory of special relativity was wrong.

 

[von Marwitz]

Luckily, most scenarios won’t be effected so the damage on this ruling will only taint 5-10% of the scenarios.

And yet, overall, this might be more than 500 to 1000 scenarios...
I reckon most 'Perry Sez' would affect a much lower number.
Usually, a 'Perry Sez' sheds some light on more intricate details, while in our situation here we have some indication that a vast majority of players seem to have played it contrary to the ruling forever.

So, IMHO, this 'Perry Sez' is kind of special in a number of ways.

von Marwitz

 

[Larry]

How often does 1 or 3 extra MP impact a single movement phase.

Most people have voted for 1MP to change VCA or 2 MP to change VCA across a non-road hexside because of the woods. That doesn't make sense. As I have said, I played it as 1 MP per vertex regardless.

The 1 or 2 mantra rests on the proposition that the vehicle is on the road and not in the woods. If that is true, it is just 1 per vertex regardless of the non-road hexside. But if the woods matters for changing VCA across a non-road hexside.

D2.11 two MP per hexspine change if actually in [not in bypass of] a building/woods/rubble or any combination thereof.
B13.41 All MP penalties for entering a hex containing a wreck/vehicle, and/or for changing a VCA across a non-road hexside, are doubled while in a woods hex.

If the vehicle is in woods for B13.41, then the vehicle is in the woods for D2.11. The consistent reading is either 1 MP to change VCA regardless of road hexside or 2 across a road hexside and 4 across a non-road hexside. I don't see the logic of "not in the woods" for D2.11 but in the woods for B13.41.

 

[semenza]

How often does 1 or 3 extra MP impact a single movement phase.

I would say at least half the times that I move a vehicle.

I think the difference would have made an impact on most scenarios that I have played with a woods-road and vehicles.

Seth

 

[von Marwitz]

How often does 1 or 3 extra MP impact a single movement phase.

The less MP your vehicles have, the greater is the impact.
Usually, if vehicles have to pass through larger Woods, this requires more than a single VCA change.
The cumulative effect thus will often translate to: It takes one extra Turn to pass.

One extra Turn of time for decisive units, as AFV often are, can make all the difference in modern scenario designs, that jump straight into action. In these, you can't afford loosing time by messing up a setup nor arriving at certain destinations a Turn late.

von Marwitz

 

[PresterJohn]

It would seem reasonable to have SSR that slow vehicles should be able to have a 1/2 rule whereas the normal vehicles follow the 2/4 rules.

 

[Larry]

I would say at least half the times that I move a vehicle.

I think the difference would have made an impact on most scenarios that I have played with a woods-road and vehicles.

Seth

Half the time that you move a vehicle you are on a woods-road hex AND must change VCA on that woods-road hex AND must change across a non-road hexside?

 

[Larry]

One extra Turn of time for decisive units, as AFV often are, can make all the difference in modern scenario designs, that jump straight into action. In these, you can't afford loosing time by messing up a setup nor arriving at certain destinations a Turn late.

von Marwitz

I can't recall any scenario that forgives messing up a setup.

If the low MP vehicle needs to go through the woods, isn't the solution to go CE and pay half the cost for using the road in the first place? If you need to get through the woods quickly and the historical backdrop is going through the woods-road, then conduct that move like the units did -- CE.

 

[DVexile]

The larger issue here is that as of this point only 2 of 25 respondents have used 2/4 and most importantly zero designers or play testers responding have used 2/4. One can make endless arguments about whether 2/4 is correct, realistic or how one might manage movement under that constraint. Those arguments are entirely irrelevant and very much how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. What is relevant is that it appears scenarios to date have been designed, play tested and reported to ROAR for balance using 1/2.

This is an utterly huge disconnect and really should be officially addressed. A random Q&A is not sufficient.

The rule could stay 2/4 and if so the RB needs an errata to make it clear and specific (e.g. adding “including when on a road in a woods-road hex”) since clearly almost no one understands the rule as written. The next journal probably should also include a “tips from the trenches” highlighting this rule and its frequent incorrect play in the past.

Alternatively the rule could be made 1/2 to align with how things have been played for years by the vast majority of the community, again with proper clarification in the RB and a highlight in the next journal.

Which choice is taken really doesn’t matter. What is abundantly clear is that the status quo is not sufficient, one of the above should be done.