ITR 6 The Ceramic Factory Qs

[Gunner Scott]

Wow, I have never seen someone so nit picky about a scenario in a long time. Of course Bruce you proof read for MMP, so why are their proofing errors in some of their scenarios? Bloody boy joques comes to mind as well as Wormhodt. Or are you just looking to try and make this outfit look bad?

Anyway, these are so minor most of us normal folk would miss them.

I know I know I should be nice but this guy has pulled the same stuff on other TPP's before. Plus it just irritates me that he points out these errors and yet he proofs for MMP which has its fair share of proofing errors.


Scott

 

[olli]

Amazing how much spoonfeeding some people need to be here!! just like a previous thread here someone asked if the blank page was meant to be a blank page??? the publisher had not printed intentionally blank on it , taking this further I guess the nitpickers require toilet paper with wipe here on it and tissues with blow here, again pc'ness going haywire...........

 

[Vinnie]

I have little problem with these questions. Mind you I was the one who asked about the blank page.
For the 6-2-8 s as per the SSR all of them are assault engineers no matter how they come about. As an aside, I prefer this sort of assignment rather than having to remember which squad is and which is not. Until VotG we did not have ass eng counters.

 

[Chas]

I appreciate the fact that the Bruce is playing the scenario and discussing it. This was probably one of the most popular scens when ITR came out. I remember watching parts of a game at the St. Louis a couple of years ago that went right to the last CC DR.

I also appreciate the defensive support. Note that Bruce is not really pointing out proofing errors. Every scenario that has 628s as AE, or others MMC for other nationalities, have this same situation. This isnt really a problem. Bruce also pointed out that MMP scens also have the 548/447 SS issue. We print our scenario cards in color, so the SS are black to specifically depict them. Unfortunately events at the time prevented us from doing ITR in color.

Anyway, I would like this thread to stay on the scenario vice going down a different path.

Thanks,
Chas

 

[bprobst]

Note that Bruce is not really pointing out proofing errors. Every scenario that has 628s as AE, or others MMC for other nationalities, have this same situation. This isnt really a problem.

Certainly it won't be a problem when you get around to answering the question.

Bruce also pointed out that MMP scens also have the 548/447 SS issue.

Er, no, Bruce pointed out that MMP resolves the issue by providing the necessary information in an SSR. This is more than most (if not all) 3rd-party scenarios bother to do.

We print our scenario cards in color, so the SS are black to specifically depict them. Unfortunately events at the time prevented us from doing ITR in color.

You still don't seem to get it, Chas. It has nothing to do with the colour of the counters. It has nothing to do with the size, shape or thickness of the counters. The issue is the rule. Print your SS counters in black, blue or green with pink spots; you need to address the rule (or more specifically, lack of it) in an SSR -- just like MMP does.

 

[Whizbang1963]

Certainly it won't be a problem when you get around to answering the question.


We discussed this as a team and decided that the 5-2-7 would indeed be considered the same as the other 6-2-8's in the scenario when it Battle Hardens...

hope this clears up the issue...

 

[bprobst]

We discussed this as a team and decided that the 5-2-7 would indeed be considered the same as the other 6-2-8's in the scenario when it Battle Hardens...

hope this clears up the issue...

Err ... it might, if I knew what team you were referring to.

Sorry, I don't know who you are, and I don't know if you're associated with BFP or not. (If you are, you should add it in a .sig or something ... at least when giving "official" answers.)

 

[bprobst]

I noticed that my question about the building-road hexes was answered in a different thread (thanks for mentioning it here; oh wait, you didn't). I have a problem with the answer: it doesn't make any sense.

"Q: BFP A hex S9 and BFP RC1 contain combined building and roads. The roads are not "narrow streets" as defined in B31 and don't seem to be covered by ITR HBR 10.
A: Hexes BFP A S9, and BFP RC1 P1 and T1 are covered by ITR HBR 10. LOS to a unit on the road is always traced to the hexside vertex and movement is at the narrow road movement rate. For hex T1, for example, vehicles move directly from hexside RC1 T0-T1 to hex RC1 S1 or RC1 U1 (and vice versa)."

If these hexes are covered by "ITR HBR 10", then the last sentence of that rule would apply: "All normal VBM rules apply." Your answer then goes on to detail exactly how the normal VBM rules don't apply! Instead, you essentially summarise the movement effects of rule Q5.5 (while completely ignoring the LOS effects of that same rule). So ... which is it? If HBR 10 (and "normal VBM rules") actually does apply, a vehicle cannot enter hex RC1 P1 from either O1 or Q1 while moving continuously along the road (because there's no way to traverse the road along the RC1 N1/O1 and RC1 P1/Q1 hexsides). Of course normal bypass movement is allowed across the P0/P1 hexside, which is fine unless you're looking for road bonus.

Of course that's pretty nonsensical, which is why Q5.5 is written the way it is and (presumably) why you answered the movement question the way you did. However, by providing that answer, ITR HBR 10 by definition cannot apply. So I don't understand why you said it did.

Really, if you just stated instead that Q5.5 applies for the specified hexes it would be a lot simpler all around. The Q5.5 LOS rule makes a heck of a lot more sense, too, and furthermore, unlike your answer, is actually compatible with the normal LOS rules for movement along roads (A4.132). Would you like to reconsider? (I assure you that my opponent and I will continue to use Q5.5 any way. )

 

[Whizbang1963]

Err ... it might, if I knew what team you were referring to.

Sorry, I don't know who you are, and I don't know if you're associated with BFP or not. (If you are, you should add it in a .sig or something ... at least when giving "official" answers.)

deleted......

 

[Chas]

For those that would now care about an answer:

Broken down into the most simplest form, Movement is per Narrow Street, everything else per VBM.

Chas

 

[bprobst]

For those that would now care about an answer:

Broken down into the most simplest form, Movement is per Narrow Street, everything else per VBM.

Chas, as I explained above, if "movement is per Narrow Street", then vehicular movement along the road is impossible along those hexsides, as I explained above. (In any case at the bare minimum your "simplest" answer is meaningless: narrow street is VBM.) Clearly you think I'm mistaken, but rather than try and explain why (or why Q5.5 is a really bad fit) you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la". Do you really think that actually helps anyone? Or are you just hoping that nobody playing the scenarios actually pays attention to how the rules work?

Well, it's your product, and you can treat it any way you want; but if you can't treat them seriously as ASL products, why should anyone else? It's counter-productive to release products that attempt serious modifications to core ASL rules if you don't first understand the rules that you're modifying.

I'm also still waiting for a confirmation as to whether Whizbang1963's comment on the 5-2-7 Battle Hardening is actually an official BFP answer or not.

 

[Whizbang1963]

I'm also still waiting for a confirmation as to whether Whizbang1963's comment on the 5-2-7 Battle Hardening is actually an official BFP answer or not.

From the Bounding Fire website:
"The team consists of highly renowned designer Chas Smith, Sam Tyson, Dave “Sarge” Roth, Bruce Kirkaldy, Brian Blad, and Rick Reinesch.The team consists of highly renowned designer Chas Smith, Sam Tyson, Dave “Sarge” Roth, Bruce Kirkaldy, Brian Blad, and Rick Reinesch."

Whizbang is me..Me is he..answer is official.

 

[Chas]

Bruce,

Quite frankly, you have now crossed a line. Of course, there is a history of this with you and I should have expected nothing less.

First, I am deployed in a combat zone, and reviewed and considered your comments late at night. Responses were provided in a more timely manner than you would get from others.

Second, I appreciate you emailing privately to debate this rather than add confusion....oh wait, you did this publically (see 2nd sentence).

How pompous of you to demand an explanation of why we didnt use Q5.5, and to accuse me of not caring about our products because I didnt go with what you were saying. BFP generally doesnt get accused of poor customer support and not caring about our products. Far from it.

As far as rules and such go, kettle meet pot. I admit that ITR 10 could have been written more clearly and am always open to recommendations. However, some of your comments make absolutely no sense to me. Of course, I previously wasnt stating this publically, but now we are there. What would hex RC-N1, which is Debris, even have to do with this? What is so difficult about being in O1, moving to P1 which now puts in bypass on the hexside, and then you would move to Q1? How do you conclude this is a serious modification? With a building on the center dot, having a vehicle on the road "in bypass" seems pretty much in line with LOS and movement rules. I can tell you that 20+ playtesters and another what, 40 players were able to do this without trouble. The problem appears to lie in your inability to understand that Q5.5 does not apply.

I am willing to have a professional discussion on rules, but I am not willing to sit by and let you fling such derogatory comments.

So the real question is do you want to reconsider your comments and how you have presented yourself in this matter.

Chas

 

[bprobst]

From the Bounding Fire website:
"The team consists of highly renowned designer Chas Smith, Sam Tyson, Dave “Sarge” Roth, Bruce Kirkaldy, Brian Blad, and Rick Reinesch.The team consists of highly renowned designer Chas Smith, Sam Tyson, Dave “Sarge” Roth, Bruce Kirkaldy, Brian Blad, and Rick Reinesch."

Whizbang is me..Me is he..answer is official.

Is this a riddling game? Do I have to guess which one of six people you might be? For heaven's sake, put something in your .sig, or otherwise unambiguously identify yourself. Don't point vaguely in the direction of a website, be loud and proud here. When acting as a representative of a company, you need to make it clear that you are, in fact, a representative of that company. I don't know who Whizbang1963 is. The tag means nothing to me, and would mean even less to anyone even less familiar with the ins and outs of BFP than I am.

 

[bprobst]

First, I am deployed in a combat zone, and reviewed and considered your comments late at night. Responses were provided in a more timely manner than you would get from others.

Well, since no-one else from BFP (that I know of) was responding, you are certainly correct. I understand if you're currently in a stressful situation and certainly would not wish to exacerbate that if I could help it. However, I respectfully suggest that if you are tired and/or busy, a more appropriate response might be "I will respond in detail when I am less tired and/or busy". In the interests of fair play I'll assume that your less-than-kind comments can be attributed to the demands on your time.

Second, I appreciate you emailing privately to debate this rather than add confusion....oh wait, you did this publically (see 2nd sentence).

I am honestly puzzled. Why would I respond privately to a public answer to a public question?

How pompous of you to demand an explanation of why we didnt use Q5.5, and to accuse me of not caring about our products because I didnt go with what you were saying. BFP generally doesnt get accused of poor customer support and not caring about our products. Far from it.

I did not accuse you of not caring because you didn't agree with me. I accused you of not caring because you seemingly don't care about the inherent contradictions in your answers to my questions, which ultimately is a disservice to your product.

As far as rules and such go, kettle meet pot. I admit that ITR 10 could have been written more clearly and am always open to recommendations. However, some of your comments make absolutely no sense to me. Of course, I previously wasnt stating this publically, but now we are there. What would hex RC-N1, which is Debris, even have to do with this?

Well, I appear to have gotten my hex co-ordinates wrong, which would certainly not aid your comprehension of my argument. My apologies. I will attempt to be clearer about it (see below).

What is so difficult about being in O1, moving to P1 which now puts in bypass on the hexside, and then you would move to Q1?

That movement is perfectly legal, but it is not movement along the road as defined by VBM and Narrow Streets. Thus, if the moving unit was looking for road movement bonus, that movement action is of no help.

Unless, of course, you declare by fiat that this is movement along the road, contrary to the normal VBM/Narrow Streets rules. There is absolutely no problem with you doing this. What astonishes me is that you seem to think that this is normal VBM, and somehow different to Q5.5. Well, you are mistaken -- it is not normal VBM, and is exactly how Q5.5 works.

If normal VBM rules applied, then to maintain road movement bonus from hex RC O1 through RC P1 to RC Q1, requires the following: movement along the O1/P1 hexside, change CA (if a vehicle), move along the P0/P1 hexside, change CA (if a vehicle), move along hexside P1/Q1. Unfortunately, if the unit is a vehicle, it can only enter the O1/P1 hexside by first exiting hex O2 -- i.e., not along the road at all! And a similar problem when exiting the P1/Q1 hexside. This is because D2.33 prohibits the required VCA changes at the start and end points of this sequence. (And even if it were legal, the whole process makes driving past the building along the road in that one hex incredibly expensive, which is just silly.)

This problem only occurs when you have terrain that features a road and a building (or woods) side-by-side in a hex. There is only one core ASL board that features such terrain (board 8) and TAHGC/MMP have steadfastly ignored that hex for 25 years now, mostly because (I believe) when that board is in use no-one ever needs to go near that hex. Q5.5 came into being precisely to address it because such terrain existed on the PB map in rather prominent positions and MMP knew that, at last, a rule to cover this circumstance was required. Since you have used exactly the same type of terrain in your product(s), and because Q5.5 is not a core ASL rule, you also need a rule to cover it. "Normal VBM/Narrow Street" does not cover it, never has and never will. Q5.5 does, and very simply.

Now, you're advocating using the movement portion of Q5.5 (even though you claim that you are not) while ignoring the LOS portion of Q5.5. There's no rules calamity that follows from that, but it seems (to me) to be unnecessarily inconsistent, since the LOS portion of Q5.5 works very elegantly.

I can tell you that 20+ playtesters and another what, 40 players were able to do this without trouble.

They missed it. Stuff gets missed all the time. Several thousand people have missed many rules problems in the ASL rules for 25 years now. Most people don't notice, or they just improvise some on-the-spot house rule and move on. There's nothing especially wrong with that, but I happen to believe that all ASL players are better served by ironing out the problems rather than leave a few thousand individuals to find their own way.

The problem appears to lie in your inability to understand that Q5.5 does not apply.

I hope that I have now satisfactorily explained to you the inaccuracy in that statement.

I am willing to have a professional discussion on rules

So, does your one-sentence dismissal of my argument above (without addressing any of the points in it) constitute "professional discussion"?

So the real question is do you want to reconsider your comments and how you have presented yourself in this matter.

Apart from my stupid error with the reference to N1, I'm pretty comfortable with my position, thanks.

 

[Whizbang1963]

Is this a riddling game? Do I have to guess which one of six people you might be? For heaven's sake, put something in your .sig, or otherwise unambiguously identify yourself. Don't point vaguely in the direction of a website, be loud and proud here. When acting as a representative of a company, you need to make it clear that you are, in fact, a representative of that company. I don't know who Whizbang1963 is. The tag means nothing to me, and would mean even less to anyone even less familiar with the ins and outs of BFP than I am.

deleted...

 

[Chas]

Bruce,

Thank you for the response. Guess you get what you want, an explaination.

1) PB hexes are not the same terrain types as those in ITR. In PB the building is not on the center dot, road may or may not be, and hexside is water. And in at least one case the road is not aligned with a hexside.
PB hexes had those rules because of oddity of drawn terrain. I think it is one heck of an assumption to think that board 8 was never addressed because PB was coming out. It has been out for how long and not mentioned.
ITR hexes have the buildings over the center dot and the roads running parallel and near to one hexside.

2) Q5.5 is inconsistent with other rules, and significantly strays from the core rules. OK, I am on the center dot, but no, still on the road, but on the hexside for movement....huh? Yes, I read Q5.5 numerous times. We will come back to this.

3) ITR uses core rules. Building is on center dot. If you are in building, you are in the building and LOS is drawn to center dot. If you are in bypass, and YES, on the road, you are in bypass for movement and LOS

4) As ITR was developed these discussions happened. Simply put, most input was dislike for Q5.5, and recommendations along the lines of what we did. Which is more consistent with the core rules.

5) I dont think you are making sound arguments. Saying that in ITR the units cannot be on the road because we say use Narrow Road movement and bypass applies does not make sense. Your same argument could be used to debunk Q5.5, becuase the road is niether on the center dot or hexside. that rule says you move on the hexside, which is water. Additionally, what about hexes in ASL where the road does not touch the center dot. does that then mean a unit could never enter the road? Hey, and I am just using your argument here. Also, WE are not using the movement of Q5.5. That was Rick trying to post something to clarify your question. We and many others believe the question and answer are not necessary, but we were attempting to provide customer support.

I am sure you will not agree. Feel free to play it as you desire. However, our intent of the rule stands. We will do what we need to in Q and A to ensure this is understood.

Thanks,
Chas

 

[bprobst]

1) PB hexes are not the same terrain types as those in ITR. In PB the building is not on the center dot, road may or may not be, and hexside is water. And in at least one case the road is not aligned with a hexside.

Where the building is located within the hex has no bearing on the issue, which is that the hex contains a building and a road, the road is not a Narrow Street (i.e., it runs between 2 obstacles along the hexside), and the road does not run into the building. What terrain is specifically situated at the centre dot makes no difference whatsoever. (That's why Q5.5 is listed in a section called "combined terrain".)

I think it is one heck of an assumption to think that board 8 was never addressed because PB was coming out.

I agree. I especially agree since I never stated that assumption. My only reference to board 8 is that it contains exactly the same terrain combination, it needs a core rule to address it and to date does not feature any such core rule. MMP have ignored it because it affects play perhaps, well, never (no-one ever needs to go into or around that hex). It could not be ignored in PB hence the first (and so far only, I think) appearance of the rule in PB.

ITR hexes have the buildings over the center dot and the roads running parallel and near to one hexside.

Irrelevant, as above.

2) Q5.5 is inconsistent with other rules, and significantly strays from the core rules.

Um, no, it fills a gap in the core rules because of the existence of the terrain it addresses. You're comment is like saying that the MG rules are inconsistent with the rules for FT. Well, yeah, because they're talking about different things. Q5.5 addresses what it needs to address and doesn't touch on anything else.

3) ITR uses core rules.

Except for the multiple pages of rules where it doesn't. Otherwise those rules would not have needed to be written. This is another rule that needs to be written, but you forgot (because you seem to have trouble with the rules for roads bypassing obstacles).

4) As ITR was developed these discussions happened. Simply put, most input was dislike for Q5.5, and recommendations along the lines of what we did. Which is more consistent with the core rules.

It's a shame that the discussions didn't find the core problem with your suggested rule, which makes road movement impossible. (Remember, it's not the bypass that's impossible; that's obvious. It's the continuous movement along the road that's impossible under your rule (or lack of rule, to be more precise).

5) I dont think you are making sound arguments. Saying that in ITR the units cannot be on the road because we say use Narrow Road movement and bypass applies does not make sense.

Then we are at an impasse, because to me it is you who is making no sense. What else can I say other than, I trust my ability to interpret the ASL core rules better than I trust your ability? Do you think I just want to stir up trouble for you? I would like to think that I have a reputation for not being clueless with regards to the ASL rules. (Which is not to say that I think I am always right, and a sound argument can always convince me; IMO the argument that you are presenting here is not sound.)

Your same argument could be used to debunk Q5.5, becuase the road is niether on the center dot or hexside. that rule says you move on the hexside, which is water.

Q5.5 is self-contained, applies only to what it says it applies to, and does not affect any other situation. You can't "debunk" it, it says what it says and means nothing for anything else. It's not an apple to be compared to other apples; it's a specific rule for a specific circumstance. Furthermore, what it says is very clear and easy to apply: "if you're moving in this hex, then these rules apply, but only for this hex".

I personally greatly dislike the barbed-wire hexside rules, I think that they don't add anything particularly useful to the game and could have been better represented by something different (if they needed to be represented at all); but the rules for them are straight-forward and fairly easy to apply, and I'm not going to suggest that they're "wrong" and when there isn't any barbed-wire hexsides around I don't need to worry about them. The most you can ask for any rule is that it works. Q5.5 works for its circumstance; the rule you've attempted to provide doesn't, which would be bad enough in its own right, even worse when it's exactly the same circumstance that Q5.5 addresses. It frankly baffles me that you think you are describing something somehow different.

Additionally, what about hexes in ASL where the road does not touch the center dot. does that then mean a unit could never enter the road? Hey, and I am just using your argument here.

Er, no, you're not. You're the only person in this discussion who thinks that the location of the centre dot has any relevance whatsoever. I have not even mentioned the phrase "centre dot" in my previous posts; why do you keep saying "it's my argument"?

Also, WE are not using the movement of Q5.5.

Q5.5 says move along the (one) hexside using road movement. You've said the same, and then said (in the same breath) use normal Narrow Street movement, which requires multiple hexsides movement (in most circumstances where Narrow Street applies). Those are the normal Narrow Street rules, there cannot be any disagreement there (if you understand the rules at all). So you are simultaneously saying the same thing that Q5.5 says while also saying exactly the opposite. How can you not realise that you are hopelessly muddled on this topic?

I am deeply disappointed that you've decided to dig in and try and defend the indefensible rather than admit that you made an oversight, especially when that oversight is relatively small and breath-takingly easy to fix. I'm not trying to kill your baby here, I'm trying to assist you with plugging a small hole.

 

[Fred Ingram]

Bruce

Pssst - it's one hex out of 60+ geo boards :angry:

This cannot be all you are concerned about in life I hope

Spend a few minutes with your opponent discussing how you both would like to handle the hex during play and move on

 

[bprobst]

Sorry if I'm boring you Fred, it's a shame that the point of the thread seems to have escaped you. I actually have the ability to participate in multiple electronic conversations simultaneously, and even do other stuff off-line too, so getting involved in one thread actually doesn't hinder my life at all; but thanks for your concern.