Long March errata

[Pitman]

At Origins this past weekend, two local players were setting up a Long March scenario and in the set up there seemed to be a mistake. They went on-line to look for errata but couldn't find any Long March errata anywhere. Has the known errata for this module been published yet?

 

[Paul M. Weir]

There is a problem both with the CG victory points table and with the setup of LM8.

I have not seen confirmation of my own calculations for the CG table but have had a correction for LM8. Unfortunately it is not in HoB's errata section.

See: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?88500-Another-LM-scenario-8-question.

 

[Pitman]

Unfortunately, the potential errata they spotted was with another scenario--the setup instructions did not make sense as written and it seemed like the map needed to be reversed.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

There was a discussion about something like that. I can't remember which, but the solution was to go by which end the board numbers went, though that did not match the mini board graphics.

Edit:
Was it LM 3?

Board 7 is shown correctly. Board 5 should have the 5 to the north as shown, but the graphic should be rotated 180.
The setup for the Red Army should read "...on/south of hexrow I on board 5 and hexrow Y on board 7 and east of the river."

 

[jhaas614]

Thanks for trying to help out Mark and Paul. The scenario in question was LM 4, and we were not sure about the set up instructions. I do not have the scenario card with me right now. But i hope at least the number helps out. Thanks again. john

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Seems fairly straight forward. The Red Army set up West of the 9 hexrow. The KMT enter from the West and have to exit off the East edge.

The unusual part is the the Red Army could set up on KMT entry board edge hexes. Whether that would be advisable is another matter. The Red Army is out numbered 25 to 16. The setup only restricts setup close to the KMT exit hexes.

Maybe the setup should have said East of hexrow 2. That would have been more in line with other scenario setups. I honestly don't know.

 

[Pitman]

The setup makes no sense. You don't restrict setup on hexes close to the exit--there is no point in doing so. Something is backwards.

 

[Rousseau Burton]

I played the scenario yesterday. Initially I had the same conclusion that there must be something wrong with the Reds setup instruction. But I soldiered ahead and played it out (solo) with the Reds in a forward defense near the map edge but not right on it, to make it workable. What happened was interesting. As the KMT came on board (half in the advance phase) there were immediate numbers of broken KMT troops who had no place to route, but since they were next to Reds, they became prisoners instead of being eliminated. Eight prisoner counters were created which tied up the Reds as guards. Now, it is possible to abandon a prisoner (which the guards did so they could keep fighting), but the Prisoners then become Unarmed which are considered Good Order and thus count for exiting and scenario VC's. So overall it was sort of an interesting because of the large number of prisoners wandering around, though I doubt it was by design, and still think there is an errata problem.

 

[Rousseau Burton]

Posted a review of the scenario "Medieval Warfare" here.

 

[Jeffrey D Myers]

I'm finding it difficult to see how the Reds can win LM14, Luting Bridge. Since minimum move is need to move onto each section of the bridge, one is marked both PIN and CX. So, no minimum move the next turn, and no Clearance DR possible this turn. With only six turns and four bridge segments, it is hard to see how anybody can get across in time to capture the two victory buildings. Maybe it was playtested with no PIN and CX, just hazardous movement?

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

I'm finding it difficult to see how the Reds can win LM14, Luting Bridge. Since minimum move is need to move onto each section of the bridge, one is marked both PIN and CX. So, no minimum move the next turn, and no Clearance DR possible this turn. With only six turns and four bridge segments, it is hard to see how anybody can get across in time to capture the two victory buildings. Maybe it was playtested with no PIN and CX, just hazardous movement?

I'm having similar problem with LM 5 "Bridging the Wu". It is only a 7 turn game but the Red Army cannot complete it's bridge (if I understand the SSR correctly) until the end of Turn 5; and finally step onto the North Shore on Turn 6. Mind you this is if the Reds bridge the Wu at the shortest point (3 hexes) and are successful in laying down footbridges on the first Clearance attempt every time. A single missed Clearance roll would mean they could not step onto the North shore until the final turn of the game.

The more I analyze this scenario pack, the more "buggy" it appears.

LM 3, 8, 9 & 14 all seem to have problems with no official errata.

 

[jrv]

I'm having similar problem with LM 5 "Bridging the Wu". It is only a 7 turn game but the Red Army cannot complete it's bridge (if I understand the SSR correctly) until the end of Turn 5; and finally step onto the North Shore on Turn 6. Mind you this is if the Reds bridge the Wu at the shortest point (3 hexes) and are successful in laying down footbridges on the first Clearance attempt every time. A single missed Clearance roll would mean they could not step onto the North shore until the final turn of the game.

The Red Army can roll for a bridge starting on KMT player turn one. If they are successful on turns one, two and three, they would be able to cross starting on Red Army turn four.

JR

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

The Red Army can roll for a bridge starting on KMT player turn one. If they are successful on turns one, two and three, they would be able to cross starting on Red Army turn four.

JR

Ok re-reading the SSR I'm with you JRV; I missed the part that the Red Army Engineers are building the bridges during the KMT player turns - going TI during the opponent's turn. So during the Red Army turn the engineers can move/advance onto the newly placed bridge counter and start the process to build hex #2 during the next KMT player turn.


I originally read it as the Red Engineers built the bridge during their own player turn, they would then have to spend the next Red turn moving onto the bridge, and couldn't build bridge hex #2 until their next turn (i.e. Red turn 3) and so on.

That SSR runs counter intuitive to me, because the Engineers are going TI during the opposing player turn, and producing a result at the end of the opposing player's CC Phase.

So I stand corrected, the Wu can be bridged. LM 3 & 9 still have problems though.

 

[Stewart]

Ok re-reading the SSR I'm with you JRV; I missed the part that the Red Army Engineers are building the bridges during the KMT player turns - going TI during the opponent's turn. So during the Red Army turn the engineers can move/advance onto the newly placed bridge counter and start the process to build hex #2 during the next KMT player turn.

I originally read it as the Red Engineers built the bridge during their own player turn, they would then have to spend the next Red turn moving onto the bridge, and couldn't build bridge hex #2 until their next turn (i.e. Red turn 3) and so on.

That SSR runs counter intuitive to me, because the Engineers are going TI during the opposing player turn, and producing a result at the end of the opposing player's CC Phase.

Correct, there are many SSR, as that's what they are...special, which circumvent the normal rules.... I think players are conditioned by the Dry, "1/2 MP on turn one" type restrictions instead of TRUE SSR that actually take some imagination. This type of SSR allows this type of action to be conducted during a normal game instead of over 3 days in a CG type setting.