Manila questions

[Den589]

Cross posting here, since my post in the Manila Errata thread got no responses so far, figured maybe this thread is more appropriate. As me and my brother approach the end of Phase 1 of CG III, I've got a few questions:

1. Do you get to roll for No Move Guns on Map Section 6 per CGIII.2 (<=5 to retain) and move them to Map 5 for Phase 2?

2. Do you get to roll for a regular moveable gun that is on Map section 6 per CGIII.2 (<=5 to retain) and move them to Map 5 for Phase 2?
2a. If no to 2 , what if the moveable gun is within 3 hexes of Map section 5 and could be moved legally onto Map 5 in the next scenario?
2ab If yes to 2a, does it get a free reset on Map Section 5 or does it have to set up within 3 hexes of its prior location?

3. CGIII.2 states that you record the VP's earned on Map section 6 (no mention of Map 5), but the VP total sheet later in the rules list the VP's on map 5 AND 6 as in play for phase 1 (in the total available for phase 1), which is correct?

4. CGIIIp2.4 states that the American enters "along the south/east edge of map section 5 on/between 2I85 and 2W52." Map section 5 along the east edge stops at half-hex 2W56. It either needs to say "along the south/east edge on/between 2I85 and 2W52" or "along the south/east edge of map section 5 on/between 2I85 and 2W56." Which is correct?

Thanks to any assistance to these questions. We are prepping for the third scenario now.

 

[ASLSARGE]

I believe you will find that these questions have already been answered by Klas in previous posts in the MMP folder. Might be worth your time to take a look. I found them in less than 30 seconds.

 

[Den589]

I believe you will find that these questions have already been answered by Klas in previous posts in the MMP folder. Might be worth your time to take a look. I found them in less than 30 seconds.

Thanks, I greatly appreciate the answer of "go look for it."

I was able to find the answer to the gun moving stuff eventually (so #1 and #2 are taken care of, although since this is where the answers seem to be being all collected, I'd think the answers should be here or in the official errata/question thread), but to each his own "to take a look " and find it, I guess. Question #3, while i found the answer and we had assumed this was how it was played, the table listing VP for part I of CG III including locations on Map Section 5 caused the confusion that I was trying to alleviate. I now understood how it was designed and will play accordingly. I apologize for asking these questions.

Apparently I'm an idiot and not as well versed in this website as others such as yourself though, in regards to question 4 my feebleness has been unable to locate the answer on here. And since it is not listed in the MMP errata, if there is an answer to question 4 it should probably be there as well and not hidden in some unknown question on Gamesquad.

As written it makes no sense. Map section 5 stops at 2W56, so do we strike the words map section 5 from that entry rule or change the hex number to 2W56 seems like a valid question (and one that is probably able to be answered or errata'd with one sentence that is probably shorter than "take a look. I found them in less than 30 seconds."), but apparently not.

 

[ASLSARGE]

Thanks, I greatly appreciate the answer of "go look for it."

I was able to find the answer to the gun moving stuff eventually (so #1 and #2 are taken care of, although since this is where the answers seem to be being all collected, I'd think the answers should be here or in the official errata/question thread), but to each his own "to take a look " and find it, I guess. Question #3, while i found the answer and we had assumed this was how it was played, the table listing VP for part I of CG III including locations on Map Section 5 caused the confusion that I was trying to alleviate. I now understood how it was designed and will play accordingly. I apologize for asking these questions.

Apparently I'm an idiot and not as well versed in this website as others such as yourself though, in regards to question 4 my feebleness has been unable to locate the answer on here. And since it is not listed in the MMP errata, if there is an answer to question 4 it should probably be there as well and not hidden in some unknown question on Gamesquad.

As written it makes no sense. Map section 5 stops at 2W56, so do we strike the words map section 5 from that entry rule or change the hex number to 2W56 seems like a valid question (and one that is probably able to be answered or errata'd with one sentence that is probably shorter than "take a look. I found them in less than 30 seconds."), but apparently not.

Amazing. Over the past year I've noticed you and your brother seem to require to be spoon-fed answers over and over. It seems like you need someone to hold your hand every step of the way. When you do get answers to your questions, you usually don't like them as they do not fit your expectations....so you argue about what replies you've received. You like to misquote a lot (I never said "go look for it". I suggested you might take a look and read what has been answered previously to other folks' queries. But that is never good enough for you two.
It is a shame you cannot and will not explore other avenues except "tells us what we want to know". It's too bad you cannot seem to simply enjoy playing ASL without making it into a rules argument without end. Since you guys like to "cop an attitude" every chance you get instead of engaging in productive dialogue, you can expect no further assistance from me. I would certainly never enjoy sitting across a game table from either of you. I enjoy people who enjoy the game...not rules lawyers who want to argue every minute detail into oblivion. Life's too short.
Now, you can "go look for it".

 

[Den589]

Amazing. Over the past year I've noticed you and your brother seem to require to be spoon-fed answers over and over. It seems like you need someone to hold your hand every step of the way. When you do get answers to your questions, you usually don't like them as they do not fit your expectations....so you argue about what replies you've received. You like to misquote a lot (I never said "go look for it". I suggested you might take a look and read what has been answered previously to other folks' queries. But that is never good enough for you two.
It is a shame you cannot and will not explore other avenues except "tells us what we want to know". It's too bad you cannot seem to simply enjoy playing ASL without making it into a rules argument without end. Since you guys like to "cop an attitude" every chance you get instead of engaging in productive dialogue, you can expect no further assistance from me. I would certainly never enjoy sitting across a game table from either of you. I enjoy people who enjoy the game...not rules lawyers who want to argue every minute detail into oblivion. Life's too short.
Now, you can "go look for it".

Ok.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

4. CGIIIp2.4 states that the American enters "along the south/east edge of map section 5 on/between 2I85 and 2W52." Map section 5 along the east edge stops at half-hex 2W56. It either needs to say "along the south/east edge on/between 2I85 and 2W52" or "along the south/east edge of map section 5 on/between 2I85 and 2W56." Which is correct?

CG III MAP:

• Phase One: map sections 5 and 6, south of Isaac Peral Street.
• Phase Two: map sections 3 and 5, on/west-of hexrow 2W [EXC: no Location of Intramuros, including Intramuros Walls/Gates and the Aquarium, is in play].

The map for Phase Two of CG III comprises Sections 3 and 5, on/west-of hexrow 2W. So the east edge of Section 5 that is in play is from (top) 2W19 down to 2W85.

 

[Den589]

CG III MAP:

• Phase One: map sections 5 and 6, south of Isaac Peral Street.
• Phase Two: map sections 3 and 5, on/west-of hexrow 2W [EXC: no Location of Intramuros, including Intramuros Walls/Gates and the Aquarium, is in play].

The map for Phase Two of CG III comprises Sections 3 and 5, on/west-of hexrow 2W. So the east edge of Section 5 that is in play is from (top) 2W19 down to 2W85.

The concern was in regards to the American entry in phase Two. ".....to enter along the south/east edge of map section 5 on/between 2I85 and 2W52.

The addition "of map section 5" in the American entry instructions was what was troubling me. Since map section 5 ends at 2W56. Any entry on the east edge between 2W55 and 2W52 would be entering on map section 3, not section 5 violating the "of map section 5" part of the American entry instructions. Its only 3 hexes, but it would allow you to enter that big odd shield shaped building that is on the edge of map 3 is all. Its a few scenarios away so I guess we don't worry about it for right now. I was just trying to pre-plan and maybe buy some forts to restrict his entry in phase Two. I'll just use the left over FPP elsewhere till we figure out an answer to that question.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Ok. I will check with the submission later....see if anything got lost in translation....

 

[sdennis]

@ASLSARGE Since YOU dragged me into this I'll give you my last response as well.
I like the concept, I respect the time you put into this (something I would never do myself) kudos to you.
Are some of the rules a bit tough for ME to decipher? Yes they are.

I'm sorry that my mind does not operate the way yours does. I am an engineer, I think logically, look for details, and have always had a pretty good attention to detail in my life and job.
I'm sorry I was not present when you and your team were writing the rules for this product and do not have the benefit of "being in the room".
I endeavor to understand and play ASL the way the author intended for my enjoyment and respect to the designer.
I ask questions so that I can maximize my fun time, I don't want to make things up as we go along, if we have two different interpretations of a rule (cause Neil's mind does not work the same as mine) we ask for clarification from the designer. You are the FIRST designer to EVER accuse me of wanting to be spoon fed! That's a new one for me.
Ask anyone at ASLOK or elsewhere here, I've been around here forever, played this game for going on 30 years now and even have plaques etc. from ASLOK, believe me I do know how to play this game. Each CG is more complicated and different and I'm sorry I'm not able to grok your essence clearly.
I doubt highly I need to play you, I'll play the same players I've been playing for years when at ASLOK etc.
Our questions are also intended to clarify future players (which I thought would be in your best interest), my attitude has always been if I'm questioning something most likely others are; now maybe those people just do their own thing but I figure I'd rather play it the way you designed it, again why did you design it? So people would see your vision and enjoy it?

And lastly if you think I am a rules lawyer, you need to get out more! I have never been accused of being a rules lawyer, I'm always a get along guy, especially at a tournament. Maybe Neil and I go at it a bit more than 2 strangers but again it comes from a desire to play the product "correctly".

Since that seems to bother you immensely we will ask no more but it also means maybe this product/designer is not for us.

Plenty of other fish in the sea of ASL games to play.

 

[Chas Argent]

Just a reminder that you can send questions to MMP at asl_qa@multimanpublishing.com

 

[afgur]

Hello All
Just an observation. First, I own and have played scenarios from all MMPs historical mods and played some campaign games. To me the way the rules for "Manila" are written took a bit more time to grasp, seeming not as clear and slightly lacking compared to the other modules. This is NOT a criticism, just my experience, we are all different. I truly enjoy this module. Thank you very much for your years of work for our enjoyment.

Alan

 

[sdennis]

We are also enjoying it for the most part. My comment to someone else the other day was the rules were not as "tight" as I would have liked, hence the questions. We had the same experience with LFT, Hatten, and Dinant (our recent play).
Those designers never chastised me for asking questions, even if they thought they were dumb questions.

So I owe thanks to Carl, Rogers, and the LFT gang.

 

[DVexile]

I'll just add, as a relatively new player, that I've noted that HASLs tend to borrow a lot of past rules from other HASLs. This makes absolute sense given the already extreme burden of development associated with a HASL and CG, as well as the associated burden for players to learn CG rules. Leveraging what already exists makes perfect sense.

There are some side effects from this sensible practice:

• Rules are rarely improved over time. The most obvious example is the perimeter rules from Red Barricades, which have a number of holes in them as written, but have nonetheless been copied repeatedly with no revisions to one CG after another. While new examples of the RB perimeter rules are provided in a number of CGs, each studiously avoids documenting any situation that would expose or clarify said holes in the rules.
• Unintentional dependencies on previous HASLs for any hope of rules clarity. Again, the RB perimeter rules are case in point. Hatten In Flames includes the original obtuse text describing the perimeter, which honestly reads a bit like a introductory topology problem set, but does not provide any illustrated example as every other HASL that uses said rules does. So while HiF is often advertized as a good "first HASL" (likely due to the relatively low new rules burden) the reality is that a new player is likely to find the copied perimeter rules to be impenatrable unless they can find a perimeter example from another HASL for reference.
• Copied rules being applied to new maps or terrain without revision for clarity. This came up in Manila already, the VoG perimeter rules regarding shorelines being ambiguous in Manila since VoG depicted a single shoreline while Manila has islands and canals/rivers.
• Specific additions to copied rules for a new HASL having an unintended interaction with other unmodified copied rules.

The above are probably difficult to catch in proof reading and in play testing as I suspect most of those folks have lots of previous HASL experience and thus bring their own understanding, experience, and assumptions to the task which can result in omissions and descrepancies being glossed over unintentionally.

We all know how rules that have existed in the ASLRB for decades can still create questions today as to how the mechanics do or do not reflect the design intent of the rule, and often in their resolution experience players discover they've been playing the rule "wrong" for years. For something more niche like a CG one should expect even more of the same.

None of this is criticism. Rather it seems a natural consequence of the only realistic way of producing new CGs without creating an insurmountable barrier for both designers and players. If we want more HASLs and CGs then some of these rules ambiguities are just a natural cost of having a development environment conducive to creating new products.

The take away to me is two fold:

• If undertaking a CG then it is critical for both players to be prepared to encounter rules ambiguities that they may have to resolve themselves amicably. These are not tight tournament scenarios with a rules referee on hand. The time investment in playing a CG is huge and no one wants it to be hung up on a rules dispute, so working together to resolve issues is paramount. In some cases, though, there can be a very significant impact in strategy based on the interpretation of an ambiguous rule.
• Errata, publicly published Q&A, and GS threads are an incredibly useful resource to anyone playing a CG. In playing our first CG we refered back to GS threads, both threads about the CG we were actually playing as well as threads for other CG that used the same rules, repeatedly. Despite that we still had to post a few questions for clarification and were very glad to recieve help from the community. Naturally we could easily resolve between ourselves agreed upon solutions to said questions, but it seemed far more valuable to future players to have a useful discussion here on GS where they could be referenced and refered to by others.

Which is all a very long winded way of saying thanks to the Dennis brothers for all their questions here on GS. They do help all of us, or at least me specifically.

And also to say thanks to the folks who take the enormous amount of time to produce HASLs. It would seem a very rare person who has an identical passion for the history and research required of such a thing as well as writing and editing CG rules! It is very easy to imagine a degree of fatigue and frustration in response to the complicated minutae of rules questions.

 

[sdennis]

Which is all a very long winded way of saying thanks to the Dennis brothers for all their questions here on GS. They do help all of us, or at least me specifically.

And also to say thanks to the folks who take the enormous amount of time to produce HASLs. It would seem a very rare person who has an identical passion for the history and research required of such a thing as well as writing and editing CG rules! It is very easy to imagine a degree of fatigue and frustration in response to the complicated minutae of rules questions.

I appreciate the thanks, I got a lot of nice face to face feedback at ASLOK this year, but I've gotten a bad taste in my mouth these last few days. Really appreciate it.

And I agree with the last statement as well.

 

[ibncalb]

Which is all a very long winded way of saying thanks to the Dennis brothers for all their questions here on GS. They do help all of us, or at least me specifically.

And also to say thanks to the folks who take the enormous amount of time to produce HASLs. It would seem a very rare person who has an identical passion for the history and research required of such a thing as well as writing and editing CG rules! It is very easy to imagine a degree of fatigue and frustration in response to the complicated minutae of rules questions.

Excellent constructive and accurate post, chapeau.

 

[Perry]

Which is all a very long winded way of saying thanks to the Dennis brothers for all their questions here on GS. They do help all of us, or at least me specifically.

And also to say thanks to the folks who take the enormous amount of time to produce HASLs. It would seem a very rare person who has an identical passion for the history and research required of such a thing as well as writing and editing CG rules! It is very easy to imagine a degree of fatigue and frustration in response to the complicated minutae of rules questions.

Well said.

 

[Philippe D.]

I'll just add, as a relatively new player, that I've noted that HASLs tend to borrow a lot of past rules from other HASLs. This makes absolute sense given the already extreme burden of development associated with a HASL and CG, as well as the associated burden for players to learn CG rules. Leveraging what already exists makes perfect sense.

While I agree with the heart of your points, you need to be careful with the perimeter rules in HASLs. There are, more or less, two rulesets on this: the original RB rules use strategic locations as "anchors" to draw a perimeter; many more recent HASLs use a rather simpler system, probably more suitable when the density of "strategic locations" is lower, where you get an area by including strategic hexes you control, plus any non-strategic hexes within close enough range of strategic hexes, and then fuse together these areas that connect. HF uses RB-style rules for this, but others (like the more recent Sainte-Mère-Église HASL) use the distance-to-strategic idea.

Having played an Inor campaign that uses these (and where the density of strategic hexes is low outside of some specific sections of the map), I believe that this feels a bit more natural when playing.

 

[DVexile]

While I agree with the heart of your points, you need to be careful with the perimeter rules in HASLs. There are, more or less, two rulesets on this: the original RB rules use strategic locations as "anchors" to draw a perimeter; many more recent HASLs use a rather simpler system, probably more suitable when the density of "strategic locations" is lower, where you get an area by including strategic hexes you control, plus any non-strategic hexes within close enough range of strategic hexes, and then fuse together these areas that connect. HF uses RB-style rules for this, but others (like the more recent Sainte-Mère-Église HASL) use the distance-to-strategic idea.

Having played an Inor campaign that uses these (and where the density of strategic hexes is low outside of some specific sections of the map), I believe that this feels a bit more natural when playing.

Yes, my comments were directed only at the RB style of perimeter rules. Recently these have been reused in Hatten in Flames as well as Sword and Fire Manila. The rules as written, including in the HiF and SaFM rule books, can easily result in impossible to draw perimeters. The common cause is a single hex column "stem" along a board edge, which if you follow the rules as written results in no valid perimeter at all. If you alter the rules to try to create a valid perimeter when such a stem exists it becomes an open question as to whether the "stem" is part of the perimeter or not. Since board edge control is so important this is not a trivial decision for two players to make among themselves. A small rules revision that properly handled this case would be of great benefit since these particular perimeter rules are still being copied to new products.

The different perimeter rules you mention, which I think most recently have been used in DZ:SME (and I think originated in ABTF, but I could be wrong), have an entirely different method of defining control which as you point out is easier to figure out and works best on low density maps. I've not had an opportunity to play anything with them yet!

And again, this all reflects the benefits of leveraging previous CG rules. Designers have two different commonly used perimeter/control rule sets they can choose from depending on the map and their design intent. Players only have to become familiar with two rule sets as well. Largely a win for everyone! Occasional hiccups from reuse without further editing.

 

[Philippe D.]

And again, this all reflects the benefits of leveraging previous CG rules. Designers have two different commonly used perimeter/control rule sets they can choose from depending on the map and their design intent. Players only have to become familiar with two rule sets as well. Largely a win for everyone! Occasional hiccups from reuse without further editing.

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I believe with the experience of so many published CGs (be they from MMP or third party publishers), it would be nice to now have some chapter of standardized CG rules - possibly with two options for establishing area control, but also with standardized RePh sequence - so that each new published CG would only have to list changes to the "standard" rules. This would make getting into a new CG much easier to any player who has some experience with them, and I don't think it would significantly make it harder to get into one for the first time.