My Albany AAR - Round 3

[Jacometti]

Scenario designers/writers need to be aware of the distinction. I once played a Schwerpunkt scenario where it just said "EC are Mud" - but the accomapnying scenario analysis article made it clear that it was meant to say "Weather is Mud."

The Mud rules are clear as Mud, obviously.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Scenario designers/writers need to be aware of the distinction. I once played a Schwerpunkt scenario where it just said "EC are Mud" - but the accomapnying scenario analysis article made it clear that it was meant to say "Weather is Mud."

That was a great catch, not sure if I remember noting the differences myself (probably not as I've got good memory, just darn short).

 

[Eagle4ty]

The Mud rules are clear as Mud, obviously.

One of the more counter-intuitive aspects is that there is a +1TH DRM for HE fire in Mud, but if a hit is obtained, there is no penalty on the FP effect (E3.62).

The Mist rules almost make as much sense. Question: if Mist is in effect (not KGP) at how many ranges are a +2 Mist in effect? My guess? At only one range, 12 hexes only, as at 7-11 it's a +1 and 13-18 it's a +3.

 

[Jeff Sewall]

Scenario designers/writers need to be aware of the distinction. I once played a Schwerpunkt scenario where it just said "EC are Mud" - but the accomapnying scenario analysis article made it clear that it was meant to say "Weather is Mud."

SP73 Seregelyes Slug-Out. Never been corrected, AFAIK.

 

[bprobst]

The Mist rules almost make as much sense. Question: if Mist is in effect (not KGP) at how many ranges are a +2 Mist in effect? My guess? At only one range, 12 hexes only, as at 7-11 it's a +1 and 13-18 it's a +3.

You don't need to "guess" the answer, the rules state it very clearly (E3.32). The EX spells it out! The answer to your question is "13-18".

The poor part of the mist rules is that there's no simple game descriptor for the condition of "increased intensity" (applicable to Rain [E3.51] and Falling Snow [E3.71]). Ideally we would have "rain/heavy rain" and "Falling Snow/heavy Falling Snow" or something like that. Instead, if we want to be consistent with the way the rules are worded, we need the just-flows-off-the-tongue "rain/snowfall with increased precipitation intensity". Interestingly, I've never seen a scenario that doesn't just say "heavy rain/snowfall" instead, which fortunately everyone understands even though the term appears nowhere in the rules.

The other bugbear of mine is that the rules have no simple way of saying "it's currently raining/snowing". If the scenario SSR states that the Weather is Overcast (E3.5), is it raining when play begins or not? Is it snowing? I'd argue that the rules have it both ways, with one answer for rain and the opposite answer for snow.

The E3 Temperate Weather Chart describes as one possible condition "Overcast". E5 says "EC are determined normally until it rains" (my emphasis). To me that strongly indicates rain only happens by random chance on the Wind Change DR. OK. However the E3.7 Snow Chart has the possible condition of "Falling Snow". E3.71 says "Falling Snow is always accompanied by Overcast conditions, even if the snowfall ends. Falling Snow re-occurs on a Wind Change DR ..." (my emphasis). It seems clear to me that this means the scenario starts with the snow already falling, i.e., the opposite of rain.

These finer distinctions seem lost on many scenario designers (and even more players). For bonus points, with a strictly literal reading of the rules, you get additional "fun". E3.71 never says that Falling Snow replaces rain, so that "accompanied by Overcast conditions" phrase means that you can have Falling Snow and rain! The weather outside is frightful!

So, yeah, Chapter E has issues.

None of that is even taking into account the one weather rule that desperately needs to be changed: E3.75 DRIFTS. The random creation of Drifts can occur in any scenario where Ground/Deep Snow is present. How many people (esp. designers) remember that? It wouldn't be a big deal except that (a) the Drift generation procedure is incredibly clumsy and can bring any game to a screeching halt while you fart about pulling out the counters labelled "A"-"GG"; and (b) unless you're playing a scenario consisting of exactly one whole regular geomorphic board, you're screwed. The rules make absolutely no allowance for the placement of Drift counters on half-boards or multiple boards (let alone other non-standard board configurations). You quite literally just have to guess in those cases. The rule needs to be re-written to make it more flexible, and more importantly, invoked by SSR only! I would never shake my head at anyone who plays with a "no Drifts!" house rule.

 

[bprobst]

SP73 Seregelyes Slug-Out. Never been corrected, AFAIK.

In private Q&A to Schwerpunkt they acknowledged the error. Of course, since Schwerpunkt never publish any errata for their scenarios in any format, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that. Really, they can only get away with that policy because of their (remarkable) lack of errata overall. A comprehensive errata document for SP scenarios would be working hard to fill half a page. Which just makes their refusal to create such a document even more inexplicable!

 

[Steven Pleva]

It wouldn't be a big deal except that (a) the Drift generation procedure is incredibly clumsy and can bring any game to a screeching halt while you fart about pulling out the counters labelled "A"-"GG"

Use this to get the letter. Make a DR:
cdr wdr Letter
1 1 A
1 2 B
1 3 C
1 4 D
1 5 E
1 6 F
2 1 G
2 2 H
2 3 I
2 4 J
2 5 K
2 6 L
3 1 M
3 2 N
3 3 O
3 4 P
3 5 Q
3 6 R
4 1 S
4 2 T
4 3 U
4 4 V
4 5 W
4 6 X
5 1 Y
5 2 Z
5 3 AA
5 4 BB
5 5 CC
5 6 DD
6 1 EE
6 2 FF
6 3 GG
6 4 Reroll
6 5 Reroll
6 6 Reroll

The pattern is simple enough to do without the chart. No need to pull out 33 counters. 1 will do...
Steve

 

[wrongway149]

I am not going to defend the verbiage in Chapter E...


... but it is Weather (E3.) is Mud that cause D8.23 to kick in - not EC are Mud.

Good thoughts for the upcoming 'Chapter E pack'- which will re-write some rules as needed/allowed.

 

[Michael R]

In private Q&A to Schwerpunkt they acknowledged the error. Of course, since Schwerpunkt never publish any errata for their scenarios in any format, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that. Really, they can only get away with that policy because of their (remarkable) lack of errata overall. A comprehensive errata document for SP scenarios would be working hard to fill half a page. Which just makes their refusal to create such a document even more inexplicable!

Just out of curiosity, I searched the Scott Romanowski compendium for SP errata. There is some, including that one.

 

[bprobst]

The pattern is simple enough to do without the chart. No need to pull out 33 counters.

Fair enough, but you still have to find the correct counter. The nature of the rule-as-written is that (as a consequence of drawing particular chits, which are not returned to the pile) there are no duplications. Either that or you need to make a side note of which letters have been selected. Either way the pain is greater than it should be.

For VASL games there is a nice "A"-"GG" random selector extension which is very handy.

 

[Steven Pleva]

Fair enough, but you still have to find the correct counter. The nature of the rule-as-written is that (as a consequence of drawing particular chits, which are not returned to the pile) there are no duplications. Either that or you need to make a side note of which letters have been selected. Either way the pain is greater than it should be.

For VASL games there is a nice "A"-"GG" random selector extension which is very handy.

You either write down the letter used or accept the 1 in 33 chance of getting the same letter. I would be happy with either solution...
Steve

 

[Jacometti]

You either write down the letter used or accept the 1 in 33 chance of getting the same letter. I would be happy with either solution...
Steve

If I were to design a scenario with Snow Drifts, I would tell the players where to put them as part of the SSR.

 

[wrongway149]

If I were to design a scenario with Snow Drifts, I would tell the players where to put them as part of the SSR.

I would say 'place 6 snow drift counters in hex XXN an roll for random location, with a third die determining the hexside of the drift' . Add drms for wind direction.

Then I would ask one of you guys to help clear that up so it actually play properly.

 

[wrongway149]

Brilliantly clarified, Klas.

Maybe we should do it like smoke/SMOKE and say mud for EC and MUD for weather.

 

[jrv]

I would say 'place 6 snow drift counters in hex XXN an roll for random location, with a third die determining the hexside of the drift' . Add drms for wind direction.

Then I would ask one of you guys to help clear that up so it actually play properly.

You would definitely have to say the wind direction drm is applied, as I don't have any idea how you intend to apply it.

JR

 

[jrv]

Maybe we should do it like smoke/SMOKE and say mud for EC and MUD for weather.

Perhaps MUd (two caps as in EC) for EC and mud for weather (no caps) To make it easier to remember ;-)

JR

 

[Perry]

Clear as muD.