PB 2 Howards Men

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys
This question arised as we wass discussing this scenario.

Does the mentioning in SSR 3 that the British is Scenario Defender mean that the Germans are Scenario Attacker and therefore is allowed Cloaking ?
Or should it be interpreted that the British may use the rules for being Scenario Defender [EXC: Freedom of Movement] even though they are not Scenario Defender as per definition.

 

[Ole Boe]

I don't know the exact wording of the SSR, but I think it is fully possible to have a scenario with one Scenario Defender (HIP, No Move etc.), without any Scenario Attacker (i.e. without the SA's cloaking benefit).

The index does says that you cannot have one without having both, but I think that part belongs together with the Index definition of SA/SD. So as soon as you have a SSR defining when a side is SA/SD, the index definition no longer applies.

So in my view, this scenario has one Scenario Defender withouy any Scenario Attacker (just as some campaigns have two Scenario Attackers per SSR).

 

[Beseler]

our game

Herr commissar,

for what it's worth, Jay white and I played this as it would play in the CG on Night 2, with a german cloaked attack.

It was the wildest, most fun, closest scen we've ever played, so I would HIGHLY recommend playing it the way it was surely intended (to mimic Night 2)

Beseler

 

[Chas Argent]

The definition of Scenario Attacker/Defender in the Index says:

"The Scenario Defender and Attacker both exist or neither does; a scenario cannot have one without having the other."

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Thanks Chas
Does not help much though as SSR reads as:

"SSR 3. Despite being the Scenairo Defender, all
British units begin play with Freedom of Movement.
The British 8-0 that sets up with the AA17 group
begins the scenario Wounded. If a British MMC sets
up in hex X20, the Gun may be possessed. All British
units begin play with Wall Advantage over any
ADJACENT German unit(s); thereafter, Wall Advantage
is lost/gained normally."

We have a Scenario Defender.

Night rules declare:
1.411 SETUP: The Scenario Attacker sets up offboard (including the possible use of Dummy Cloaking counters). He is allotted one Cloaking counter for each squad-equivalent in his OB, either at start or (separately) as reinforcements.

In this scenario the Germans (Scenario Attacker) begins on the board, obviously I cannot set up offboard and so I cannot be Scenario Attacker. As you stated above, if there is no Scenario Attacker we have no Scenario Defender. One could argue that SSR takes precedence and that we have both. In that case, may I use Cloaking and where is the rule that allows me to set up Cloaked units onboard ?

 

[Ole Boe]

The definition of Scenario Attacker/Defender in the Index says:

"The Scenario Defender and Attacker both exist or neither does; a scenario cannot have one without having the other."

Yes, but that is (simply) a logic extension of the sentences just before in the same index:
"The Scenario Defender is the side that sets up wholly or partly on-board ... while facing an opposing side that enters wholly from offboard. This latter side is termed the Scenario Attack."

In this SSR, the part I quoted in not true, so why is the immediately sentence that you quoted true? It is possible that this is the intention, but then the scenario lacks an SSR.

Even if you follow the sentence you quote and assume the other side is Scenario Attacker, then you immediately stumble onto the next problem, the rule for setting up Cloaked, as Commisar Piotr quotes. Without an SSR here, the attacker cannot use Cloaking for its onboard forces - he can actually not set up anything onboard at all, since E1.411 tells us that the Scenario Attacker sets up all forces offboard.

 

[Ole Boe]

In this scenario the Germans (Scenario Attacker) begins on the board, obviously I cannot set up offboard and so I cannot be Scenario Attacker.

...unless by SSR. It is quite normal in CG's to allow one side to be the Scenario Attacker and use onboard Cloaking, but this is explicitely stated in SSR of course.

As you stated above, if there is no Scenario Attacker we have no Scenario Defender. One could argue that SSR takes precedence and that we have both.

An SSR always takes precedence. The problem with this one is that the only thing it says is that one side is the Scenario Defender.

This obviously means that we must ignore the normal definition of Scenario Defender. But it doesn't say whether we must ignore the sentence about always having SD and SA together, or whether we must ignore the definition of SA, and the rule about Scenario Attacker setting up offboard.

In other words, a very poor SSR, that is in dire need of an errata.

In that case, may I use Cloaking and where is the rule that allows me to set up Cloaked units onboard ?

I've seen such a SSR in many CGs...

 

[Chas Argent]

Good to know, men, thanks for pointing those out.

 

[Beseler]

Scenarios of CGs

Fellows,

The pertinent rule is unfortunately for the CG, and is not linked to the specific stand alone scenario. Pegasus Bridge CG 4b states that for Night 2 (the CG equivalent to Howards Men), 'The German is the scenario attacker' and that despite setting up on board, he may use cloaking. THEN the other information, such as freedom of movement for the British, and that they are the defender is given. For some strange reason, only PART of the information from this very important CGSSR was transported into the scenario SSR.

Errata is very much necessary. But to play Howard's Men without using German cloaking involves a willful attempt to ignore what was clearly the intent of the designers, don't you think?

A) without CG SSR4b, not using cloaking was at best a shaky argument
B) with the exitence of CG SSR4b, the use of cloaking surely gains the upper hand in an unclear argument, no?

For what it's worth,
Rob

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Beseler

If that is the intent, as you seem to believe, why did they not write it as such ?

 

[Legion]

I am watching this with interest as i am playing this scenario next for the Battlefields of the World tourney... It might be important for this rule to be clarified BEFORE anyone starts to play the scenarios as it will obviously be of great importance.

My own 2cents is that this scenario was meant to represent a successful ambush on a German column, therefore i do not find it hard to believe that the British can be the scenario Defender (with full benefits) and the Germans a non-Scenario Defender.

It is (like many SSRs in CGs and HASLs) very poorly explained and as i said we need a definitive (tourney SSR) ruling before this is played

 

[Reepicheep]

I've asked the question to Perry so we can hopefully get a definitive answer given, as Legion points out, I'm recommending this scenario for the Pegasus Bridge round of our Warfare HQ tournament Battlefields of the World.

 

[Ole Boe]

I agree that when comparing with the CG, it definately looks like the intention is to treat the German as Scenario Attacker, using onboard Cloaking.

 

[Beseler]

Hoping the 'man' gets back to you.

Keeping in line with sloppiness on CG scens...

I asked Perry months ago to clear up the obvious ssr problem in ABTF5 (is it 5?) Tigers to the Bridge. The tanks aren't supposed to be able to bog themselves in the rubble, but the ssr does not prevent this. How that one slipped past them I have no idea. Again, though, no word for months. I even had an email from steve deth making it clear it was a mistake that he hoped would be rectified.

Beseler

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys
We have our answer:

> Does the mentioning in SSR 3 that the British is Scenario Defender mean
> that the Germans are Scenario Attacker and therefore is allowed Cloaking?

No.


> Or should it be interpreted that the British may use the rules for being
> Scenario Defender [EXC: Freedom of Movement] even though they are not
> Scenario Defender as per definition.


Yes.



....Perry

MMP

 

[Beseler]

well well.

In our game, the Germans were cloaked and just pulled out an amazing come from behind victory.

I would be very interested to know (although it is impossible) how many of the 20 ROAR reported games used cloaking!

Well, I hope this Q&A is accessible somewhere for future players. (I fear the scenario will be unbalanced without cloaking, but will wait to hear from this upcoming tournament how it went)

 

[Reepicheep]

I got a similar answer to a similar question from Perry in the last few hours as well:


Does the mention in SSR 3 of PB 2 (Howards Men) that the British are Scenario Defender mean that the Germans are Scenario Attacker and therefore allowed Cloaking? (as would be the case in the equivalent CG Scenario of CG I)

<<No.>>


Or is there only a Scenario Defender for this scenario since a Scenario Attacker is not designated?

<<Correct.>>

....Perry
MMP

 

[Tater]

I got a similar answer to a similar question from Perry in the last few hours as well:


Does the mention in SSR 3 of PB 2 (Howards Men) that the British are Scenario Defender mean that the Germans are Scenario Attacker and therefore allowed Cloaking? (as would be the case in the equivalent CG Scenario of CG I)

<<No.>>


Or is there only a Scenario Defender for this scenario since a Scenario Attacker is not designated?

<<Correct.>>

....Perry
MMP

From the index:
"The Scenario Defender and Attacker both exist or neither does; a scenario cannot have one without having the other."

If an SSR states that there is a scenario Defender then said SSR _MUST_ also state that no Attacker is required/allowed...otherwise there is an Attacker...regardless of what "Perry Sez".

IOW, this requires an errata not just a Q&A.

 

[Legion]

I got a similar answer to a similar question from Perry in the last few hours as well:

Does the mention in SSR 3 of PB 2 (Howards Men) that the British are Scenario Defender mean that the Germans are Scenario Attacker and therefore allowed Cloaking? (as would be the case in the equivalent CG Scenario of CG I)
<<No.>>

Or is there only a Scenario Defender for this scenario since a Scenario Attacker is not designated?
<<Correct.>>
....Perry
MMP

Whoo Hoo... One for me!

 

[Reepicheep]

From the index:
"The Scenario Defender and Attacker both exist or neither does; a scenario cannot have one without having the other."

If an SSR states that there is a scenario Defender then said SSR _MUST_ also state that no Attacker is required/allowed...otherwise there is an Attacker...regardless of what "Perry Sez".

IOW, this requires an errata not just a Q&A.

True, but if there is a Scenario Attacker (as per the definitions) the scenario is unplayable, since a scenario attacker must enter from wholly offboard. IOW, ignoring the Q&A would delete the entire British OOB since they are directed to set up on board.

I do agree that it is worthy of an errata. But in the meantime, we can play the way it would be erraticised if/when it is.