Reading the VC (WCW05 Abandon Ship!)

[Philippe D.]

My opponent and I are having a disagreement on how to read the victory conditions on scenario WCW05 Abandon Ship!.

The litigious sentence reads: "The German receive 3VP for each Mobile AFV with functioning MA and 2 VP for each Good Order squad equivalent west of hexes H0, H1 and west of the gully running from H2-H5-A9".

Does the "west of..." condition apply only to GO squad-equivalents, or to both GO squad-equivalents and AFVs?

In other words, should we read the sentence as

"(3VP for each Mobile AFV with functioning MA) and (2 VP for each Good Order squad equivalent west of...)",

or as

"(3VP for each Mobile AFV with functioning MA and 2 VP for each Good Order squad equivalent) west of ..."

?

 

[EagleIV]

The second option looks correct. You get VP only for the units west of the line. Any units not west of the line don't count.

 

[sdennis]

That’s how I saw everyone play it when it came out. (Eagles answer)

 

[Larry]

Reading the phrase "west of hexes H0, H1 and west of the gully running from H2-H5-A9 " as applying to the squad equivalents but not the AFVs invokes the "last antecedent rule." But the rule is criticized and more often used when the nouns preceding the qualifying phrase are separated by a comma. In this context, the absence of a comma signals that the AFV and squad equivalent are treated the same, the modifier applies to both, putting a grammatical justification on Fred's commonsense understanding of the language used.

 

[EagleIV]

Sez the Lawyer.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

There's slightly different punctuation in reissues of WCW5 that I think support @EagleIV, @sdennis, and @Larry. Both G44 and 193 have "The German receives 3 VPs for each mobile AFV with functioning MA, and 2 VPs for each Good Order squad-equivalent, west of the line defined by hexes H0, H1, and the gully running from H2-H5-A9." Scenario 193 adds "(D.7)" after Mobile. To me, the 'X, and Y, condition' emphasizes that the "west" condition applies to both.

 

[Philippe D.]

To me, the 'X, and Y, condition' emphasizes that the "west" condition applies to both.

Yes, if the VC had been written this way I would have understood it that way (even though English is not my first language). The scenario is pretty neat, but I played 6 turns out of 7 believing keeping my AFV safe was enough as long as the Americans didn't make a rush to the exit - I should definitely have made sure of the VC before that

 

[bendizoid]

I lost this one to Mattius once. As the American I had stopped him cold, I was counteracting the Germans off the board , massacre, then I noticed I had failed to pull back at least a half squad to exit, it was too far away, like a hex or two short, so I had to concede.lol opps

This is a scenario ( I learned ) one must very carefully read the VC, then again on turn 3.

It was just as well because I always get stupid lucky against Mattius.

 

[bendizoid]

As the Americans if you feel you want to fall back consider kindling the 2nd level of the ‘split level’ building (probably V3, maybe U4 and the smoke does the rest) with the 10-2 and a few lads on turn 1. If the Germans get up there with a mmg they can make falling back very difficult.

 

[Philippe D.]

In the game I was playing as the Germans; the American player tried to not fall back at all, which meant me not capturing the roadblock was key for him. I was waiting for him to fall back, since I thought keeping my AFVs alive, Mobile and with a functioning MA was sufficient - or I would probably have pushed harder t some point. I realized my mistake a bit late (end of my own turn 6, meaning I had only a single turn remaining), so I'll have to leave it to pure luck: try to cross the Woods with a PzIV; if I make it without Bog there is close to nothing the Americans can do to stop me, and if I Bog I lose.

Had I discovered my mistake even one turn earlier, I could have maneuvered so as to increase my chances: have two AFV able to try the woods instead of just one, and possibly a little infantry as well.

In practice, this shows that, for the Americans, trying to hold at all cost is risky. And that's where the scenario gets interesting, they have to fall back but not too quickly or the Germans will overwhelm those who stay behind.

 

[Old Noob]

Always the eternal question "Should I Stay, or should I Go?"

 

[Eagle4ty]

Always the eternal question "Should I Stay, or should I Go?"

Gotta nice rhythm to it, hard to dance to, however.

 

[Philippe D.]

Not that hard if you have my talent for "dancing".

 

[Ric of The LBC]

Always the eternal question "Should I Stay, or should I Go?"

If you stay there will be trouble