Withholding Set Up Units.

[General Mayhem]

Reading the thread on foxholes in the main forum I was surprised when players kept referring to not placing foxholes which were in the scenario OOB. I have always played that you had to use everything in your OOB except for ? Counters which are optional under A12.11.

I can find no rule that allows the withholding of units in an OOB in the rulebook, but a post in the foxhole thread referred to the following “Unofficial Q and A”:

A2.5 & A26.221 Are units that fail to enter "eliminated" for purposes of CVP, or VC in general?
A. Both. [Letter86]

A2.9 A side is given a number of "?" counters to use a dummies, etc. Do they all have to be used?
A. Neither Dummies, nor any other unit/SW/Gun, in an OOB need be used-however any such not used are considered Eliminated for CVP (and all other) purposes. [Letter84]

I have two questions. First what does [Letter86] and [Letter84] refer to? Second how much authority do such “Unofficial Q and A” hold?

The idea that you can withhold set up units seems to be inconsistent with A2.5 which states that all forces scheduled to arrive on a certain turn must enter the mapboard on that turn. Set up forces are optional, but reinforcements are not?

 

[Jazz]

Reading the thread on foxholes in the main forum I was surprised when players kept referring to not placing foxholes which were in the scenario OOB. I have always played that you had to use everything in your OOB except for ? Counters which are optional under A12.11.

I can find no rule that allows the withholding of units in an OOB in the rulebook, but a post in the foxhole thread referred to the following “Unofficial Q and A”:

A2.5 & A26.221 Are units that fail to enter "eliminated" for purposes of CVP, or VC in general?
A. Both. [Letter86]

A2.9 A side is given a number of "?" counters to use a dummies, etc. Do they all have to be used?
A. Neither Dummies, nor any other unit/SW/Gun, in an OOB need be used-however any such not used are considered Eliminated for CVP (and all other) purposes. [Letter84]

I have two questions. First what does [Letter86] and [Letter84] refer to? Second how much authority do such “Unofficial Q and A” hold?

The idea that you can withhold set up units seems to be inconsistent with A2.5 which states that all forces scheduled to arrive on a certain turn must enter the mapboard on that turn. Set up forces are optional, but reinforcements are not?

The letters I believe refer to letters recieved from AH (the ruling authority at the time) in response to a mailed question....It was how things were done before the Internet.

Just how much authority depends on who you're playing? Some people accept them. Others do not accept any Q&A/Erratta unless it is published as such by someone in authority (currently Perry). Most people I know seem to accept the compiled Q&A as how the game is played, but that is only "most people" that I know, which is a very small subset of the ASL world.

 

[General Mayhem]

The letters I believe refer to letters recieved from AH (the ruling authority at the time) in response to a mailed question....It was how things were done before the Internet.

Just how much authority depends on who you're playing? Some people accept them. Others do not accept any Q&A/Erratta unless it is published as such by someone in authority (currently Perry). Most people I know seem to accept the compiled Q&A as how the game is played, but that is only "most people" that I know, which is a very small subset of the ASL world.

Thanks for the explanation Jazz. What is your opinion on this speciifc rule - i.e. the 84 letter ruling by AH seems to be inconsistent with rule A2.5 in the Rule Book?

 

[Fort]

Thanks for the explanation Jazz. What is your opinion on this speciifc rule - i.e. the 84 letter ruling by AH seems to be inconsistent with rule A2.5 in the Rule Book?

Just another rule that needs to be added to a 3rd edition rulebook.

It is played as per the Q&A mentioned by Jazz by the majority of ASLers I have met, played and talked with.

 

[SamB]

Just another rule that needs to be added to a 3rd edition rulebook.

It is played as per the Q&A mentioned by Jazz by the majority of ASLers I have met, played and talked with.

And as evidence that this is the way it's played... there are scenarios where foxholes are part of the VC. Often they state something like "All foxholes must be placed".

 

[General Mayhem]

Thanks for the replies - I must admit I cannot recall a scenario stating that Foxholes must be placed - but will keep an eye out for one. It isn't really important, but it does seem strange that I can withhold at start units, but cannot withhold reinforcements.

 

[Tater]

The thing about that letter is that it was referring to situations where units were unable to enter...not voluntarily held out. There is a difference between "failing" to enter and voluntarily not set-up or entered. The latter is not a "failure", it is a choice.

Unless someone can produce a specific rule that allows part of the OB to voluntarily not set-up and/or enter I say that the whole OB has to set-up and/or TRY to enter the playing area.

 

[General Mayhem]

The thing about that letter is that it was referring to situations where units were unable to enter...not voluntarily held out. There is a difference between "failing" to enter and voluntarily not set-up or entered. The latter is not a "failure", it is a choice.

Unless someone can produce a specific rule that allows part of the OB to voluntarily not set-up and/or enter I say that the whole OB has to set-up and/or TRY to enter the playing area.

That is the way I had always played, with the exception of ? counters. For me the wording used in A12.11 and A12.12 is saying that ? counters do not have to be set up.

 

[Fort]

The thing about that letter is that it was referring to situations where units were unable to enter...not voluntarily held out. There is a difference between "failing" to enter and voluntarily not set-up or entered. The latter is not a "failure", it is a choice.

Unless someone can produce a specific rule that allows part of the OB to voluntarily not set-up and/or enter I say that the whole OB has to set-up and/or TRY to enter the playing area.

The answer in Jazz's post is unambiguous...it clearly states:

"A2.9 A side is given a number of "?" counters to use a dummies, etc. Do they all have to be used?
A. Neither Dummies, nor any other unit/SW/Gun, in an OOB need be used-however any such not used are considered Eliminated for CVP (and all other) purposes."

There is no other reasonable way to read this response.

There is also no way to force an opponent to set up an OB given piece. He simply 'forgets' to set them up...I am completely OK with this because if I force someone to set up a piece that piece is gonna go in the most remote corner of the map with all the rest of the peices I forced him to set up.

There is nothing to gain by forcing set up of unwanted pieces except an opponent who is now unnecessarily irate.

 

[Fort]

<<<eom>>>

 

[Tater]

The answer in Jazz's post is unambiguous...it clearly states:

"A2.9 A side is given a number of "?" counters to use a dummies, etc. Do they all have to be used?
A. Neither Dummies, nor any other unit/SW/Gun, in an OOB need be used-however any such not used are considered Eliminated for CVP (and all other) purposes."

There is no other reasonable way to read this response.

There is also no way to force an opponent to set up an OB given piece. He simply 'forgets' to set them up...I am completely OK with this because if I force someone to set up a piece that piece is gonna go in the most remote corner of the map with all the rest of the peices I forced him to set up.

There is nothing to gain by forcing set up of unwanted pieces except an opponent who is now unnecessarily irate.

Also in Jazz e-mail...
"I have two questions. First what does [Letter86] and [Letter84] refer to? Second how much authority do such “Unofficial Q and A” hold?"

The answer is none...they have not been printed in an official MMP ASL publication (at least I don't think they have). Also, not sure what the date on the Q&A are but if the were before the release of ASLRBv2 then we have to wonder why they weren't rolled into the rules.

Until they are published, the Q&A (by published PerrySez) have no status at all relative to the rules. In fact, they have less status than the IIFT and we all know how you feel about that.

However, to take the discussion in a different direction, if we assume that forces voluntarily held-out are considered eliminated for all purposes...why would one even do it? What is the gain? Advantage?

 

[Tater]

Those Q&A were from the 'Original Authority' and developer of the game Don Greenwood, or Bob McNamara.

I understand what you mean, but neither of those two fine gentlemen have any rules authority now. AND...MMP made the decision not to roll them into the rules in any fashion. In fact, ASLRBv2 included a near total rewrite of A26 and MMP chose to add NOTHING about forces voluntarily held off board. Given what has transpired rules wise since those two Q&A were written, they are pretty much worthless. Of course as usual, players can agree to anything they want.

Going back to my question in my last post, perhaps the decision to not add anything relative to leaving forces off-board is because it doesn't make sense to do it. I mean, if they are to count as eliminated for all purposes why would one do it?

 

[General Mayhem]

With regard to this particular rule it is not that important, but a question that may be is what is the provenance of these letters? Both Fort and Jazz have explained that they are letters with Questions answered by the original authorities on ASL, but how did they get into compiled questions and answers, i.e. how were they first published and if not published who was(were) the recipient(s) of the letters?

I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the Letter 84 and Letter 86 were referencing letters dated 1984 and 1986. I too feel that there has been ample opportunity for such things to have been incorporated in the rulebook or published as official errata and neither have been done.

In answer to what could be gained by leaving units from your OOB off-board I am currently playing A9 Midnight Massacre (from the 1989 Annual) - the Americans have three pillboxes in their OOB (they have specific set up hexes). The Germans win by controlling all the pillboxes at game end. So if the Americans chose not to place the Pillboxes do they then win? (not much fun but according to the Q and A perfectly legal).

 

[apbills]

In answer to what could be gained by leaving units from your OOB off-board I am currently playing A9 Midnight Massacre (from the 1989 Annual) - the Americans have three pillboxes in their OOB (they have specific set up hexes). The Germans win by controlling all the pillboxes at game end. So if the Americans chose not to place the Pillboxes do they then win? (not much fun but according to the Q and A perfectly legal).

This scenario was released in the pre-"Rules-Lawyer" era of the game. Some of us still remember when playing the game was more important then finding some little loophole in the rules that would give an advantage.

 

[Tater]

This scenario was released in the pre-"Rules-Lawyer" era of the game. Some of us still remember when playing the game was more important then finding some little loophole in the rules that would give an advantage.

You must be talking about the time before the first rule book of the first game was ever published because the day that happened was the day rules lawyers were born.

 

[Jazz]

In answer to what could be gained by leaving units from your OOB off-board I am currently playing A9 Midnight Massacre (from the 1989 Annual) - the Americans have three pillboxes in their OOB (they have specific set up hexes). The Germans win by controlling all the pillboxes at game end. So if the Americans chose not to place the Pillboxes do they then win? (not much fun but according to the Q and A perfectly legal).

Exactly the problem with allowing folks to not set up something in their OOB. You are exactly correct. After this discussion I would expect at the very least that scenario designers will stipulate that units named in the VC must set up on board.

As to existing scenarios, one would hope that the spirit of the scenario/VC would be respected by both players....it really should be a gentleman's game. I suppose there are some who would "game" that situation, but I'm thinking I probably wouldn't play with them in the future if they did such a thing....I'm just funny that way.

Tate raises a good point that "officially", erratta/Q&A do not rise to the level of ASL law until they are published and made generally available by the current rules authority. In a highly competative tourney setting (possibly a less than friendly game?) someone could take that position and they would be in the right.

That being said, there are a lot of questions that needed answered and that were answered by the collected Q&A. Many of these answers were made to individuals via mail, and very well might not have made it into any official publication. How many "PerrySez" posts have wee seen on these forums, and that have not made it into a Journal or new version of the rules? These Q&A were compiled by Scott Romanowski and was real ASL public service. Most (by no means "all") folks that I know will generally accept a rules interpretation based on those compiled Q&A.

I guess I can't get overly excited about it one way or the other as it is, after all, a game.

 

[General Mayhem]

Jazz, I agree with you entirely, it would be nonsensical to not set up the pillboxes in that scenario, I just gave it as an extreme example of how an advantage can be gained by not setting up units in an OOB. Leaving foxholes offboard to gain an advantage because the player feels they disadvantage him could also be considered gamey, yet there was very little objection raised to this in the thread discussing the foxhole rules. When a scenario designer goes to the trouble of researching a historical action and provides the units (including fortifications) to represent that action, it just seems plain wrong to me to leave some of those units off the board, for whatever reason.

 

[Tater]

In answer to what could be gained by leaving units from your OOB off-board I am currently playing A9 Midnight Massacre (from the 1989 Annual) - the Americans have three pillboxes in their OOB (they have specific set up hexes). The Germans win by controlling all the pillboxes at game end. So if the Americans chose not to place the Pillboxes do they then win? (not much fun but according to the Q and A perfectly legal).

Interesting...this pretty much shoots a hole in the Q&A. The requirements for control and elimination are very different. Being considered elim for all purposes is very different from being considered controled. I suspect it is just such unintended consequences that drove MMP not to include these (apparently) illconsideered Q&A. Also, there is no way to predict what kinds of VC designers will come up with over time...these Q&A would simply be a constant land mine in the system.

So until we get a real rule that lists all exceptions and conditions ALL parts of the OB must be set up.

 

[Fort]

With regard to this particular rule it is not that important, but a question that may be is what is the provenance of these letters? Both Fort and Jazz have explained that they are letters with Questions answered by the original authorities on ASL, but how did they get into compiled questions and answers, i.e. how were they first published and if not published who was(were) the recipient(s) of the letters?

I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the Letter 84 and Letter 86 were referencing letters dated 1984 and 1986. I too feel that there has been ample opportunity for such things to have been incorporated in the rulebook or published as official errata and neither have been done.

There are literally hundreds of ASL Q&A that are not incorporated in the rules...but are still 'official'.

In answer to what could be gained by leaving units from your OOB off-board I am currently playing A9 Midnight Massacre (from the 1989 Annual) - the Americans have three pillboxes in their OOB (they have specific set up hexes). The Germans win by controlling all the pillboxes at game end. So if the Americans chose not to place the Pillboxes do they then win? (not much fun but according to the Q and A perfectly legal).

The VC say the Germans win by controlling all the Pillboxes....if the Americans do not set up any Pillboxes then the Germans win as there are no Pillboxes to control.

 

[General Mayhem]

The VC say the Germans win by controlling all the Pillboxes....if the Americans do not set up any Pillboxes then the Germans win as there are no Pillboxes to control.

That would be poetic justice - American Palyer "I am not setting up the pillboxes." German player "Thanks. I win. See you next week or maybe not."