Tutorial #8 Zones of Control Hex Control & Stacking Limits

[brian brian]

yeah really. for a few seconds I was looking for the scroll bars to look at the rest of the front.

[Zorachus99]

5th Para of the right dialogue box.
 
The second attack on Rotterdam... (implies you attacked Rotterdam twice)
 
Please change to:
 
The second attack *is* on Rotterdam *which* will be the paratroop.....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

5th Para of the right dialogue box.

The second attack on Rotterdam... (implies you attacked Rotterdam twice)

Please change to:

The second attack *is* on Rotterdam *which* will be the paratroop.....

Tight on space. How about:

The second is on Rotterdam, by the paratroop ...

[Anendrue]

or try
 
Attack #2 will be against Rotterdam by the paratroop ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the last page of tutorial 8. Picture by Patrice. We still have to do page 4 - Control of Sea Areas.

[Froonp]

In this page you write :

"Move it, and and an air unit is destroyed."

I believe that this is misleading, and may lead to think that the HQ can voluntary move, and an air unit be destroyed, which is wrong.

2.3.1 says :
*******************************
You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits.
*******************************

Having the HQ voluntarily moving is voluntarily overstacking.
The only way for what you write to happen would be for example that the hex is attacked, and that the HQ is forced to retreat.
So the HQ is stuck here, and can't move until an air unit has gone.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In this page you write :

"Move it, and and an air unit is destroyed."

I believe that this is misleading, and may lead to think that the HQ can voluntary move, and an air unit be destroyed, which is wrong.

2.3.1 says :
*******************************
You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits.
*******************************

Having the HQ voluntarily moving is voluntarily overstacking.
The only way for what you write to happen would be for example that the hex is attacked, and that the HQ is forced to retreat.
So the HQ is stuck here, and can't move until an air unit has gone.

Ok.

[oscar72se]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In this page you write :

"Move it, and and an air unit is destroyed."

I believe that this is misleading, and may lead to think that the HQ can voluntary move, and an air unit be destroyed, which is wrong.

2.3.1 says :
*******************************
You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits.
*******************************

Having the HQ voluntarily moving is voluntarily overstacking.
The only way for what you write to happen would be for example that the hex is attacked, and that the HQ is forced to retreat.
So the HQ is stuck here, and can't move until an air unit has gone.

Actually, I would disagree to this. I don't think that moving an HQ and/or Eng out of a hex counts as voluntary overstacking. The reason is that, according to RaW, overstacking applies at the end of each step. This would mean that you couldn't break the stacking limits by moving a unit into a hex but you could break it by moving out of a hex.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In this page you write :

"Move it, and and an air unit is destroyed."

I believe that this is misleading, and may lead to think that the HQ can voluntary move, and an air unit be destroyed, which is wrong.

2.3.1 says :
*******************************
You cannot voluntarily overstack then but if it happens (whether inadvertently or unavoidably), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits.
*******************************

Having the HQ voluntarily moving is voluntarily overstacking.
The only way for what you write to happen would be for example that the hex is attacked, and that the HQ is forced to retreat.
So the HQ is stuck here, and can't move until an air unit has gone.

Actually, I would disagree to this. I don't think that moving an HQ and/or Eng out of a hex counts as voluntary overstacking. The reason is that, according to RaW, overstacking applies at the end of each step. This would mean that you couldn't break the stacking limits by moving a unit into a hex but you could break it by moving out of a hex.

If you moved the HQ/ENG out of the hex and overstacking resulted, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was "inadvertent and unavoidable".

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se
Actually, I would disagree to this. I don't think that moving an HQ and/or Eng out of a hex counts as voluntary overstacking. The reason is that, according to RaW, overstacking applies at the end of each step. This would mean that you couldn't break the stacking limits by moving a unit into a hex but you could break it by moving out of a hex.

I would agree if the HQ moved out, and that another HQ replaced it, or an ENG replaced it, but not if it simply moved out. This is voluntarily overstacking.

[oscar72se]

But overstacking is only checked at the end of the movement phase.
RaW 2.3.1:
Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5).

This means, you don't check for overstacking at the start of the movement phase. If an HQ is situated in a mountain hex together with an AIR, you first move the HQ, then you check for overstacking.

That the movement results in a voluntary overstacking at this time is irrelevant since the check is made at the end of the step. First you move, then you check for overstacking (to see if it is a valid location). To me it makes no sense in "locking-down" the best units available, you should be able to sacrifice an aircraft in a crisis situation in order to save an HQ.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

But overstacking is only checked at the end of the movement phase.
RaW 2.3.1:
Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5).

This means, you don't check for overstacking at the start of the movement phase. If an HQ is situated in a mountain hex together with an AIR, you first move the HQ, then you check for overstacking.

That the movement results in a voluntary overstacking at this time is irrelevant since the check is made at the end of the step. First you move, then you check for overstacking (to see if it is a valid location). To me it makes no sense in "locking-down" the best units available, you should be able to sacrifice an aircraft in a crisis situation in order to save an HQ.

There is some truth in what you are saying, but my gut feeling is that moving this HQ in the first place, and not replacing it by another unit that provides the same stacking bonus, is "voluntarily overstacking an hex".
I'll pass this question to the people talking about the Rules Questions.

[composer99]

While the best way to avoid that situation in table-top WiF is not to stack aircraft such that they depend on an HQ or engineer, obviously the rule clarification is required for MWiF even if you still work to avoid the overstack.

[UngainlyFool]

Is the assumption in the tutorial that all options are selected?
 
If you aren't playing Convoys in Flames then each 5 convoy points is a naval unit, right?  Or is Convoys in Flames a required "option" in MWiF?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: UngainlyFool

Is the assumption in the tutorial that all options are selected?

If you aren't playing Convoys in Flames then each 5 convoy points is a naval unit, right?  Or is Convoys in Flames a required "option" in MWiF?

Welcome to the forum.[:)]

{I am working from memory here, but someone will tell me I'm wrong if I am[;)]}

"5 convoys points = 1 ship" is when NOT playing with Ships in Flames. MWIF does not have that as an optional rule. Both Ships in Flames and Planes in Flames are always part of MWIF (they are not optional).

So, convoys are broken down to individual convoy points for placement on the map and 2 convoys = 1 ship. If playing with Convoys in Flames, then oil tankers are treated the same way as convoys and the note "2 convoys/oil tankers = 1 ship" is correct. This reflects a recent clarification from Harry Rowland that 1 convoy + 1 oil tanker = 1 ship (not two).

The tutorials do not always assume that all optional rules are being used, but I usually try to mention the effects of optional rules on a topic. I do not see the tutorials as definitive statements of fact, so I permit myself omissions at times without feeling excessively guilty. That is, the tutorials need to be accurate, but do not have to be comprehensive - going into all the gruesome details can be very painful for a reader (and author).

Have you looked at the threads listed at the top of the forum? They have some handy-dandy links to topics new forum members might want to read about.

[UngainlyFool]

Thanks, Steve.  I have only played the board game once and it was straight WiF 7th ed with no optional rules so I appreciate you taking the time to fill me in. 
 
I have been lurking for a while though I can't say I've read everything.  The discussion on CV's and whether to make Carrier Planes mandatory (rather than allowing the virtual planes on the original CV counters) combined with the convoys in this thread made me curious how much will be like the game I played and how much will be new.
 
I realize for all you hard-core fans out there all the options add essential depth to an already incredibly deep game.  For me, a beginner, I'm sure I'll get to that point, but it would be wonderful if as many options as possible were, in fact, optional and allow me to ease in to every nuance of the expansions as I feel comfortable adding them.
 
Is there a list in one of the existing threads such as Optional Rules that points out what is optional and what is not in MWiF?  I looked there before I posted but I didn't find it.  I did see the list of what will be available in the first run of MWiF, just not what is truly optional.
 
Thanks again.  I'm really looking forward to MWiF and I am SO glad I didn't run across it 3-4 years ago when it was just getting going.  I would probably be as stir crazy as some of these guys have apparently become. [;)]

[Mziln]

Good memory [:D]

(SiF option 9: every 2 convoy points (or any spare point) is a naval unit).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: UngainlyFool

Thanks, Steve.  I have only played the board game once and it was straight WiF 7th ed with no optional rules so I appreciate you taking the time to fill me in. 

I have been lurking for a while though I can't say I've read everything.  The discussion on CV's and whether to make Carrier Planes mandatory (rather than allowing the virtual planes on the original CV counters) combined with the convoys in this thread made me curious how much will be like the game I played and how much will be new.

I realize for all you hard-core fans out there all the options add essential depth to an already incredibly deep game.  For me, a beginner, I'm sure I'll get to that point, but it would be wonderful if as many options as possible were, in fact, optional and allow me to ease in to every nuance of the expansions as I feel comfortable adding them.

Is there a list in one of the existing threads such as Optional Rules that points out what is optional and what is not in MWiF?  I looked there before I posted but I didn't find it.  I did see the list of what will be available in the first run of MWiF, just not what is truly optional.

Thanks again.  I'm really looking forward to MWiF and I am SO glad I didn't run across it 3-4 years ago when it was just getting going.  I would probably be as stir crazy as some of these guys have apparently become. [;)]

Or 12 years ago when I was first looking for the release of CWIF.[:D]

I have a PDF of the final, full descriptions of the 81 optional rules in MWIF if you want (60 pages). Just send me an email (SHokanson@HawaiianTel.Net).

There is also the thread on optional rules (page two of the thread list for the forum). That runs to 17 pages[:D][:D]. There were some points of contention when working out what to include/exclude.[:D][:D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

But overstacking is only checked at the end of the movement phase.
RaW 2.3.1:
Stacking applies at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5).

This means, you don't check for overstacking at the start of the movement phase. If an HQ is situated in a mountain hex together with an AIR, you first move the HQ, then you check for overstacking.

That the movement results in a voluntary overstacking at this time is irrelevant since the check is made at the end of the step. First you move, then you check for overstacking (to see if it is a valid location). To me it makes no sense in "locking-down" the best units available, you should be able to sacrifice an aircraft in a crisis situation in order to save an HQ.

There is some truth in what you are saying, but my gut feeling is that moving this HQ in the first place, and not replacing it by another unit that provides the same stacking bonus, is "voluntarily overstacking an hex".
I'll pass this question to the people talking about the Rules Questions.

Well, I've asked my friends of the rules discussion group (who add questions for Harry for the future official ADG FAQ), and as of now, out of 3 answers, all three answered as me & Steve.

I've asked :
****************************
2.3 says that voluntarily or inadvertandly overstacking is forbidden.

Situation is : An Air unit is stacked on an HQ in a mountain hex.
Question 1 : Can the HQ move, inducing the air unit destruction because of overstacking ?
Question 2 : Can the HQ move, and be replaced by another HQ or an ENG ?

At Q1 I'd answer "NO", and at Q2 I'd answer "YES". What would you say ?
****************************

All three said the same, and tell me that this should not be the 376th question of our file.

[oscar72se]

Thank you for looking into this, it is always good to be sure of the interpretations of RaW. The goal of the day is complete, I have learnt something new [:)]