Rule clarification - TF's returning home

[byron13]

Concur. Adam's right that there is an extra negative in the following TF's statement that results in the rules stating the opposite of what was intended.

As for: "So my advice is to please re-write 6.1.14 owing to its centrality
and if able, have it officially posted asap", I think this thread is an official enough posting pending a re-write - if the rules are going to be edited.

[Adam Parker]

Cheers Pimlico: "It is important to have a thorough understanding of the above conditions that will send a TF heading for home."

Which is why this experienced war gamer asked the question and not invited a debate. It was a simple "please help if you know" and not a bitch "oh I've just spent x% of my daily food ration printing a manual and it has typos".

You don't need to tell me about typos in game manuals - I write them.

And I have plenty of skill at making them - typos that is.

So, if a 2by3 guy can please stop by and:

1. Explain the rule.
2. Tell me if there is still a sentence missing in the para.
3. Give me the missing TF icons or just tell if if UV's apply.

I'll then get on with the reading, ergo the playing and likely developing more fun questions.

[Pimlico]

For explaining the rule Frag's boolean statement was absolutely spot on, even though it contradicts the extra negatives in the rulebook. He's not a 2by3 guy but he is one of the beta testers.

[Mr.Frag]

Must be me ... I read it and it makes perfect sense to me.


Wording hasn't changed since UV and you are the very first person to say it's backwards.

Pg 29 of the UV manual if you happen to have it. (rule 8.10)

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Don't ask me to parse the rules, all I know is what I see. If one TF is following another, it will follow it, including patrolling with it in its DH if that is what it is set to do. It will do this until something else makes it stop.

You're pulling my leg right? The whole purpose of my thread is to have someone interpret the rules!

Which is why this experienced war gamer asked the question and not invited a debate. It was a simple "please help if you know" and not a bitch "oh I've just spent x% of my daily food ration printing a manual and it has typos".

I did know, and I tried to help, and you blew me off. Get your story straight, mate![:'(]

edit: oops, I forgot my smiley.

[Adam Parker]

Thanks Byron (and Pimlico for validating thw wrong double "not") - sometimes you just need to check with those who know if you're reading the same thing and this rule is central.

Frag appreciate you're a tester, never in doubt.

I didn't realize that the wording of 6.1.14 was taken verbatim from the UV manual. That's a useful shortcut in compilation but in this instance a sloppy one.

It's not an issue of me being the first to point it out - it's more likely the case of me being the first to really proof read it [:-] The other errors I've come across - wrong pics, typos etc are frustrating but minor - this issue was to a rule's meaning.

That's why I've been a member here for so long but you'll see so few posts from me. When I see something or want to check something or can truly help, I'll write.

I therefore take it that there is now no missing sentence at the end of 6.1.14 either - so part of the rule is not hanging (I've given up on the TF in a DH but still following something).

Now if someone could please help me with the last (and my first posted) issue. The TF icons on the map. They're missing from 4.2.5 on page 40. Have they changed from UV because there are more unit types now? Can we just use the reference card from UV to understand what type a TF is on the map? [&:]

Happy gaming,
Adam.

[Mr.Frag]

As you go through the manual, you will see almost all the artwork is in blue/red colours. These were the game colours right up until the final artwork was done.

Are you referring to the TF icons in 6.1.1 (pg 64)? These are the actual icons used. What is represented on the map is a sub set of these (no difference between the specialty types and the generic type on the map)

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Are you referring to the TF icons in 6.1.1 (pg 64)?

No the missing icons are the ones shown on page 11 of the UV manual and in the bottom right hand corner of the UV ref card.

The ones applicable to WITP should have been included in 4.2.5 on page 40 of the WITP manual. You'll see that page 64 section 6.1.1 refers readers to these icons in its first paragraph in bold but they are not there.

These are the little green and red TF icons that you move across the map.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Must be me ... I read it and it makes perfect sense to me.

Nah, you've just been staring at the screen for too long. Assuming the following is an accurate quote from the manual, there is an extra negative:

"Rule 6.1.14 There are several events that will cause a TF to automatically return to its home base. These events are:... 3. If the TF is at its DH and none of the following conditions are true:.... 2) it is not following another TF"

TF1 is following TF2 (and TF1 should not, therefore, go home). The statement that TF1 "is not following another TF" is therefore NOT true. We'll call this statement X, which is, again, NOT true. Working back into the next item in the logic chain, the TF will return home if "none of the following are true." The TF will return home because none of the following, including Statement X, are true. However, this is counter to what we expected, since TF1 is following another TF and should NOT go home.

The easier way to look at it is just to have two negatives cancel each other out. Having done so, the statement would read as follows (which is more obviously incorrect):

"Rule 6.1.14 There are several events that will cause a TF to automatically return to its home base. These events are:... 3. If the TF is at its DH and [delete] the following conditions are true:.... 2) it is [delete] following another TF"

Adam, as to your comment on giving up "on the TF in a DH but still following something" thingy, that's in bad form. Get over the typo; the logic is clear. In general, so long as TF1 is following TF2 around, TF1 will not return to its homebase. Probably the biggest exception (I think) is if you have TF1 set to retire. But if you have TF1 set to do not retire, it will stay tied like a string to TF2 (with other exceptions of course!). Assume in this instance that TF1 does not have a DH and you therefore never satisfy this prerequisite of the test for going home. (As someone else pointed out, the screen will not let you have both a DH and a follow command at the same time).

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: byron13

Adam, as to your comment on giving up "on the TF in a DH but still following something" thingy, that's in bad form. Get over the typo; the logic is clear. In general, so long as TF1 is following TF2 around, TF1 will not return to its homebase.

No bad form intended. My logic and confusion is only this:

1. This rule *only* talks about what a TF does once it enters its DH.
2. If TF2 follows TF1, TF1's DH becomes TF2's DH - page 90.
3. If TF2 has followed TF1 into TF1's DH, TF2 is now in its own DH too.
4. TF2 is therefore no longer following anything.

So why does this rule refer to a TF that is in its DH still following something?

I believe the rule should just say: "When a TF enters its DH it will return to its home base unless: It is a sub patrol, it is loading/unloading, it is set to Patrol/Do Not Retire, it is given orders to the contrary. These cases are not cumulative."

Is this right?

Thanks,
Adam.

[Mr.Frag]

When a TF enters the DH (Destination Hex), the TF will return to the home base if:

a) It is not already at the home base
b) It is not a sub patrol mission which do not allow the "Retirement Allowed" setting
c) It is set to "Patrol/Do not Retire"
d) It is not following another TF
e) It is not Unloading or Loading goods or troops

If any of the above five are the case, it will remain at the DH until conditions change. Multiple conditions could affect the outcome such as ships unloading that are also set "Patrol/Do not Retire".

That read better to you?

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

That read better to you?

Frag, on the basis that your question is courteous and not rhetorical, it does correct the important context changing typo. Thank you. It doesn't answer the question I've asked from post 1 as to why a) and d) are there?

I get accused of bad form but people who volunteer answers just don't look at the question. Please do me the courtesy of at least acknowledging that you've seen my issue but can't answer it or don't understand it. It would then be courteous to ask me to clarify if after volunteering, you remain unclear as to my intent. But ignoring a person's issue only leaves a bad taste.

I do thank Byron (followed by Pimlico) as the only two people who've led to things being resolved to date.

Yesterday you also (kindly) volunteered to assist with the missing manual icons question. Have you had any success there?

(AP: Cleaned it up a little, no use having a heart attack over these things).

[Mr.Frag]

a) & d) are there because they affect what happens ... obviously you are not going to return home if you are already at home, same with a "following" tf.

As for map ship icons, this what you mean?

[Adam Parker]

Thanks, that's it. I hope you can get it into the manual or possibly Mark can create a color reference card for printing.

There was no way for me to tell if those icons had changed between UV and WITP without seeing something. I trust this will assist newbies to the series too.

Whilst all this was going on, our embassy in Jakarta was bombed today. By the looks of things, an Oklahoma style fertilizer job but likely not Al Qaida being that there was no secondary device. Possibly an Indonesian inside effort aimed at paving the way for an Al Qaida infrustructure in the future. I was too busy at work to even realise and caught it 4 hours after the act on the 5pm local news.

It occured on an Island grouping at the heart of this game, now a dictatorship and a stronghold in the war for terror.

Highly sobbering.

Thanks for finalizing this last issue for me.
Adam.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
It occured on an Island grouping at the heart of this game, now a dictatorship and a stronghold in the war for terror.

Last time I looked, Indonesia (to which I assume you're refering) was a democracy.

[Mr.Frag]

Whilst all this was going on, our embassy in Jakarta was bombed today. By the looks of things, an Oklahoma style fertilizer job but likely not Al Qaida being that there was no secondary device. Possibly an Indonesian inside effort aimed at paving the way for an Al Qaida infrustructure in the future. I was too busy at work to even realise and caught it 4 hours after the act on the 5pm local news.

Yikes ... one day people will just learn to get along with each other. Maybe I'll still be around to see it.