Matrix Games Forums

There is some references to section 13.1 in a number of places in the BOH-rulebook, for example 8.0 "Unless modified for Ambush (13.1) or...". The problem is that there is no 13.1. The question is where can i find the text about Ambush?

/Laz

It's a rule in the Forgotten Heroes Vietnam rulebook relating to a special characteristic of the Viet Cong!

Firepower of the VC is tripled for the 1st round of melee if it enters melee without the target having LOS to it at the start. This 1st round of melee is considered non-simultaneous with enemy dead removed before replying.

Keep your Claymores handy [:)]

Cheers,
Adam.

Ok, thanks everybody. I think it wasn't supposed to be any Ambush-rules in BOH, so its just errata.

/Laz

ORIGINAL: Laszlo

Ok, thanks everybody. I think it wasn't supposed to be any Ambush-rules in BOH, so its just errata.

/Laz

No, I wouldn't call it "errata" as the rule book is intended to be a compilation of previous mods where rules are combined into one handy location. I don't think it's stated in the rulebook, but, I've seen it quoted on a forum somewhere (maybe here, not sure). By not stating this it is certainly a bit confusing, plus, not all the rules are combined. For example, I bought LnL Vietnam a few weeks ago to get the hang of the game system while waiting for BOH. Once I got BOH I stopped reading the rules to the other game as they were supposed to be the final answer to all previous mods. However, the new rules don't mention that "ambushes" are in the Vietnam mod, plus, there are no national characteristics for the VC/NVA units in the new book. A good idea, a good effort, but, missing a few things here and there.

I think it was a bad idea including the rules for both (all) LnL games under one cover. It clutters the rules for this game with information that is unnecessary, and confusing. It reminds me of whenever I buy electronics and have to wade through instructions in three or four different languages. Except that with the different languages it's obvious what I don't need to read.

Perhaps Mark/Matrix might want to borrow a page from the old SPI Quad Series of games. Anyone who recalls those systems might remember that they had a "basic" rulebook that would provide the basic rules that applied to all of the games. Then, each game would include a separate rules booklet specific to that game. I thought it was a great system -- clear and very easy to use.

ORIGINAL: Magua

I think it was a bad idea including the rules for both (all) LnL games under one cover. It clutters the rules for this game with information that is unnecessary, and confusing.

See, I feel just the opposite.

It's easier to skip sections (ie-Helicopters) that have nothing to do with whatever scenario I'm running than to have separate rulebooks for everything.

It's almost like saying that the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook should have been broken down into the myriad classes, skills, and feats for the individual races. Why? All of the rules should be in one convenient place.

Even so, it seems some rules were left out of this version of LnL, and I would like to have had them included (if such were feasible). It's much easier to skip a section I don't need than to have a handful of rulebooks cluttering the table.

Thus, there's no pleasing everyone, eh?

ORIGINAL: puck4604

Thus, there's no pleasing everyone, eh?

I see your point about lots of supplement type things. Ideally it would be best to have a discreet rulebook for each game, that covers only the rules pertinent to that specific game. I mentioned in an earlier post, that if the notes section for Bocage, hedges, and walls had been included in the rules, as opposed to being on the Player's Reference card, and all references to terrain types that aren't in BoH were also removed, the Terrain Effects table would fit on 8.5 x 11, instead of 11 x 17, making it a lot easier to use. Also by segregating the game's rules, you avoid whacky conflicts, like the reference to the M-79 in the Bocage notes, or the Ambush issue. There is absolutely no benefit that I can see to this infomation to be included in the rules for this game.

If it doesn't contribute to the player's understanding of the game, then it shouldn't be included. At least that's my two cents. [>:]

I don't own the previous incarnation of LnL(not a fan of Vietnam era), so I found the extra rules unnecesary, and at worst-confusing. At one point, a German unit is refered to as "VC". I have no objection to the extra rules for the other games at the end as an addendum to the current ones, in fact it shows a dedication to the previous buyers. I just wish that the Vietnam era stuff was kept completely seperate. It makes a confusing read for those new to the system.

Hi Guys,

I have to say that I really like the idea of a complete rules set. In fact, in retrospect, I should have included everything, including the national characteristics for the VC, NVA, and ARVN. I want peple to have a COMPLETE rules set whenever they come into the system.

I think it is most fair to the customer, and the easiest way to track all the rules. I remember the nighmare of SL, COD, COI, and don't want to go there.

Best,

Mark

Well, that is incredibly generous. And I completely understand your concern about the ASL thingie. But from a user's point-of-view, I approach BOH and FH as two different games, not as a single game taking place at different times, or in different theaters, or as a universal system. So I see any references to anything but the game at hand as distracting, and adding to the complexity of learning and understanding the system. All of the extra info also means I have to work harder and take more time when referencing during play -- a very bad thing. The rules become thicker, and the font on the Player's Reference card gets smaller.

I don't think that AH was wrong in how they disseminated their supplements for ASL. I think the method was good. Their problem lay in that they didn't know when to stop. They took a great game, and turned it into something that makes the Bible seem like a weekend read.

Please continue to give this some thought. I think you really want the game and components to continue to be as clean and uncluttered as possible. As my old design teacher used to say, "Less is more."

No IMO Mark has it right. To make the concept really work though, the charts need to be all inclusive and things such as nationality traits should become appendices.

As things stand the charts could be better. I've already penned 5 notes and DRM's in that are in the rules but would be better if also on the card.

Btw on topic, under the BoH rules I'm now reading, Ambush melee is now considered simultaneous.

In all due respect, how does adding Helicopters to the rules for BoH make the rules for that game better? Or how does adding a reference to the M-79 in the bocage explanation section on the player's reference card, make that section easier to understand? Or, how does having a Terrain Effects table that is twice the size than it could be, and where one-third to half the information has nothing at all to do with the game you are playing make it easier to use?

The answer is easy. They don't. I understand the seductive power of trying to create a single all-encompassing tome, especially form the point-of-view of the author and perhaps advanced users. But for us more ordinary types, it just makes it all the more difficult to figure out and use. And for the novices, it might just be daunting enough to scare them away.

The fact is, including this extra info, and more, makes learning and playing the game more difficult -- a step that is clearly in the opposite direction from what I understand Mark's intent to be, from his ad copy and responses here in the forum. If one wants a clean, concise and easy to use set of rules, then the last thing you need is to include information that has nothing to do with the game.

[8D]

Here's where the problem lies-I bought the game for the WW2 setting. I have no interest in playing games representing the Vietnam era(though my father is a combat vet 101AB, 1970). So, the rules are simply extra baggage for people like me, and tend to get in the way and create confusion, and a few rather odd situations in the rulebook. In essence, I'm paying for something I don't want-where something else could be printed-a series of play chart for ex.

This does not mean that I feel that those that will buy every LnL game that comes out should be penelized because of rule updates being left out that pertain to older versions. I don't mind if there is a seperate booklet that adds to the other modules, that's more than fine by me. But this raises the spectre of what turned me off to ASL, rules flab.

If the series is going to take on a WW2 setting, seperate rulebooks shouldn't be a big deal-I would be curious to see how much overlap there is between the Vietnam LnL buyers and the WW2 era buyers.

That's a good point. Likewise, I have no interest in gaming Viet Nam. Dunno why. I just don't.

But I also wonder at the can of worms that might be opened by schmooshing it all together. The M-79 reference in the Bocage notes on the Player's Reference card is a perfect example. Here is a situation that will never come up in either game, yet because these features are included in one game or the other, they must be addressed if the rulebook is to be common. Same thing with VN era ATGM's too. There will need to be an explanation as to how these things work (or don't work) with BoH era terrain and target types. Or maybe not.

Well, as I said above, these are concerns from the POV of the "everyday" user. I assume there are economic, as well as creative issues that go into the decision too. And these may very well result in a bottom line that will be the deciding factor.

Okay. Fine. You want me to say it? Okay. I'll say it. I'm old (well, older). I've got the attention span of a two-year old, and the memory of a senior citizen. The shorter, the better. The more clear, the better. The fewer distractions, the better.

Now you'll have to excuse me. There's a Matlock marathon on TV, and I don't want to miss a single episode. Hmmm. Where did I leave my teeth? [>:]

C'mon. What does age have to do with anything?

I'm 38.

Sure, I have to reread some items a few times, but how hard is it really just to skip past the rules you don't need? And if you read about an M-79 being used in a hex with a bocage, sure it makes you pause for a second, but is it really that confusing? It may be if you don't know much about weapons and eras/wars in which they were used, but I'm willing to guess that most people playing LnL (or other squad-level) games know what wars they'll be playing within.

In fact, my only complaint--and it's a minor one--goes with what Adam said several messages above this one. I went ahead and scribbled certain notes on my Player Reference Chart: spotting and the mechanics on how it works; and how combat is sorted out. I'm old and lazy and don't want to have to continually flip open the rulebook... [;)]

I'm not personally attacking any of you who believe that the rulebook should have stayed WWII-centric. I just think it would be much easier to buy a series of maps and counters to play future modules in the LnL series over needing several rulebooks, especially since the core rules will never be changing (unless a glaring error appears).

Now, to go catch that M*A*S*H marathon and drink my Metamucil...

38? Yer a pup. Why, when I was yer age, I...nevermind. Anyway, the age thing was a joke. [;)]

Sure, I have to reread some items a few times, but how hard is it really just to skip past the rules you don't need? And if you read about an M-79 being used in a hex with a bocage, sure it makes you pause for a second, but is it really that confusing? It may be if you don't know much about weapons and eras/wars in which they were used, but I'm willing to guess that most people playing LnL (or other squad-level) games know what wars they'll be playing within.

Seems to me a lot of people were a bit confused about the Ambush reference, and to be honest when I first read the reference to the M-79 in the Bocage notes of the Player's Reference card, I found it so incongruous that I thought it was a reference to a rules section or hex-number at first. In a game about paratroopers in Normandy in WWII, why in the world would we ever be talking about an M-79?

In fact, my only complaint--and it's a minor one--goes with what Adam said several messages above this one. I went ahead and scribbled certain notes on my Player Reference Chart: spotting and the mechanics on how it works; and how combat is sorted out. I'm old and lazy and don't want to have to continually flip open the rulebook...

I agree, and I can't help but noticing that if the Player's Reference Card wasn't already packed with stuff that has nothing to do with the game, there would be space for just the kind of things you are talking about.

I'm not personally attacking any of you who believe that the rulebook should have stayed WWII-centric. I just think it would be much easier to buy a series of maps and counters to play future modules in the LnL series over needing several rulebooks, especially since the core rules will never be changing (unless a glaring error appears).

I didn't think you were. We all amigos here. [:'(] I'd wager the plan is that a full set of rules will be included with every game, and because they will include new special rules for that game, they will get bigger and bigger, with the core rules becoming more and more disseminated throughout the document. And more and more time will be spent leafing through the book looking for that particular rules reference you need. Sound familiar?

What I'm suggesting is this. The core rules exist as a discreet document. Whenever you buy a complete LnL game, you get one of those. Each game, in addition to it's own counters and maps, includes a supplemental set of rules (that are pertinent only to that game), along with the core rules. A game add-on would include only counters, boards, and supplemental rules if needed. With this format, it's fast and easy for the player to see what's new and different, and it makes ingame referencing faster and easier.

I like things faster and easier. I also like them when you can fit them on the head of a pin. I'l bet I'm not the only one.

BTW, I'm a tinkerer at heart. So I've been working on a quick reference sheet that includes the details of combat, spotting, and the rest, along with all of the modifiying factors, which is what I think you were refering to above. It's almost done, I'll just need a place to post it.

Phew. I'm tired. That Matlock marathon had me up past 8:30 last night.

ORIGINAL: Magua

Phew. I'm tired. That Matlock marathon had me up past 8:30 last night.

LOL!

Hey, when you finish with your modification of the reference sheet, post it here:

Boardgame Geek--LnL Page

They do that? Thanks Puck. I'll wrap it up, post it, and place a note here.

I approach BOH and FH as two different games, not as a single game taking place at different times, or in different theaters, or as a universal system.

Magua, I hear and respect your opinion, but you are wrong. They ARE EXACTLY the same game, in two different eras. You could read the rules for LnL: FH and then play BoH without ever cracking the rulebook (you would need the TEC).

Adam, email me your TEC/players aid suggestions. I'll look at putting them in the next module.

Best,

Mark