Fortifications

[Yoper]

Q: Can a fortification turn into an infantry unit during the the active players movement phase and then immediately participate in combat?

I see in the rules where it talks about the fortification reverting into an infantry unit so as to retreat from a battle or move.  Does that mean the ability to move into combat? 

I thought (and so did the player who wanted to use the infantry in offensive action) that it was pretty clear that one would be able to use the converted infantry unit immediately in combat since it changed over in the movement phase and the combat phase comes after that.   

But others (to include the one on defense) seemed to think that the appropriate sentence wasn't clear enough on this point.

 

[Mark]

Yoper - you are right - a fort can be converted into an infantry unit and move to attack during the owning player's movement phase.  Per the Unit Rules under fortifications:

At any time during a players movement or when being attacked in a combat phase, the owning player of a fortification may convert an undamaged or a damaged fortification back into an infantry unit in order to move or to retreat from a battle.

[Yoper]

At any time during a players movement or when being attacked in a combat phase, the owning player of a fortification may convert an undamaged or a damaged fortification back into an infantry unit in order to move or to retreat from a battle.

This statement is an example of rule that could be better served by breaking it into two separate sentences for clarity sake:

1) During a players movement phase, that player may convert a fortification into an infantry unit.  The infantry unit can move normally and it can participate in combat.

2) When defending, a player may convert an undamaged or a damaged fortification back into an infantry unit in order to retreat it from a battle.

Craig

[thenorthman]

Personal opinion but the way it reads now seems to be very clear on that and just seperating it into  more sentences will proably have a person asking questions about each sentence at a later time.

Sean

[Mark]

I'll try and make this rule clearer.  I really appreciate everyone's efforts to make these rules more airtight - please keep the edits and suggestions coming!

When do we get to see some pictures of the ultimate set of painted miniatures Northman?

[Yoper]

You may think that it is clear the way it is (just as Mark may have thought it is clear the way it is), but the problem is that there are other who don't think it is clear the way it is.

I wouldn't be asking for a clarification unless it was necessary. 

One of the players in my group didn't think it was clear enough, especially when it was being used to allow a large group of Soviets to escape an out-of-supply pocket.  The one in-supply unit that was attacking in conjuction with the whole group of out-of-supply units happened to be a fortification.

Allowing the fortification to convert and attack, coupled with the ability of the pocketed units to retreat forward out of trouble certainly changed the dynamic in that section of the front.

You need to realize that differrent people learn in different ways.  They see things differently.  As such they can take the same piece of information and come up with a different interpretation.

I personally came to the same conclusion as Mark did and that was my opinion when the two sides asked for a ruling.

Craig   

[thenorthman]

I do realize that happens but then there is  "dumbing up" (for lack of a better word) of the rules.

You can simplify and clairify something forever and there still will be somebody out there who needs clairfication on something. 

There is a point where all your doing is repeating the same thing over and over but just slightly different in terms of the words used.  When this happens you'll have a rule book that is so clear (maybe for most but there still would be the one person who needs clairification because he/she reads the meaning of the rule differently) that it is 100 pages thick.  Which isn't bad unless it is repeating an example over and over just slightly different.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is a great game but if the rule book had 20 pages of examples to begin with I proably wouldn't of gotten into it because it would have "seemed" to comlicated.  Mark has to worry about doing that, making it look to complicated to just a passerbyer who asked to look at the rules.

Sean

[John D.]

One other quick note - just in case it was not clear. In any case,  once you convert a fort back into a troop and you want to fort it again, you must pay the cost of converting it back into a fort.

John

[Yoper]

I do realize that happens but then there is  "dumbing up" (for lack of a better word) of the rules.

You can simplify and clairify something forever and there still will be somebody out there who needs clairfication on something. 

There is a point where all your doing is repeating the same thing over and over but just slightly different in terms of the words used.  When this happens you'll have a rule book that is so clear (maybe for most but there still would be the one person who needs clairification because he/she reads the meaning of the rule differently) that it is 100 pages thick.  Which isn't bad unless it is repeating an example over and over just slightly different.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is a great game but if the rule book had 20 pages of examples to begin with I proably wouldn't of gotten into it because it would have "seemed" to comlicated.  Mark has to worry about doing that, making it look to complicated to just a passerbyer who asked to look at the rules.

Sean

Actually, there are many places in the rule book where they repeat themselves.  If all those instances were removed, we could slice of at least two pages on the rule book.

I think this situation isn't a matter of "dumbing down" of the rules, I think that it is a matter of writing style. 

The style in which Mark writes is one in which many time he jams two thoughts together into one sentence.  At other times he states the same piece of information, in a slightly different manner, in a sentence within the same paragraph or section.

There are times when he specifically states a point that you would think that "anyone" should get from the sentence before because it is the thing that would be prohibited by the prior sentence.

There are places in the examples where the rule is actually explained better/more fully/a bit differently than it is in the normal written text.

These are just a few examples of what I am talking about.

Having worked on rule sets for other games, I understand the dilemma that one is faced with in writing a rule book.  There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to explaining a topic.  You are not going to be able to put in the amount of information that will explain it to everyone in every case.  But you do try to do it as well as possible in as many cases as you can.

If there is a place that this rule set can be clearer, I will point it out.  It would be a disservice to all who try to play the game not to.

Craig

[Yoper]

Here is an example of what can happen even with what should be a clean set of rules from a large game company with people who are suppose to edit and review these things.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15969

The players who are discussing this one rule are some very good minds that have contributed a lot to the A&A community for the last few years.

No matter how you slice it, there are going to be things that can be done better.

That is why we are here.  To talk about what the rules say and why they say them.

Communication of the intent in the best possible manner.

Craig

[John D.]

Craig - agreed - appreciate the input!

John

[thenorthman]

You are correct my point is that some of the things are pretty clear that have been brought up.

Thats all.  If it needs to be made clearer ask away I will not reply or post anything to them again.

Example the AA gun on another post.  Yet so be it, it is not my game and I have no say so in the rules or whatever.

Sean

[Yoper]

But you do have a say!

That is what this message board is for.

Mark and John have both stated that the input is appreciated.

Craig

[Mark]

Northman, Yoper, John,

I appreciate everyone's feedback and suggestions - please keep them coming.  One thing I have learned is that 10 people can interpret the same paragraph 10 different ways - and that there is always room for improvement.

We have caught and corrected a lot of soft spots in the rules over the last year via this forum and everyone's contribution makes the rules and the game a much better experience! 

So, 'thank you' to everyone !

[Mark]

Northman - is there something confusing about AA guns or something you think could be done differently with them?