Q about FAQ
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
New FAQ today has this about Stalingrad campaign. We had the same question, But the FAQ answer didn’t help.
“The special rule “Off-Map Battery” (on pages 137 & 138 of “Campaign: Stalingrad”) states, “Soviet players are not allowed to take artillery units”. This in turn is seemingly contradicted in the (“NOT A STEP BACK!” REINFORCED PLATOON (SEPTEMBER 1942) and the “NO LAND BEYOND THE VOLGA” REINFORCED PLATOON (SEPTEMBER– NOVEMBER 1942) selectors by the Artillery section in both stating “0–1 Gun from:”. Which one is right?
The special rule overrules the force selection in this case.”
The question basically says why does the selector say “No artillery” and yet has the option of 0-1 gun. The FAQ says the special rules overrides but this is illogical since the rule is PART of the selector.
The only explanation I can find is that the FAQ answer is wrong. OR…… The definition of Artillery means light/med/hvy “howitzer types” , rather than anything appearing in ARTILLERY sections of Army Lists. Which means the Theater selector DOES allow an anti-tank gun.
Anyone? Cheers
From what I understand, it comes down to AA and AT are not considered “Artillery” in the sense that howitzers are. I think that Warlord has made this unnecessarily convoluted. The last FAQ answered the same question
“There are a few Soviet selectors that have the special rule “OffMap Battery” that states that Soviet players are not allowed to take artillery units. However, the selector still allows anti-tank and antiaircraft options which are Artillery units in Bolt Action. Are Soviet players allowed to use AT and AA guns in theatre selectors with the Off-Map Battery rule?”
“Yes, you may take AT and AA units in theatre selectors with the Off-Map Battery rule. Any unit listed within a theatre selector will always be a legal choice. In this case the Off-Map Battery rule refers to field howitzers being unavailable – not Artillery as a Bolt Action unit type.”
While the most recent FAQ that you posted above seems to refute this, I think it is still in the vein of AT and AA are not “field howitzers.” I don’t see why they answered the question a second time in a way that seems contradictory. Usually if they do so, they remove the previous entry or state “the entry will be changed as follows.” It is really glaring as the entries are exactly side by side.
Well, for IO, the son of a WW II artillery officer the wording is 100 % clear.
I think that there had been a change in gamers, today old common knowledge is lost. In the rules we used in the 70’s nobody expected a wording that explain basics. The Stalingrad page 135 tells everything you need for that scenario under Off-Map Battery You can have true artillery guns on Eastern bank and use them with the optional forward Artillery Observer and get a second strike. That that does not include the AT / AA guns mentioned in the list on top for Western bank is so obvious for old farts like me that we would not notice a problem.
That basic loss, I see that often with other publications, crime novels and news. “Young” authors writing fuss like .38 revolvers to have a 38 mm barrel. A stupid error but worse, many readers don’t notice it. Because it is there black on white. That shows a change in society.
Well common sense isnt common :p … what makes sense to me (due to my time in the army) might not make sense to my brother who’s never served, so who do you write the rules for me or him?
Saying i’m all right Jake (as you just did, saying you dont have an issue understanding it) IS part of the problem (in making games accessible to all**).. I read it when I got the Stalingrad book and went..’eh?? that doesnt make sense’ stopped looked at the special rule, then back to whats allowed and went ‘ah, ok thats what they mean…’. However I do see why people would get confused, Wargamming is becoming more acceptable as a hobby and the number of people who have served or are children of those who have is getting less (the company where I work less than 15% would fall in to either category)
So personally I’d have re-written the ‘off map battery’ rule to read something along the lines of ‘As only AA & AT guns are included in this Theater List any Art. Obs can call in a 2nd artillery strike once the first one has been resolved’
Warlord (and other rules writers) need to stop putting history/background in to the rules instructions. Keep the background and the rules separate!* Also when you start using terms in a rules sense you need to keep those terms purely for that usage. Its to stop the confusion of every one who plays.
*means you dont get the Cruel Seas issue of the Bronkreaters turret rule in the middle of the Soviet Background section pages away from any other rule!
** although no where near as bad as the napoleonics forums where people start arguing about shades of colour for tunics or getting aggressive at people for incorrect uniforms…
A look at the 2nd edition Armies of Germany book (see attached) lists several types as an artillery unit. And definitely we cannot write a book with the assumption that every reader knows what the author knows. Otherwise at the start of every book Warlord needs to insert the following caveat “Readers must have served or have relatives who have served in an armed forces before.”
Personally I think it is ok to make “mistakes” as no one is perfect. Just don’t try to explain it away by saying “it is obvious to me” or “everyone should know”.
Attachments:
Well Master Chief, that screenshot shows where to find the entry for a type. It does not say that all under one header are the same. Like the vehicles in that table that can be very different like tank and tow.
Nat, you write: ” I read it when I got the Stalingrad book and went..’eh?? that doesnt make sense’ stopped looked at the special rule, then back to whats allowed and went ‘ah, ok thats what they mean…’. “
So if on reads the full page one understands.
These Campaign books are for special occasions, not a one rule fits all like in the basic rule book. That the Scenario has background and the rules together is an advantage not a problem. Because you see at a glance: Why. So it is repeated on next page in next Scenario. The alternative would be to have notes like : See page xx for Background. And I’m sure then we get critics saying why it is not on Scenario page, saving time.
Alexander Smith wrote a very clear Scenario. All you have to do is read the full page.
Well you don’t need to have served, , my “she S. ” has no WW II gaming interest, she’s more in the shades of colours of pre 1918 uniforms. I showed her the page and she understood it at first glimpse.
If there is a writer’s mistake it is Alexander’s expectation that a person that decides to buy a WWII rule campaign addition set has the same abilities his wife Quinn has.
Rules to me must are like technical laws, they must are clear, for me a regulation must be written as a technical rule, not ambiguous, not doubly interpretable, if you define something with a word it must be like this from start to finish, not verbose but synthetic and schematic, the player only has to find the rule that fits the specific case.
If this is not the case then the regulation is poorly written as would a poorly technical law. Furthermore the rules must be well highlighted and apart from the historical references, from all the bla bla and all the motivations behind the rules
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.