Another 2 Fortress America card questions

[DY]

How do you interpret the word together in the text of the card:

Army veterans rally together adjacent to St. Louis (4 infantry)

I just had it come up in a PBEM game and I placed 3 infantry in one territory and one man in another. Now I'm wondering if all 4 should have been placed together in the same territory. I also assume you can't place them in St. Louis itself.

The other card I want your opinions on is:

MAJOR AIRLIFT! Move any or all USA units from one territory to another territory (including a city) unoccupied by enemy units

I have always put the emphasis on the words "one territory" saying that you can essentially move any ONE stack (or part thereof) on the map.

The first player I ever had a game of FA with (it was his set but he'd lost his rulebook) interpreted it as basically letting the USA player move "all" his units on the board. So in essence he claimed he could reorganise his ENTIRE force on the board.

I'm pretty sure I'm right and he was wrong, but I'm interested in your views (particularly Steve from Strafing Run and GROGnads who have played a lot of FA)

[DY]

Yeah, i've been scanning the FA updates, but I'm waiting until it's game over to set up my board and recreate your big game.

Actually re MA being weak early, in one game I'm currently playing I've only pulled 1 card out of 12 that has given me any partisans. So far I've pulled both Legions of Liberty, the Oil Resource card, MA and clear weather! Seriously how bad is not actually getting any troops on the board :( I think the only card left in the deck that doesn't give me any extra dudes is the Scorpions.



Thanks for the birthday wishes :)

[DY]

Hmmm, if my opponent is reading this, we can either replace my 1 infantry with the other 3 and let me change my 2nd movement or we can ignore it. He didn't take part in any combat so it's easy enough for me to fix.

[Krieghund]

On the St. Louis question, we've always played that the units can be placed together or separately in any space adjacent to St. Louis. My interpretation of the statement is that individuals "rally together" into units. It may be reading too much into the word "together" to say that they must all be placed in one territory, since there is no specific language on placement, such as on other cards saying things like "in one territory" or "place units separately wherever possible".

[DY]

Actually Krieghund that was how I used to argue the point on the word "together". As you say, all the other cards specifically say things like:

place units separately where possible

or

in one Eastern Sector territory

or

in one or two Western sector territories

What do you think about that GROGnads?

[DY]

Yeah I saw it the first time mate ;)

[Anzio]

I usually place all 4 in one space, but it is definitely open to interpretation.
Why in the Hell are all of these cards so vague?

Can Y2UAsk get in touch with the designer and get him in here to clarify these things? Does anyone else know how to get in touch with him?

We have a whole dictionary of words available, People. Let's pick the best ones to get our thoughts across BEFORE printing 10 kazillion cards that nobody knows what to do with! There are tons of points in this game where a slight misinterpretation of a single card can ruin the whole game and some of us have almost 4 months invested in their games!

-Steve

[boylermaker]

I think that there might be something about this very card in the rules; I'll look it up sometime, see if I'm right. But anyway, I would discount the word together and say put them around St. Louis in any way you want, singly, all together, or whatever. After all, each unit doesn't represent one guy, a whole lot of vets have to rally together to form even one infantry.

[boylermaker]

There is a mention of the St. Louis card in the rulebook, but it doesn't answer the question.
And, GROGnads, couldn't we take stuff out of the arsenals and ship it to the vets? Or use captured invader stuff being shipped back from the front? They wouldn't need to be all clumped for that.
Also, any idea what the time scale is for this game? Is a round two weeks, a month, what?

[Chunksoul]

How long would an SDI laser take to build and deploy? That is about how long a turn would be.

[Krieghund]

GROGnads, I really don't think the equipment argument holds water. Where do partisan units get their equipment? I suspect the army veterans can get theirs from the same source - it doesn't have to be army issue. The main difference between an infantry unit and a partisan unit is training, not necessarily equipment.

[boylermaker]

There isn't any mention in the background part of the rulebook about the law that soldiers/partisans may not use the bullets that they capture with the guns. Also, its the (alternate) future, maybe the US has converted to metric, or the commies only use US weapons.

Alos, I'd assume that the difference between partisans and soldiers isn't weaponry or training (partisan would have worse of both) but that the partisans are for whatever reason more determined, and that they are also more spread out, making it harder for the invaders to kill them, sort of like the lone destroyer that takes down half a fleet in Attack!

[Krieghund]

Never mind the "reality checks" - let's compare apples with apples. Here is another card:

Angry rebels band together in the Plains Sector to repel the invading hordes. Place units separately where possible.

This card has the exact same usage of the word "together", yet we are directed to place the units separately. Kind of supports the idea that rallying "together" can be done in more than one territory...

[boylermaker]

I have trouble understanding your post due to its circularity and large fonts and capital letters and rampant quotation marks, but I'm not sure you get what he means. It says
Angry rebels band together in the Plains Sector to repel the invading hordes. Place units separately where possible. And thank you, Krieghund, just the sort of thing that decides this question. That puts this issue rest (in my mind, at least).
And Hollywood Guns jam all the time, at dramatic moments.

[boylermaker]

Soo. . . you don't care to read anyone's posts but your own? ;)

Anyway, there are a lot of mechanics that we assume go on but aren't explicitly stated in the rules. For example, according to your interpretation, all casualties are KIA; none are wounded or captured, because the rules don't mention it. I'm not saying that I play by rules that give me more cards for destroying enemy units and capturing their materiel, just that there may be more going on in "real life" than is stated in the rules.

Though on second thought, considering we are discussing how (I think) the wording on a card affects gameplay, I have to admit you're right.

But not on the answer to the question. I still say that Kreighund solved that nicely.

[Krieghund]

I still say that Kreighund solved that nicely.

Thanks, boylermaker.

[DY]

Never mind the "reality checks" - let's compare apples with apples. Here is another card:

Angry rebels band together in the Plains Sector to repel the invading hordes. Place units separately where possible.

This card has the exact same usage of the word "together", yet we are directed to place the units separately. Kind of supports the idea that rallying "together" can be done in more than one territory...

Well spotted K, I think that pretty much clears it up for me.

[DY]

The point is that "together" is more to do with the "story" behind the card and not the actual "directions" for unit placement on the board.

[Krieghund]

If it's 'exactly' the same meaning, then how come they BOTH didn't have the 'exact' same wording?:eek:

Variety, perhaps? ;)

[Krieghund]

GROGnads, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

[DY]

Yep, agree to disagree G-man.

Like I implied earlier, I consider that most of the cards do two things:

1) tell a story (irrelevant to game play)

2) give actual directions (relevant to game play)

[Krieghund]

The BoardGameGeek cards are interesting, but I'm afraid a few of them would be way too powerful. Anything that destroys all units in a territory (especially a City) would fit into that category. I also believe that converting invader units to US ones may be too powerful as well.

I will look at your map later on...

[DY]

The cards we have included with the game are just fine.

[boylermaker]

get your finger out of whatever orifice it's in
I'm glad that you were able to form a 'reply' after removing your lips from "K's" butt! He probably appreciated that! heh heh heh
Let me put on my 'Mind Reading Cap' and look into the designer's mind!...Just as I thought! His mind is on OTHER things besides this game! NOW, let me do the same for YOU...Just as I thought, a total BLANK! Oh well, the "Mind Reading Cap" never lies!

Someone gets angry when he's losing. :p

While I am going to pass over GROGnads' apparent butt-fetish, I will deign to comment on the BoardGameGeek cards. Interesting, but why bother? My game's fine. I won't look at your map because I don't care enough to deal with my Yahoo account. There, I commented.

[DY]

Yeah that whole Yahoo thing doesn't suit my style :(

[Yoper]

I go with the interpretation that the together applies to/is directed to the veterans, not to the actual rallying location. Individual veterans rallying together to form new units. I think that the argument can then be had as to whether they(Individual Veterans) all rally together in one space adjacent to St. Louis or if they(IV) rally into many smaller units in multiple adjacent spaces.

As for the Major Airlift card, I go with the any or all USA units that are in one territory can be moved to another territory.

Settle down guys! Just because they did not do a very good job of writing and reviewing the cards does not mean we have to get all crazy. It is a problem across the board with these cards. Only a good debate concerning the meaning of the cards and maybe a concerted rewrite will fix the problem.

[Yoper]

Calm down Grogs!

One, it is always time to talk about screwed up cards. Just because I do not happen to agree with you interpretation does not mean that you have to get uppity.

Two, some of us have lives beyond this website (Okay, not much of one.) so we are not all over the thread as it is happening.

Gee my man, normally you are pretty level headed, but you seem to a bug up your arse in this thread. What's up with that?

[Krieghund]

Don't mind GROGnads, Craig. He's just upset because I used the word "liberal" in one of my earlier posts!

[Yoper]

Rehashed would indicate that I had hashed it in the first place. That was my first comment on the subject. I think that it was especially pertinent considering no real consensus had been reached.

I do not think I ever made a comment concerning the kind of television I like or do not like, but I do appreciate the obscure Willy Wonka reference. Keep up the good work!

[boylermaker]

I think that it was especially pertinent considering no real consensus had been reached.

Pertinant, yes. But a consensus has been reached; GROGnads is just off in his own little world on this one.

[Yoper]

That was my opinion, but I was trying to give 'NADS the benefit of the doubt.

I think that the designer thought that the cards were clear as to their meaning. The problem was that he knew exactly what they were supposed to mean, but we are left wondering because he did not elaborate. I think that is the case because the cards are consistent in the kind of vagueness that is present.

Once a certain frame of reference is established, I think that the cards make sense. It would be nice to have the input of the designer to verify such an interpretation.

[holywolfman]

WHo....What.....WHere? HUh? I have a "Simple" mind too (lol)- :p


I like to 'K.I.S.S.' (Keep It Simple Silly)- :cool:

[boylermaker]

Okay, I see your argument now. I admit that the strict literalist would have to play it your way, if possible, because he would see "together" as an instruction (as in one must follow all instructions possible on the card). I also admit that I am a strict literalist and so should agree with you. In fact, I did for about three days, but now I don't, because of your MA argument. Since you can apply that arguement to every card in the game, which is ridiculous, it merely shows me that you cannot be a literalist in this game.

Also, could you restate for us you argument refuting why "together" does not merely mean that there are multiple people in a unit?

[Krieghund]

I have already known & 'realized' that EVERY 'Unit' is composed of many individuals as such, but for the placement of them when they are to "Rally Together" where the entire phrase of "Place Seperately, where possible" isn't EVEN on the Card in Question and is being 'inferred' by yourself and others, then that is what I take issue with!

OK, I promised myself I'd stay out of this argument, since apparently neither side can be convinced (which is OK with me), but I cannot allow my point of view to be misrepresented. I am not inferring the inclusion of any phrase in the card. My point was that the absence of phrases like "place units separately where possible" and "in a single territory" would indicate that the player has a choice as to whether the units should be placed in one or multiple territories. As I will not rehash my entire position here, please see my previous posts for further information on intrepreting the word "together" in the context of this card (and DY's as well, since he and I are in perfect agreement on this issue and he brings up valid points).

Disclaimer: This post is for clarification purposes only and should in no way be construed as "beating a dead horse". I understand fully and completely that GROGnads' mind will not be changed by this or any other argument. ;) No reply is necessary or expected, unless it is a request for further clarification.

[GROGnads]

Okay, since you guys are so adamant about it, then in YOUR games, you can assume that those 'Troops' are suffering from the same dementia as yourselves and have good cases of 'schizophrenia', in which case they would be 'Rallying Together' amongst their many selves then...right!:rolleyes: So, this being the general consensus among the self-deluded, it is perfectly alright by me then and it doesn't interfere with the way that I'll play it but be sure to forewarn your gaming partners that you will be employing the "Wookie Defense" in your own gameplay!:eek:

[Yoper]

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Trying to explain something to Grognads and thinking that I will get a different result(him changing his mind or just seeing a different point of view) must then lead to the conclusion that I am insane.

Maybe I need to go back and take another English language class. I just might have gotten the wrong impression of how words modify or relate to other words within a sentence.

Oh well.

[GROGnads]

Don't forget 'talking to yourself, while expecting an answer, and even getting one'! You too, could use the 'chopped up Infantry bits' for placements, while for theraputic means, just repeat:
"GROGnads...GROGnads...GROGnads...GROGnads..."
when you're doing that!:eek:

[Yoper]

Are you enjoying yourself? Why don't you just return to the delusional world from which you came.

"I, Blownard, just love the pretty colors. They all look so beautiful when you put them TOGETHER."

[GROGnads]

...and at YOUR expense, no less! Keep providing the 'ammo', since I'll just "re-lock & re-load"! Thanks yiper, and all the many others too, since apparently you don't happen to have 'another life', and I LIVE for the moment to 'counter' the likes of YOU! You know yiper...I wonder...just what is the color of the SKY in your 'little world', hmmmm? Another 'thing', a "rainbow's" COLORS don't appear as "seperately, where possible", they are ALWAYS 'together' and quite nice to look at, but maybe they don't appear in the 'sky' that you're viewing?:eek: "Get DOWNNnn...with yo bad seff!...and stay there!" :p

[Yoper]

Just keep digging! You might get there some day.

[Yoper]

1) I am all bark and no bite!

2) You sure waste a lot of energy for something you seem to think isn't worth a damn.
"Hello? Mr. Kettle? This is Pot calling."

[Yoper]

Question- If a sound emanates from Blownards' blowhole, does anyone hear it?

Answer- As long as Blownard hears it, no one else really matters.

Me thinks you doth protest too much. (Or maybe it's post too much.)

Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood gnat

[Yoper]

You started this stupidity. If you do not like the opinions of the rest of us concerning the FA cards then that's your problem. Your entitled to you opinion, I just think that your wrong.

Get over yourself!

[Yoper]

What I would like to do is engage in an intelligent discussion about the FA cards and what they say. It just seems that you are unable to join me in such an endeavor. So sad.

[GROGnads]

I'll be the first to put this behind us then, and apologize for having gotten out of topic in this regard, and you can join with the others in their 'beliefs' for interpreting them YOUR way and I"ll do likewise for myself! It was what I was attempting to accomplish in the first place, if you happened to notice, when you chimed in on that particular sore subject. I can understand our frustrations in obtaining the 'correct' intepretations from the 'Official' sources so as to put these doubts to rest once and for all! It would have been so much easier if they had adopted more careful wording of these in the Cards to begin with, instead of leaving so much pertinent and unresolved 'descriptions' to the whimsy of the Players.

I too, have to admit, that with some of them, there could be a couple of 'ways or means' in which they could be construed to allow the impression of several things that could be permitted when performing actions according to the 'instructions'. I have no idea if the folks here plan on instituting some sort of "Game Rules Review Board", for such as what we've 'rediscovered' from our playings of this, nor do I believe that it is incumbent upon them to do this. It would certainly go a long way of mollifying any situations that could and will arise with this, and just about every other game that is out there, that is under their 'banner' and so we look up to them to adjudicate these. Just look at what's cropping up with even the *NEW* games, such as they are. They have been great, in some regards, for most of the games that have even required a "F.R.A.Q", while even providing this for our use here, although they'll need to update these when the need is made apparent, after other questions are brought forth.

[Yoper]

I agree. Well said. I look forward to working towards a better understanding of all things gaming and non gaming. Enjoy.