We Demand Clarification!

[Anzio]

Someone, somewhere in the AH community knows the guy who designed Fortress America. I think one guy even claims to have played the game with the designer (Y.2U.ask?)

I think that someone needs to contact this person and request a COMPLETE list of cards and EXACTLY what you can do with them.

I hate to sound like a child, but I do not wish to play the game again until these vague instructions are addressed. There are too many situations late in the game where everybody has a house rule and every piece counts. We can sit here all day and debate what "together" means, but until someone "at the top" confirms it, it is meaningless.

I hope that in the future, people will attempt to actually edit such things so that these situations do not occur. I'm not attacking the designer - there are a lot of people down the line who could have been responsible.

Anyway, can someone do the FA community a HUGE favor and start the process of writing this guy?

-Steve

[Krieghund]

If people are planning on any amount of organized play, a consensus would be useful.

[DY]

Which other cards do you find vague? I've asked a question about the rallying "together" card and the major airlift card. I've never found any of the other 28 cards to cause a dispute.

[Anzio]

Well, for one, there is the "Miners retreat Invaders from 4 Mineral Resource Territories" card.

The rules do not explain if you may place a Partisan in an unoccupied mineral territory or if there must be an invader unit present to actually be retreated.
Example: The US player only has 2 mineral resource territories taht are actually enemy-occupied and gets this card late in the game. Does he only get to play 2 new partisans, even if there are other semi-eligible spots to place new units (such as a mineral territory w/ a control marker but no units).

Same thing applies to many cards which deal with Agriculture and Oil Territories - no one ever says if the unit can have a control marker, etc. to be eligible.

I just feel that a couple extra pages in the rulebook to explain these extremely important cards would have been nice...

-Steve

[Krieghund]

The miners card doesn't seem that complicated to me. On page 9 it says "Follow as many directions as possible on your Partisan cards." So I would say that you can place the units in mineral resource territories that still belong to you if there are not enough that have been captured. You would have to pick territories that are enemy-occupied first, then enemy-controlled second, then uncaptured last to "follow as many directions as possible".

The card that I think has a gray area is this one:

Rebels destroy an invading unit in the Southern Sector and take control of the same (or adjacent) territory. Not good in Cities.

Obviously the unit that is destroyed must in the Southern Sector and not in a City, but could the units be placed in an adjacent territory in another Sector and/or in an adjacent City?

[DY]

I'd agree with Krieghund on the first card (miners)

For the second card, I suggest that the unit to be killed must be in the Southern sector, but clearly the card does not force the partisans themselves to go in the South. The card reads: "...in the same [ie South] (or adjacent) [ie any adjacent {non-city} territory] territory..."

I have always assumed the "Not good in cities" applies to ALL the text in the card.

[boylermaker]

I agree that not good in cities applies to the whole card. The Miners card, I have always played it doesn't matter whether or not enemy units are there, just choose four territories and but a miner in each, though Krieghund's way is probably correct.

[Krieghund]

GROGnads - I would imagine that their notion of a surprise attack is simply the fact that the units pop up out of nowhere.

DY - I agree with your interpretation of the "Rebels" card.

[DY]

GROGnads - I would imagine that their notion of a surprise attack is simply the fact that the units pop up out of nowhere.

DY - I agree with your interpretation of the "Rebels" card.

Yeah, I'd agree with your definition of surprise attacks. Maybe we should put together a senior board member designed FA FAQ, post it and see in AH will adopt it as official. This is prety much what happened with the AAR FAQ that I put together several months back.

Does anyone know if AH actually owns the rights to FA anymore. I'm pretty sure I downloaded the .pdf of the rulebood from the Hasbro web site, but not sure which subsidiary owns the rights.

[SewerStarFish]

.

I hate to sound like a child, but I do not wish to play the game again until these vague instructions are addressed. There are too many situations late in the game where everybody has a house rule and every piece counts. We can sit here all day and debate what "together" means, but until someone "at the top" confirms it, it is meaningless.

I hope that in the future, people will attempt to actually edit such things so that these situations do not occur. I'm not attacking the designer - there are a lot of people down the line who could have been responsible.

Anyway, can someone do the FA community a HUGE favor and start the process of writing this guy?

-Steve

Vague? You've obviously never played the SPI version. :rolleyes: It's not a wargame if you can't lawyer a rule or two.

[Garc]

Guys, it doesn't matter if you agree with him here on the board. Even if he gets into a heated discussion while having access to a computer, our opinions don't mean squat to the guy who's trying to conquer the US. Hate to say it, but if it's in my interest in the game, I'm not too likely to accept outside "amateur" rules (not official text from the designer, game company, etc.) I'm not certain they're likely to invest much time in this on the gaming company level, since they're doing active games that still buy their Nikes & polo shirts. How about dedicating some time at a convention, playtesting & reviewing proposed erratta? Post that on sites dedicated to the game, and come up with a "gamer's" FAQ. Just a thought.