BOTB rule clarifications

[General Steiner]

I hate to bombard you with queries Krieghund, and I came across another problem. You expend a supply token to attack a hex in combat, do you then expend another supply token in the movement phase, when you move your units out of the hex. So in effect an attack and subsequent movement with the same units from the same hex requires two supply tokens, is that correct?

[Krieghund]

@General:

In the reinforcement phase, when you receive a tank, as long as you stick to the roads can you send it straight to the zone of conflict, so that the same tank can be used in combat in the next turn?

Yes, you can move as far along the road with a Tank or Truck as you want to until you either enter a hex that contains an enemy-controlled City or enter or leave a hex that’s within an enemy zone of control.  This includes when the unit first enters the board as a reinforcement, as long as they enter the board in a road hex (which Trucks are required to do).  Tanks may also enter the board in non-road hexes, but they must stop their move immediately if they do so.

@General:

And do you use up any supply tokens? When you travel in your own territory (outside of the zones of conflict and without a transport), I assume supply tokens work the same way, one token for every one space, and two tokens for a tank blitz of two spaces infront.

You don’t need to use Supply tokens for units’ normal (non-blitz) movement onto the board as reinforcements.  The Supply to move reinforcements onto the board is considered to come from the same rear area the reinforcements themselves have come from.  However, if you want to blitz with reinforcement Tanks, you must still pay one Supply token from your offboard Supply tokens for each Tank division that’s blitzing.  The units’ divisions are indicated on the reinforcement charts.

@General:

I hate to bombard you with queries Krieghund, and I came across another problem. You expend a supply token to attack a hex in combat, do you then expend another supply token in the movement phase, when you move your units out of the hex. So in effect an attack and subsequent movement with the same units from the same hex requires two supply tokens, is that correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

[General Steiner]

Ahhh ok, so if the axis player gets reinforced with a tank division, it can be driven to the front lines inside a zone of control. Then after a supply token is payed for that tank division, it can blitz into enemy lines in the same turn.

Another thing I don’t understand is lets say the axis player is reinforced with a tank division, and in that same reinforcement phase assuming it does not enter an enemy zone of control, the tank can keep on driving until it hits an enemy city? Leaving a hypothetical scenario whereby, the axis player controls Werbomot, and when he is reinforced with a tank, drives the tank into enemy lines all the way to Huy or Ciney, assuming no enemy zone of control is ever entered into.

Thanks again for bearing with me Krieghund.

[Krieghund]

@General:

Ahhh ok, so if the axis player gets reinforced with a tank division, it can be driven to the front lines inside a zone of control. Then after a supply token is payed for that tank division, it can blitz into enemy lines in the same turn.

Right, but the Supply token needs to be paid from offboard Supplies, since that’s where the Tanks came from.  Paying a Supply token to allow a reinforcement Tank division to blitz works the same way that paying for on-board Tanks in a hex to blitz.  If there is more than one Tank unit in the division, they don’t all have to move to the same place.

FYI, one fairly common misconception I’ve run up against is that a blitz movement allows a Tank an extra full movement, i.e. it gets to move along a road again until it hits another enemy-held City or zone of control.  This isn’t true.  A blitz move just allows one extra hex of movement.  You probably already knew that, but I’d thought I’d throw it in just in case.

@General:

Another thing I don’t understand is lets say the axis player is reinforced with a tank division, and in that same reinforcement phase assuming it does not enter an enemy zone of control, the tank can keep on driving until it hits an enemy city? Leaving a hypothetical scenario whereby, the axis player controls Werbomot, and when he is reinforced with a tank, drives the tank into enemy lines all the way to Huy or Ciney, assuming no enemy zone of control is ever entered into.

Yes, that’s correct.  The Allies can be in big trouble if they leave holes in their lines.  Of course, if Germany extends its lines too far forward in that fashion, supply can be problematic as units may be cut off.  However, this may not matter if it’s late enough in the game.

@General:

Thanks again for bearing with me Krieghund.

No problem!

[frimmel]

Looks like I missed all the fun.  :-)

@Krieghund:

Yes.  Just the other week, I attacked a hex with only two units in it.  I got six hits, but they were all on the same unit!  So the other unit survived and kept me from advancing.  Such are the fortunes of war.

I think this is why this game isn’t that popular. I think there are some folks who really don’t like being lucky yet unlucky on the same roll.

[Krieghund]

@frimmel:

@Krieghund:

Yes.  Just the other week, I attacked a hex with only two units in it.  I got six hits, but they were all on the same unit!  So the other unit survived and kept me from advancing.  Such are the fortunes of war.

I think this is why this game isn’t that popular. I think there are some folks who really don’t like being lucky yet unlucky on the same roll.

I agree that some people don’t like it for this reason.  I actually do like this, because I feel it has the potential to “even out” luck by making excessive hits redundant unless they’re spread out.

However, I think the main reason this game has suffered in popularity is because it’s so unlike all the previous A&A games.  It’s much more like a “heavy” wargame than the others.  Fans of previous games are turned off because it’s not the same, and fans of “heavier” wargames are turned off by the A&A brand because they equate it with “light” wargames.  Because of this, I don’t think the game ever really found its niche, which is really a shame.

[frimmel]

@Krieghund:

I agree that some people don’t like it for this reason.  I actually do like this, because I feel it has the potential to “even out” luck by making excessive hits redundant unless they’re spread out.

However, I think the main reason this game has suffered in popularity is because it’s so unlike all the previous A&A games.  It’s much more like a “heavy” wargame than the others.  Fans of previous games are turned off because it’s not the same, and fans of “heavier” wargames are turned off by the A&A brand because they equate it with “light” wargames.  Because of this, I don’t think the game ever really found its niche, which is really a shame.

I think that you can get hits and still miss makes luck a bit more nebulous in this one. Gives it a bit more of a lone unit defying the odds feel.

I agree also that it also suffers, probably mostly, from how different it is from the other games.

I like that it is more a ‘light heavy’ wargame. More an examination of the situations faced by the commanders of history (the ‘heavy’ part) but without a really big pile of rules that IMO often seem to add complexity for the sake of complexity (the ‘light’ part.)

[General Steiner]

A&A games are some of the most rewarding games I have ever played. I remember when I was 15 and I found the original Larry Harris game unopened in my dad’s holiday house. I was totally obsessed with World War 2 history at the time, and so I decided to slog out the 30 page manual by myself and learn the game. Having learnt it, I have been enjoying playing it ever since. All the other games with the exclusion of BOTB, as you guys pointed out, are extremely similar to the original Larry Harris version, so the time investment to learn these new versions are not very daunting. BOTB however not only is it like slogging it out as if I was learning the original Larry Harris game all over again, the manual is also like a bloody enigma (and yes that is a pun). I think with BOTB all they had to do was elaborate on the rules more, and give an example of the turn from start to finish, rather than in dribs and drabs. Then they should have stuck on the box, WARNING: Forget all previous A&A conceptions and rules when learning this game. Had they done this, then who knows maybe I could have saved myself alot of time and pain. However thanks to Krieghund, I now understand the game, and I can see that it could well turn out to be my best A&A game.

Its not just a problem with BOTB though, like BOTB is a deeper problem within A&A games. The problem I think starts with A&A games, most people hate using their brain in a recreational sense, and Axis and Allies games do just that. I liken them to chess with chance, but how many people do you know that like chess? Its a shame, but I suppose those of us who love our military history, our strategy, and being able to play it out on a board game, are and always will be a very small minority.

[Krieghund]

@General:

A&A games are some of the most rewarding games I have ever played. I remember when I was 15 and I found the original Larry Harris game unopened in my dad’s holiday house. I was totally obsessed with World War 2 history at the time, and so I decided to slog out the 30 page manual by myself and learn the game. Having learnt it, I have been enjoying playing it ever since.

Larry would be thrilled to hear that.  Why don’t you go over to his site and tell him?

@General:

BOTB however not only is it like slogging it out as if I was learning the original Larry Harris game all over again, the manual is also like a bloody enigma (and yes that is a pun). I think with BOTB all they had to do was elaborate on the rules more, and give an example of the turn from start to finish, rather than in dribs and drabs. Then they should have stuck on the box, WARNING: Forget all previous A&A conceptions and rules when learning this game. Had they done this, then who knows maybe I could have saved myself alot of time and pain.

Yes, unfortunately this is a blow to the game’s acceptance as well.  The rules require at least a couple of read-throughs to even begin to understand them, and it’s still nearly impossible to play the game properly without reading the FAQ as well.

[frimmel]

I did have questions but I got it pretty close on the first read through. Both of you are right that the rules could be better- especially in the commandeering of trucks and supplies aspects.

As to some of the other frequent confusion (moving units into hexes you are attacking.) I learned early (and don’t have to relearn to often  :lol: ) that assumption is the mother of all foul ups. That one is (well to me anyway) clear in the rulebook. But all in all it could be better.

[General Steiner]

@Krieghund:

@General:

A&A games are some of the most rewarding games I have ever played. I remember when I was 15 and I found the original Larry Harris game unopened in my dad’s holiday house. I was totally obsessed with World War 2 history at the time, and so I decided to slog out the 30 page manual by myself and learn the game. Having learnt it, I have been enjoying playing it ever since.

Larry would be thrilled to hear that.  Why don’t you go over to his site and tell him?

Yes well it probably does sound a bit gay doesn’t it.

[General Steiner]

Ok still learning out to use quote, that last part of my previous post should be outside of the quote.

The ‘it does sound a bit…’

[Krieghund]

Not at all.  I was completely serious.  Larry always enjoys hearing from a satisfied customer.

[General Steiner]

Yeah I was half wondering if you were being sarcastic or serious, hehe. I might do that then :)