Fire & Sword Mud-Mire rule

[leonard]

When reading the special rules of scenario 34 "Tank battle at Pázmand", as published, I suspect there is an error in special rule 4 "Mire". Last sentence of that rule is "Substract one from the Mire die roll result". It should be "Add one to the Mire die roll result". The tanks should be mired on a dr = 1, only. Otherwise they won't move very far...
For reference, my original (and much lighter) rule was:Muddy ground. When there is a natural tie on the die roll for initiative at the beginning of the turn (both players roll the same result before any modifiers are applied), there is Mud Event. Roll one die. On a result of 1 through 2 the event affects Soviets; on a result of 3 to 6 the event affects Germans. The player affected then selects one of his AFV unit (not one already Mired) being not in a road or town hex. This vehicle is Mired (See Mire optional rule on page 38).

[joe_oppenheimer]

Thanks for that. With the rule as written, I'd pretty much interpreted it as "don't even think about going off road."

[treadasaurusrex]

Thanks for that. With the rule as written, I'd pretty much interpreted it as "don't even think about going off road."

Amen, Joe!

Once again, the "as published," scenario rule is confusing and poorly-written. I will be ignoring this one, when I some day get around to playing this Fire & Sword scenario. Maybe with you online in Vassal online . . .

[BigJimSlade]

Aren't you the scenario or booklet designer, why wasn't this corrected, don't you designers proof read your games?  This goes for your scenarios, don't you play test them, going to say no since some many gamers say they are unbalanced.  Sorry if I seem harsh but people pay a lot of money for these games, some have waited five years to get their copies, one would think in all that time there would be better proof reading!

[leonard]

Aren't you the scenario or booklet designer, why wasn't this corrected, don't you designers proof read your games?  This goes for your scenarios, don't you play test them, going to say no since some many gamers say they are unbalanced.  Sorry if I seem harsh but people pay a lot of money for these games, some have waited five years to get their copies, one would think in all that time there would be better proof reading!

I was not complaining about the game being developed from the original design. To the contrary. I was merely indicating an error (= erratum) in the published rule and this can happen. Simply, change « substract one » for « add one » and it will work.
By the way, I have playtested this scenario before development and I enjoyed it.

[leonard]

Aren't you the scenario or booklet designer, why wasn't this corrected, don't you designers proof read your games?  This goes for your scenarios, don't you play test them, going to say no since some many gamers say they are unbalanced.  Sorry if I seem harsh but people pay a lot of money for these games, some have waited five years to get their copies, one would think in all that time there would be better proof reading!

I was not complaining about the game being developed from the original design. To the contrary. I was merely indicating an error (= erratum) in the published rule and this can happen. Simply, change « substract one » for « add one » and it will work.
By the way, I have playtested this scenario before development and I enjoyed it.