[Rules] Hex Control (once again)

[Shad]

The question here is when does control exist, you position supports an "end of turn" control assumption. But a question arises that control could be taken by player A at the moment that player B loses it, when it is demoralized. If that is the case then player A was the last to control it. This would be the "moment in time" control assumption.

When would determining intra-turn control be meaningful? The only case I can think of would be a scenario with a sudden death victory condition, and off the top of my head I can't recall ever encountering such a scenario special rule in PG?

Otherwise hex control only ever matters at turn end.

Unless I'm missing something?

[Hugmenot]

Shad,

If control is only established at the end of the turn, then the assault team which demoralized the defending unit would never had control of the hex because they too were demoralized before the turn's end.

If control is established as soon as one side has a non-demoralized unit is in the hex, then the assault team gained control of the hex when they demoralized the defender as one infantry unit from the assault team was still in good order at that point.

Alan and I were debating this amicably yesterday as the result of our game could have been decided on the interpretation of control if not for the next roll. Town control was worth 1 point for each side and thus this would be a two point shift.

[vince hughes]

I think this whole discussion is making a very simple rule difficult, and worse still is encouraging rules for situations that are made up on the fly.

Most people that come to these forums and talk about their joy with PG wax lyrical about the mere 16 page rule booklet as opposed to some other tomes. The reason it is 16 pages is that practically all rules pertain to the game system throughout and all one has to do is make sure that they can remember what they read for example on page 11 and page 4 so as to combine rules where necessary. Unlike ASL. the PG rules booklet has little references to previous or other rules scattered about the book and how they blend in with those other rules. This sometimes makes it difficult to 'see' a rule when its answers are hidden in the book. I've certainly experienced this myself with entrenchments a couple of years ago.

I personally feel that all these type of threads merely muddy the waters of the system and these so called 'new decisions or ideas' that are made simply mean people in different places will be playing a different game. If people stick with the rules, then we are all singing from the same page (prefarably the one with definitions it seems :-) )

First thing you guys need to do is make your minds up once and for all whether DEM units control a hex or not ? Here's why:

In a previous thread people (some of whom have written here) wanted VP hexes not to count as controlled or contested by units that were DEM. I can even state that some of the scribers here have won a scenario or two by claiming victory points for such hexes !

By stating that in the example Alan gave that the DEM unit somehow now takes away control from the previous owned hex, whether in the same turn or not (but different activation), you are committing a volte face from a previous stance.

So here is the rub and I'm gonna keep it simple (before going onto activations)

Decide NOW whether you want DEM units to control or not.

As far as the RAW is concered (yes, in the definition) they DO control as they are not mentioned as an exception.

If you decide DEM units DO control, then in the example Alan gave. The hex is contested.

If you decide they DON'T, then the hex is not contested and the unit which remained in good order previously has gained control of that hex for the side he was representing.

Its that bleedin' simple folks ! Lets not start adding ridiculous situation specific rules that are generally made up over a few sips of a beverage and are just waiting to be countered with the very next ad-hoc game situation.

Stick with the rules guys. In fact, this thread has even got me thinking that hidden AT guns should be chucked too just so that everybody is playing the same game.

[vince hughes]

ACTIVATIONS Folks !

Upon first reading of the rules, I was immediately struck by the fact that the rules make it plainly clear that the order of activations is an important part of a game that uses an inter-active AS system.

In other words, choose the order of your activations carefully and once chosen, be deliberate on how you choose to carry them out (Moved / Fired choices for example and what order).

The very same discussion on this occurred with the EMPTY HEX ASSAULT discussion where there was so much blather about when a hex is emptied or not (start of AS ? end of AS ? etc etc)

The answe is SIMPLE again.

Activations occur in the ORDER they are played. Somebody show me somewhere where the rules ask players to 'drag play back'... Quite simply, they do not. If a good order unit claims a hex in activation 3 of a turn, and is then bombarded to DEM in activation 18 of the same turn, then that unit has already controlled that hex. Tough ?

Keep the game simple, play it as instructed and these kind of "Lets change a rule' discussions will not occur. Well they will, but they can be ignored.

[Hugmenot]

You convinced me, Vince.

The funny thing is the EMPTY HEX ASSAULT came up in an earlier action segment (same turn), on another board. I activated a hex with a leader, infantry, and M4 to fire; the M4 fired first and eliminated the defender, and thus my infantry could no longer assault the now empty hex.

Yes, it was a bit of a wild finish and I made a few beginner's mistakes.

[vince hughes]

Was this the Stymied scenario ?

I see Alan has added that as a play, but suprisingly for him, no AAR yet.

I recently played this with Wayne and we thought the scenario has a lot of replay mileage.

It certainly sounds like your endgame was a crazy ending with empty assault hexes, double DEM's etc. However, as long as you beat The Sawyerbean, all is good with me :-)

[vince hughes]

and I made a few beginner's mistakes.

Alan's taking advantage of that then trying to pass on what was a novice but now a semi-experienced player onto the rest of us .....

Massaging his win numbers

[Hugmenot]

Don't worry Vince, I have plenty of mistakes left to play.

[campsawyer]

Despite Vince's rant's, there is nothing in the rule as to when control of a hex begins and ends, hence the discussion. Even more to the point, there was the discussion about fleeing units not controlling units, which I though set the precedent for demoralized units not controlling hexes. So therefore if both units are demoralized in the hex, there would be no control. My only caveat is the timing, when does control occur at the end of an activation or the end of the turn.

BTW - I believe Stymied is one of the best scenarios in PG. Although it does not have the big armor of other scenario's there is a heavy focus on tactics to win, or draw, on both sides. There is town attacks, but both sides never have a chance to sit back and defend. The only point I would make is that this need to be played FtF, as a solo game cannot capture the tactics required.

Yes, Vince the AAR will follow. Know take some deep breaths to calm down.

[vince hughes]

Yes, Vince the AAR will follow. Know take some deep breaths to calm down.

I can only wonder in what tone you read it.

Tony tells me you have linked up plans for a mid-August meet ?