When does Fog of War begin?

[Shad]

The rule as written:

After both players have conducted three activation segments each, then each player rolls three dice at the end of each of his subsequent activation segments. If he rolls 16 or more, the turn ends immediately for both players, and nobody may take any further actions that turn (including recovering morale for unactivated demoralized units). Proceed to the next turn. Add a +1 modifier to the Fog of War dieroll on night turns.

The way I've always played:

A1-B1-A2-B2-A3-B3-roll FoW-A4-roll FoW-B4 etc...

The way campsawyer plays:

A1-B1-A2-B2-A3-B3-A4-roll FoW-B4 etc...

Alan's logic hinges on the phrase "subsequent activation segments", arguing that subsequent after 3 = the fourth.

I don't have any logic. I just have always played end of 3 begins Fog of War.

Curious how everyone else plays this, and how everyone else parses the rule.

[campsawyer]

Shad I am flattered that you pin this on me but this one was brought to me from Herr Hughes and confirmed by Doug M. during my one game with him. I also believe that somewhere on CSW there was this very discusion severl years ago. So, I just happen to be the messager on this one. Beside it gives the inititive player a slight desired edge.

[rerathbun]

I've always played it campsawyer's way.

Just as an added note, if a player wins initiative by enough to get multiple activations, those don't figure in the count because the second player has to get his three activations before rolling FoW.

So, for example, if player A gets two activations to start, I play it:

A1-A2-B1-A3-B2-A4-B3-A5-roll FoW-B4 etc...

[Shad]

Shad I am flattered that you pin this on me but

Gotta pin it on somebody! Chose you because I mentioned this to Daniel in our game the other day and he expressed surprise at your interpretation. Though he might have misunderstood me/I might have worded it poorly. That made me wonder if I was the only one playing this wrong or not.

[vince hughes]

Yes Daniel does play it 3 each then FOW, but the wording of the rule is explicit and read wrong by most gamers INCLUDING ME !!

It was when I was playing Josh Gottesman that HE pointed it out to me re the subsequent activation AFTER 3 each. Re-reading the rule, it was plainly evident that Josh was absolutely correct. Once this had been pointed out, I can't see how anybody could read it in any other fashion once they know ?

Logical

[plloyd1010]

I voted Drew's way. In big scenarios we do a 2 stage FoW. That seems to work out pretty well.

[vince hughes]

I voted Drew's way. In big scenarios we do a 2 stage FoW. That seems to work out pretty well.

Peter,

I see you voted Drew's way and you have gone with Drew's way being correct.

Did you re-read the wording where it states

" After both players have conducted three activation segments each, then each player rolls three dice at the end of each of his subsequent activation segments"

I had never noticed that before Josh pointed it out, but I think he absolutely spot on. Therefore, shouldn't it be "Play Drews way and thats incorrect" as your vote ?

[campsawyer]

Shad I am flattered that you pin this on me but

Gotta pin it on somebody! Chose you because I mentioned this to Daniel in our game the other day and he expressed surprise at your interpretation. Though he might have misunderstood me/I might have worded it poorly. That made me wonder if I was the only one playing this wrong or not.

Well, you can pin it on the rule itself.

One flaw in you observation on the rules logic. It does not depend on just the words subsequent activtation but the whole sentence. Aftter each players has 3 activtations must be part of the sentences must be part of the interpretation.

[plloyd1010]

Good point Vince, and no I hadn't. (It's 4 in the morning here and I hadn't read carefully enough.) So that makes it A1-B1-A2-B2-A3-B3-A4(roll FoW)-B4(roll FoW)...

That knocks out 1 4.6% chance. It also creates an interesting thought, wouldn't the use of excess initiative create a second FoW roll for that player-turn?

[campsawyer]

Good point Vince, and no I hadn't. (It's 4 in the morning here and I hadn't read carefully enough.) So that makes it A1-B1-A2-B2-A3-B3-A4(roll FoW)-B4(roll FoW)...

That knocks out 1 4.6% chance. It also creates an interesting thought, wouldn't the use of excess initiative create a second FoW roll for that player-turn?

Yes, as the roll is based on activations. So if an excess of one activation was saved, then used many activations later, after the first a FoW would be made as well as after the second "saved" activation.