Tanks
»
Tanks
»
Rules Discussion
»
Victory pts per tank or per turn?
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 22
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
had this come up in a game today. The OPS2 mission actually but it would apply to any objective based misssion.
How many victory points can you accumulate in a single turn? If I have two tanks adjacent to an uncontested objective do I get two victory points (one for each tank) or just on VP ?
The scenarios all say "..a tank within one arrow of an objective earns a victory point". One player interpreted this to mean any tank within any objective gets u one VP for the turn.
Which is correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 14
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
What t states in the boot-camp missions is "... your team gains one Victory Point if you have a tank within a Measuring Arrow of the centre of the Objective Token and your opponents do not.".
As I read it, just one VP is awarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 22
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
Thats kinda the problem 'a tank' is ambiguous. It could be read as one tank only as in any of your tanks. OR it could be read as 'this is a tank and that is a tank and both are within an arrow' etc etc. If you can only ever score one VP per turn it makes defensive scenarios almost impossible to win by VPs as the attacker unless ur opponent seriously screw up. it also renders King of the hill scenarios pointless to play. If you can only score one VP per turn and you need three to win the game you may as well be playing Panzer Ace. Destroying the enemy is the only way to win. The standard games dont even have a set number of turns. the OPS1 scenario Hit the Beach is already an uphill struggle for the attackers because of the distance needed to travel. In that scenario you need to destroy the defenders by turn six so you can spend the next two turns sitting on the objective. Im hoping one of the mods chime in here. Edited by user Monday, December 19, 2016 4:18:55 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 161
Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 149 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Robert  What t states in the boot-camp missions is "... your team gains one Victory Point if you have a tank within a Measuring Arrow of the centre of the Objective Token and your opponents do not.".
As I read it, just one VP is awarded.
Robert has it. If you read the rule in full, it explains itself better. I think the only way to score multiple VPs per turn is to hold multiple objectives (scenarios can change this of course). In response to why you need objectives in basic missions. It allows for more interesting tactics to emerge as it forces both sides to play more aggressively (or lose via VPs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 309
Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 38 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Sean at TANKS HQ Originally Posted by: Robert What t states in the boot-camp missions is "... your team gains one Victory Point if you have a tank within a Measuring Arrow of the centre of the Objective Token and your opponents do not.".
As I read it, just one VP is awarded.
Robert has it. If you read the rule in full, it explains itself better. I think the only way to score multiple VPs per turn is to hold multiple objectives (scenarios can change this of course). In response to why you need objectives in basic missions. It allows for more interesting tactics to emerge as it forces both sides to play more aggressively (or lose via VPs). Boy, is that true! We have found the kill 'em all scenarios to be boring. Both players look to use cover and maneuver to get an edge and oftentimes, that leads to boring games, or the aggressive player gets punished. Scenarios with two objectives have worked best for our group, especially when the objectives are in the middle 1/3rd of the board. If the objectives are placed in open areas, hiding doesn't help too much!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 22
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
The rule as written states For example- 'No Retreat' victory conditions: "The attacker gains one victory point if they have A tank within a measuring arrow of the center of AN objective" So, using the interpretation of 'A tank' others have posted than 'AN objective' must be interpreted the same way. Gramatically they mean the same thing so sitting on two objectives does not give you two VPs
Any tank within one arrow of any objective scores one VP. So again you can only score one VP per turn no matter what.
In the case of King of the hill, assuming the game lasts the standard six turns (the scenario doesnt specify) you have three turns to kill ur opponent if you want to win by VPs assuming he is smart enough to keep his tanks close to the objective and so do you. It takes three turns to win by VPs. The game devolves into another Panzer Ace scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 457
Thanks: 18 times
Was thanked: 84 time(s) in 69 post(s)
|
I look forward to reading your 100% watertight rule set that does not wilt under the scrutiny of the rules lawyers and also running through your collection of scenarios that provide an unparalleled level of playability, fairness and enjoyment. I'd like to suggest that, during the extended holiday period, anyone with constructive ideas for rules and scenarios produce them and see what the wider community thinks about them. Edited by user Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:05:56 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Let's not forget that it's a game. |
2 Dec 16, me to BF CustServ
Is there any news on my replacement replacement cards for the Achilles please?
6 May 18 no
|
 1 user thanked LordOfKhemri for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 22
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: LordOfKhemri I look forward to reading your 100% watertight rule set that does not wilt under the scrutiny of the rules lawyers and also running through your collection of scenarios that provide an unparalleled level of playability, fairness and enjoyment.
I'd like to suggest that, during the extended holiday period, anyone with constructive ideas for rules and scenarios produce them and see what the wider community thinks about them. It was a simple question. How did the designer intend victory points to be scored since the word is ambiguous. Its not rules lawyering. A moderator chiming in and saying "I think" it works like this... Is not the definitive answer I was looking for. Thanks for your oh so less than helpful response tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 214
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: jimklein1966 Originally Posted by: LordOfKhemri I look forward to reading your 100% watertight rule set that does not wilt under the scrutiny of the rules lawyers and also running through your collection of scenarios that provide an unparalleled level of playability, fairness and enjoyment.
I'd like to suggest that, during the extended holiday period, anyone with constructive ideas for rules and scenarios produce them and see what the wider community thinks about them. It was a simple question. How did the designer intend victory points to be scored since the word is ambiguous. Its not rules lawyering. A moderator chiming in and saying "I think" it works like this... Is not the definitive answer I was looking for. Thanks for your oh so less than helpful response tho. First off I have to say I agree with his Lordship regarding the rules lawyering. Your second response did seem a little nit picky. (Although your original post had me thinking that maybe I was playing it wrong for a moment.) It also seems to me that when the moderator commented that Robert was right; it seemed like a definitive response. To me anyways. It also seems logical to me that if you hold more than one objective you should get 1 point per objective held each turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Gunner
Posts: 22
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
Oh I totally agree. Each objective should be worth a VP if ur holding more than one. Problem is if ppl are going to interpret 'A TANK' to mean any tank on the table then 'AN OBJECTIVE' would mean any objective on the table. They are both mean the same thing, grammatically. Now if its it written badly, and the writer really meant each objective is worth one point, then thats fine. OPS 1 had typos, the Soviet M10 had typos, most of the rule book scenarios had game lengths left out, it happens. I dont think its too much to ask for Battlefront (or GF9) to publish or post a correction. Pointing out confusing, ambiguous or contradictory rules isnt rules lawyering. not by saying "I think the only way to score multiple VPs per turn is to hold multiple objectives." 'I think' is an opinion, not a rule decision. Edited by user Friday, December 23, 2016 12:55:46 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanks
»
Tanks
»
Rules Discussion
»
Victory pts per tank or per turn?
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.