Game: The Devil's Cauldron: The Battles for Arnhem and Nijmegen

Thread: Re: Reinforcement and command point question

floren — 2008-09-07T11:39:56+00:00

Adam,

thank you for your quick reply.

Thread: Re: Reinforcement and command point question

adamant — 2008-09-07T10:57:06+00:00

Nope - you cannot. Units and leaders in the reinforcement boxes are not in command.

So for that second activation, that you need to spend a command point to do, you are not in command (as the leader moves last in either activation and is still in the reinforcement box) so you may not spend that point.

Thread: Reinforcement and command point question

floren — 2008-09-07T10:13:48+00:00

Hi,

I am playing the first scenario "A victory lost" and I have some questions regarding reinforcement issue and the proper use of command points.

According the rulebook (page 5) no command points may be spent on reinforcement units until they enter play.

According the exclusive rulebbok (page 22)leaders arrive with the first unit of this formation.

During my play I've dropped the Group Cold formation activation chit or the division activation chit, it doesn't mind. Then the leader (Brig. Johson) and a unit (Recce/ 2WG) enter in play.

The unit moves along the road and ends the activation in command. According the rules the leader stands in the current hex, he moves at the end of the activation.

Could this unit (Recce/ 2WG) spend a command point to do a second action? In my understanding this is correct because the leader is in play although he is in the reinforcement hex.

I would appreciate your comments.

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

tombesis — 2008-09-07T07:43:33+00:00

bambaladam wrote:
Is this a pbem affair or will you try to have online meets?

It will be a pbem game.
I think it's impossible to have online meets with 8 players scattered all over the world.
Simone

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

bambaladam — 2008-09-06T16:17:30+00:00

Is this a pbem affair or will you try to have online meets?

Thread: Re: Assault ferry question

nrichard — 2008-09-05T18:40:57+00:00

The 4 units can either go over as a stack, or one at a time.

And correct, assaulting into a hex containing a barrage marker has no effect on the assaulting unit(s).

Thread: Assault ferry question

Col. Forbin — 2008-09-05T18:08:29+00:00

Can units use the assault ferry as a stack?

For instance, in the first activation of Little Omaha, can the 4 para units in the assault ferry hex move as a stack across the river?

Also, just to be sure I am not missing something, there are no adverse effects to the attacker for assaulting into a hex with a barrage marker correct?

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

Col. Forbin — 2008-09-04T07:18:26+00:00

dcooley wrote:

For the record, I had about a zero percent chance of reading that modifier text correctly - Jesse had to use very small words to explain it to me.

I am perfecting my human to Doug translator currently.

dcooley wrote:

On the other hand, after looking both on the TDC website forums as well as BGG, I found no one with any confusion about how the rule worked, so apparently either I am the only one who got it wrong, or else there are a lot of people playing it out there with my interpretation who are simply getting it wrong as I would have.

Pretty sure it's just you.

Really though, I totally understand where you are coming from, sometimes a rule just reads differently to you. Im still convinced, for example, that Martin Wallace has one of the rules to Brass totally wrong.

Start reading up on those assault ferry rules! If we could handle the raised roads & piggyback infantry, nothing can stop us!

I noticed too that we forgot to reduce out of command units TQ by 1...

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

dcooley — 2008-09-04T06:06:25+00:00

The reason why the range modifiers are just referred to as "see the table" is that this appears in the series rulebook, and the value will change for the different games in the system (No Question of Surrender, the game I'm designing uses different range modifiers due to the scale) but use the same series rulebook (with different tables).

Excellent, thanks for the clarification. I'm all about playing the game correctly, and in this case there was no effect on our game's outcome (which is never really the point anyway).

For the record, I had about a zero percent chance of reading that modifier text correctly - Jesse had to use very small words to explain it to me. The use of the word "range" in two different contexts (both as a numeric value on a counter and as a modifier) is confusing, for one. Two, the proximity of a hex by hex rule for unarmored units is suggestive. Three, the language is vague, almost certainly because of space issues. It probably warranted a mention in the game-specific rules if nowhere else, but that' horse left the stable. I'm sure there are good design reasons for the rule, I'm not quibbling about that.

On the other hand, after looking both on the TDC website forums as well as BGG, I found no one with any confusion about how the rule worked, so apparently either I am the only one who got it wrong, or else there are a lot of people playing it out there with my interpretation who are simply getting it wrong as I would have. If you've worked on quality systems before, you know that the worst error is the one that exists and no one knows is there. Probably worth a clarification note in the FAQ just to be sure, certainly more precise language in future games in the series.

While I'm not a fan of "conversational" rules (my take is that when you are trying to precisely define concepts and words, you must use precise and formal language, such as in a game of any stripe), I do think that the rules are very complete and seem to cover pretty much every other situation, other than what seems to be a few mistakes in examples.

Thanks for the support, I'm looking forward to future titles in the series.

Doug

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

Col. Forbin — 2008-09-04T04:09:56+00:00

Thanks again Nick.

I love this game.

The system, the maps, the counters, and especially all of the one map scenarios. All in all I'm a big fan. I also really appreciate your support here and on CSW.

The game today was pretty rough for the Brits. Group Hot got ripped up by the 88 and a gnarly traffic jam ensued. Two armored units of Group Cold got set up to assault the objective, but one of them lost a step on a third cohesion hit. This was the 5th armor step loss giving the Germans the victory.

We are going to try Little Omaha soon.

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

nrichard — 2008-09-04T03:31:08+00:00

dcooley wrote:
We had a disagreement about the Range modifier against armored targets in our first game today.

The rules refer to the modifiers on the CRT, to make things more complicated. There is no actual rule in the book, which I find a bit of a cop out. Terrain is covered over more than a page, but there's no paragraph or even example to clarify this one item.

The table says that when firing at an armored target, you essentially ignore the first hex, so firing at a range of 1 has no modifier. At longer range, there is a -2 modifier for the "last hex of range", -1 for other hexes. I took this to mean that if you are counting range from the firing unit to the target, you skip the first hex, then subtract one for each intervening hex past the first one, then subtract two for the target hex regardless of the firing unit's range (assuming the target is in range, of course).

My opponent felt that the "last hex of range" referred to the limits of the firing unit's range, so the -2 modifier would only apply if the target was as far from the firing unit as possible but still in range. For example, a unit with a range of 5 would only get the -2 modifier (as opposed to the regular -1 modifier) for the last hex if the target was five hexes away.

The text could be read either way. We ended up dicing for the result (it actually came down to that at one or two points), and my interpretation "won", but it would be nice to find out what the intent was from someone who knows.

The issue is not addressed in the official errata.

Thanks in advance.

Doug

Doug, just to be clear, for the range versus armored modifier, if the target is 1 hex away, the mod is 0. If the target is at the limit of the firing unit's range, it's -2. All other ranges have a -1 modifier.

Against unarmored target, it becomes -(range-1), so -1 for 2 hexes away, -2 for 3 hexes away, and so forth.

The reason why the range modifiers are just referred to as "see the table" is that this appears in the series rulebook, and the value will change for the different games in the system (No Question of Surrender, the game I'm designing uses different range modifiers due to the scale) but use the same series rulebook (with different tables).

Hopefully it's clear now, and that you and Jesse are enjoying the game.

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

nrichard — 2008-09-04T03:18:24+00:00

Col. Forbin wrote:
Hi Doug!

Just to clarify (or confusify), I (the opponent )interpreted the range modifers thusly:

88 (Range 5) firing at an armored unit:

1 hex away: no range modifier
2 hex away: -1 range modifier
3 hex away: -1 range modifier
4 hex away: -1 range modifier
5 hex away: -2 range modifier

If firing at an unarmored unit:

1 hex away: no range modifier
2 hex away: -1 range modifier
3 hex away: -2 range modifier
4 hex away: -3 range modifier
5 hex away: -4 range modifier

Thanks for helping us clear this up.

This is correct.

Thread: Re: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

Col. Forbin — 2008-09-04T03:08:47+00:00

Hi Doug!

Just to clarify (or confusify), I (the opponent )interpreted the range modifers thusly:

88 (Range 5) firing at an armored unit:

1 hex away: no range modifier
2 hex away: -1 range modifier
3 hex away: -1 range modifier
4 hex away: -1 range modifier
5 hex away: -2 range modifier

If firing at an unarmored unit:

1 hex away: no range modifier
2 hex away: -1 range modifier
3 hex away: -2 range modifier
4 hex away: -3 range modifier
5 hex away: -4 range modifier

Thanks for helping us clear this up.

Thread: Direct Fire Armored Target Range Modifier

dcooley — 2008-09-04T02:53:42+00:00

We had a disagreement about the Range modifier against armored targets in our first game today.

The rules refer to the modifiers on the CRT, to make things more complicated. There is no actual rule in the book, which I find a bit of a cop out. Terrain is covered over more than a page, but there's no paragraph or even example to clarify this one item.

The table says that when firing at an armored target, you essentially ignore the first hex, so firing at a range of 1 has no modifier. At longer range, there is a -2 modifier for the "last hex of range", -1 for other hexes. I took this to mean that if you are counting range from the firing unit to the target, you skip the first hex, then subtract one for each intervening hex past the first one, then subtract two for the target hex regardless of the firing unit's range (assuming the target is in range, of course).

My opponent felt that the "last hex of range" referred to the limits of the firing unit's range, so the -2 modifier would only apply if the target was as far from the firing unit as possible but still in range. For example, a unit with a range of 5 would only get the -2 modifier (as opposed to the regular -1 modifier) for the last hex if the target was five hexes away.

The text could be read either way. We ended up dicing for the result (it actually came down to that at one or two points), and my interpretation "won", but it would be nice to find out what the intent was from someone who knows.

The issue is not addressed in the official errata.

Thanks in advance.

Doug

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

dcooley — 2008-09-04T02:42:04+00:00

A couple of things to remember -

1) It is *crossing* a raised road that blocks LOS. You can see right down the road from the flak unit down to the set up lead units.

2) Best not to run straight at the big FLAK. Instead, you can move the two rearmost units in Group Hot onto side roads, then run the recce unit in the middle up the road to the west. The big FLAK unit does *not* have LOS to the road coming at it from that direction, as the N/S road blocks it. That means it gets no shots at the recce unit before it can get adjacent.

And if there's an enemy unit adjacent, that means the firing unit has a range of 1. Now you can move the other Group Hot units up, even next to the FLAK, then use a command point to fire at it.

The mortar in Group Hot is also useful for laying down a barrage to lower it's TQ and DF values further.

Hope that helps.

Doug

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

nrichard — 2008-09-03T11:39:01+00:00

Blademaster777 wrote:

The hexes I'm talking about are 34.55 & 35.55

As an aside, are there 3 'parts' to a Raised Road hex? On the road and either side of it?

Got it Dean.

The LOS from the 88 in hex 37.54 is blocked to both 34.55 and 35.55 as is you trace a thread from the center of the two hexes, in hex 36.54 it crosses over a raised road. This means hex 36.54 becomes blocking terrain (so a LOS can be traced into the hex, or out of it, but not through it).

Don't think about hexes with raised roads as having multiple parts, rather consider it to be a hex (with its normal terrain) with a raised road in it. If a Unit is in the hex, it's just in the hex, and isn't considered to be on one side of the road or the other.

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

bactrian5 — 2008-09-03T06:33:44+00:00

Thanks to all who replied, I've had this scenario set up for almost a week now and the LOS / raised roads question had me puzzled. Each time I sat down to run through the first activation I ended up frustrated and found solace clipping the remaining counters. Now with just one counter sheet to go and the answers here I think I'm set to give it a try.

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

Blademaster777 — 2008-09-03T05:39:31+00:00

ibn_ul_khattab wrote:
The first scenario is pretty much not a game, but a puzzle to learn the rules with. It is useful for learning raised roads, zoc and a few other rules, skip straight to The Empire Strikes back if you want something even halfway approaching a game.

Considering that I am not even close to being an experienced wargamer (this is my first wargame of this complexity, other than that I've only got Hannibal & Tide of Iron under my belt), I think I might stick with the puzzles a little longer.....

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-09-03T05:14:46+00:00

The first scenario is pretty much not a game, but a puzzle to learn the rules with. It is useful for learning raised roads, zoc and a few other rules, skip straight to The Empire Strikes back if you want something even halfway approaching a game.

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

tppytel — 2008-09-03T03:54:35+00:00

Blademaster777 wrote:
Yeah, but the OppFire from the FlaK unit in the village is pretty tame due to a mediorce TQ and FP values. It's certainly the lesser of two evils when compared to the '88 by the road.
Oh, no doubt. It's still a point of failure, though. The big problem in this scenario is that it only takes a single bad result to completely back up traffic due to all the raised roads. If one tank in Column gets itself Suppressed, then everyone waits until it can Rally. If you miss that one big shot with the lead tank, then everyone waits until it can try again. There's not much middle ground in the first part of the scenario - either everything works or everything's FUBAR.

Like I said, just try replaying it a few times.

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

Blademaster777 — 2008-09-03T03:24:50+00:00

tppytel wrote:
You also had to survive some Opportunity Fire from the village in order to neutralize the 88's FZ in the first place.

Yeah, but the OppFire from the FlaK unit in the village is pretty tame due to a mediorce TQ and FP values. It's certainly the lesser of two evils when compared to the '88 by the road.

nrichard wrote:
Blademaster777 wrote:

This is where a problem reared its ugly head. Does the '88 have LoS down the Raised Road to the village? I said no, because it crosses the Raised Road fron Nijmegen, my opponent said yes because the rulebook example specificly seems to indicate that you can fire down the length of a road and that the two roads are connected in the first hex.

Dean, do you have the specific hex numbers in question? I'm not exactly sure which ones you're referring to.

As mentioned in a prior thread:

If the LOS crosses over the raised road in a hex (goes from one side to the other), then that hex becomes blocking terrain (you can trace an LOS into it, and out of it, but not through it).

So the 88 in 37.54 has an LOS to 37.55, 37.56, and 37.57 (it runs along, but does not cross the raised road).

The 88 does not have an LOS to 35.55, as it crosses the raised road in 36.54, making this hex blocking terrain.

Sorry Nick, at this second I am at work, however when I get home tonight I'll pull out the maps and get specific hex numbers.

EDIT: Ok, I actually found a picture that gives me hex numbers.

The hexes I'm talking about are 34.55 & 35.55

As an aside, are there 3 'parts' to a Raised Road hex? On the road and either side of it?

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

nrichard — 2008-09-03T02:53:31+00:00

Blademaster777 wrote:

This is where a problem reared its ugly head. Does the '88 have LoS down the Raised Road to the village? I said no, because it crosses the Raised Road fron Nijmegen, my opponent said yes because the rulebook example specificly seems to indicate that you can fire down the length of a road and that the two roads are connected in the first hex.

Dean, do you have the specific hex numbers in question? I'm not exactly sure which ones you're referring to.

As mentioned in a prior thread:

If the LOS crosses over the raised road in a hex (goes from one side to the other), then that hex becomes blocking terrain (you can trace an LOS into it, and out of it, but not through it).

So the 88 in 37.54 has an LOS to 37.55, 37.56, and 37.57 (it runs along, but does not cross the raised road).

The 88 does not have an LOS to 35.55, as it crosses the raised road in 36.54, making this hex blocking terrain.

Thread: Re: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

tppytel — 2008-09-03T02:42:01+00:00

Blademaster777 wrote:
This is where a problem reared its ugly head. Does the '88 have LoS down the Raised Road to the village? I said no, because it crosses the Raised Road fron Nijmegen
It's been a while since I looked at it, but I believe that's correct.

Now with the gun neutered as it were, by being in contact with the unit I was able to simply drive up to it and blast it to pieces with the lead armor unit.
Sounds like you had a pretty lucky roll then - a step loss on a 0 perhaps? Presumably the German player would use any available Command Points to ensure that the 88 passes any S? results and rallies off any Suppressions. You also had to survive some Opportunity Fire from the village in order to neutralize the 88's FZ in the first place.

In the end I was able to create two long columns of units that allowed me to get them into position to assault the objective during my second turn of activations.
If you offed the 88 in the first turn and got the right sequence of chits in the second turn, then yeah... that could happen. But I think that if you play through the scenario a couple times you'll see that something goes wrong much more often than not.

Thread: What Am I Missing? (My Experiences With Scenario #1 "A Victory Lost")

Blademaster777 — 2008-09-03T02:16:16+00:00

The introduction to this scenario was playing in the back of my mind at the start of this scenario and I went into it fully expecting to get trounced.

After losing 3 steps of my armored units to the OppFire of the '88 attempting a frontal assault to either silence or neutrlise the big gun, I decided to send my tail end units through the other way (through the viaduct and past the concentration of German units in the village).

This is where a problem reared its ugly head. Does the '88 have LoS down the Raised Road to the village? I said no, because it crosses the Raised Road fron Nijmegen, my opponent said yes because the rulebook example specificly seems to indicate that you can fire down the length of a road and that the two roads are connected in the first hex.

Now with the gun neutered as it were, by being in contact with the unit I was able to simply drive up to it and blast it to pieces with the lead armor unit.

In the end I was able to create two long columns of units that allowed me to get them into position to assault the objective during my second turn of activations.

I suppose this post has two purposes, one to question LoS over raised roads, and two to ask.....

Is there anything else I'm missing? Because from the doom and gloom intorduction this seemed almost too easy.

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

tombesis — 2008-09-01T20:07:56+00:00

gunny3013 wrote:
I'd love to play.

Good here is the list of the players updated:
1. Joey Sabin
2. Simone Tombesi

6 more players needed!

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

tombesis — 2008-09-01T20:05:21+00:00

keethrax wrote:
Sounds like a lot of fun, but my current schedule is too chaotic to commit to it. I'd hate to have that many other people relying on me.

If you do get it going though, I'd love to see some session reports from you (and everyone else playing)

EDIT:
Out of curiosity, how would you handle the direct command chit?

I think it will be a looong affair and the game will be slow indeed.
My idea is to try to have fun and not to run like hells, so if you think you may sustain a slow-speed-game don't you hesitate to join the game.

Let's came to the "direct command chit" question.
I think the two teams should be governed by a seniority order for the commanders.
Germans:
1. Gen. Meindl (Korps Feldt)
2. Gen. Lt. von Tettau (Division von Tettau)
3. Brig. Fhr. Harmel (Frundsberg Division)
4. Ostubaf. Harzer (Hohenstaufen Division)
Allied:
1. Maj. Gen. Thomas (43rd Inf. Division) (sen. 25.10.1941)
2. Maj. Gen. Adair (Guards Arm. Division) (sen. 12.11.1944)
3. Maj. Gen. Urquhart (1st AB Division) (sen. 20.01.1946)
4. Brig. Gen. Gavin (82nd AB Division)

Each commander is free to spend his CPs during a direct command chit, but the order should be decided, if not agreed by players, by the most senior commander. Moreover, if the units belonging to two or more formations have to act in a concert manner they can be moved by the most highest commander of those formations.

I hope to have been clear enough. Sorry for my bad English, I'm from Italy.

Simone

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

gunny3013 — 2008-09-01T04:49:01+00:00

I'd love to play.

Thread: Re: TDC - Multiplayer game

keethrax — 2008-08-31T18:16:16+00:00

Sounds like a lot of fun, but my current schedule is too chaotic to commit to it. I'd hate to have that many other people relying on me.

If you do get it going though, I'd love to see some session reports from you (and everyone else playing)

EDIT:
Out of curiosity, how would you handle the direct command chit?

Thread: TDC - Multiplayer game

tombesis — 2008-08-31T14:20:24+00:00

I'm trying to organize a multiplayer games using the VASSAL engine.
One player for each division/corps in the field, that means 4 Allied players and 4 Axis players.
The scenario would be the Campaign game.
Anyone is interested?

Thread: Re: Luck o' the Irish, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Roll teh Dice

Col. Forbin — 2008-08-30T07:36:54+00:00

nrichard wrote:

Sounds like to played it right.

If the LOS crosses over the raised road (goes from one side to the other), then the hex becomes blocking terrain (you can trace an LOS into it, and out of it, but not through it).

So the 88 in 37.54 has an LOS to 37.55, 37.56, and 37.57 (it runs along, but does not cross the raised road).

The 88 does not have an LOS to 35.55, as it crosses the raised road in 36.54, making this hex blocking terrain.

Thanks for the reply Nick.

The rest of the game went as one might expect with the 88 biting the dust so early. The infantry in group hot supported by the Welsh Armor of group cold assaulted the objective hex just after 15:00 and blasted the defenders off the map.

Very much liking the system so far. I'm impressed that the series rules distill down to a 7 page rulebook and feel like the bigger scenarios will be quite manageable and fun. The combat has a great feel to it for me, especially the assaults.

Great stuff.

Thread: Re: Luck o' the Irish, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Roll teh Dice

nrichard — 2008-08-28T19:42:14+00:00

Col. Forbin wrote:

(As I'm writing this I think I might have gotten the raised road LOS rules wrong as I allowed the 88 to fire down the road at the approaching armor, after reading the rule again it appears that mabye the 88 can only fire into the raised road hexes adjacient to it?)

Sounds like to played it right.

If the LOS crosses over the raised road (goes from one side to the other), then the hex becomes blocking terrain (you can trace an LOS into it, and out of it, but not through it).

So the 88 in 37.54 has an LOS to 37.55, 37.56, and 37.57 (it runs along, but does not cross the raised road).

The 88 does not have an LOS to 35.55, as it crosses the raised road in 36.54, making this hex blocking terrain.

Thread: Luck o' the Irish, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Roll teh Dice

Col. Forbin — 2008-08-28T19:09:33+00:00

While setting up the first intro scenario 'A Victory Lost' the first thing I thought was, wow, not many jerries.

Then I had a closer look at the 88 and thought, hmm that's a mean looking piece in a good spot.

Then I read and reread (and reread) the rules for raised roads and thought OMG those tanks are screwed!

After leaving it out and looking at it for a few days trying to figure out if there was a way to avoid running straight at the 88 I decided to 'bite the bullet' as it were and get down to it.

My plan was to have 1/2 Irish Guards try to move up next to the gun, limiting it's field of fire and then moving the piggybacked infantry up behind it, dismount and then assault the gun on a later activation.

If 1/2 got blow'd up I was going to back the mortar and AT gun at the end of the line onto the side roads and run the recce through the underpass to approach the 88 from the west.

(As I'm writing this I think I might have gotten the raised road LOS rules wrong as I allowed the 88 to fire down the road at the approaching armor, after reading the rule again it appears that mabye the 88 can only fire into the raised road hexes adjacient to it?)

1/2 moved one hex forward and the 88 failed its TQ check for op fire, so far so good only 2 more hexes to go...

In the second hex the 88 passed the TQ check and rolled a 0 to hit (autohit, Cohesion hit) not too bad....

Just one more hex and the 88 failed to make the TQ check and cannot shoot!

After a bit of internal debate 1/2 spends a command point to take a low odds shot at the 88 and rolls.... a 0! That is enough to eliminate the one step gun and open the road to the objective!

So one unit activation complete and this game already feels epic.

Thread: Re: A Love Hate Relationship

Nikku — 2008-08-25T12:12:18+00:00

Thank you for this great review. As a wargamer-newbie I've chosen TDC as my entry game (pre-ordered WED as well) and feel "encouraged" by your words.

Thread: Re: A Victory Lost - learning the ropes

Blademaster777 — 2008-08-22T03:36:53+00:00

Good session report. I'm tackling this scenario tonight with my mate. I however am not an experienced wargamer so tonight might be something of a shock.....

Image

darkprincexviii — 2008-08-18T00:34:13+00:00

back of errata counters included in operation special edition #1 magazine

Image

darkprincexviii — 2008-08-18T00:33:37+00:00

front of errata counters included in operation special edition #1 magazine

Thread: Re: Vassal for dummies?

MikeOberly — 2008-08-04T04:34:46+00:00

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I think I get it. It seems like I just need to try it out for myself.

(Chuck, no I don't belong to CABs, I've thought about trying to go in the past, but my work schedule is very unfriendly to normal social events)

Image

Opeless — 2008-08-02T20:14:10+00:00

(Almost) all the counters, organised in a Raaco tray

Thread: Re: Can TDC be modded to fit 40k?

nyhotep — 2008-07-30T12:01:22+00:00

Seeing your counter mockups almost makes this idea feasible!

Thread: Re: Can TDC be modded to fit 40k?

IjonTichy — 2008-07-30T11:34:43+00:00

I just had a little fun with PS (I hope Niko E. does not mind!)

Thread: Re: Vassal for dummies?

Chucked — 2008-07-30T00:36:32+00:00

I have not played by pbem vassal yet, but I would play as you say you do solitaire. When your logging your turn and a opp fire presents itself just go ahead and roll the TQC and then the fire if it passes. That's all your opponent would do anyway. Now the assault would be a bit more of a problem. Realtime with vassal is the way to go barring FTF. Do you belong to CABS in Columbus? I'm sure someone there would be happy to play TDC.

Thread: Re: Vassal for dummies?

Scoobysnacks — 2008-07-29T13:29:55+00:00

I play Vasl which is where Vassal came from. When playing ASL, during the movement phase you move pieces in a log file that are independant of the actions of a defender, and send it back to them to see what they do. The other player has your log file going and starts his own logfile (so you are logging a file while playing a file) and inserts his actions "in virtual real time" or firing as your units are moving and re-adjusts any changes due to his actions. He sends that file back to you then you continue on with your movement if you had units that moved dependant of defender actions. If the phase actions are not dependant on the outcomes of your opponents then you can just do the whole phase at once.

Breaking down any interactive phases into multiple files works out much better this way and is much more FtF "like". The alternative is to do your entire actions and then your opponent stops your log file after a certain action occurs that he created and then you redo the remaining of your file accordingly. So say for ASL, I have a squad move and take fire from the defender, then later in the same file another of my unit walks into that hex and takes residual fire (something I would not do had I known) so that action should be stopped and redone.

Thread: Re: Vassal for dummies?

bambaladam — 2008-07-29T08:18:06+00:00

Hi, I'm not familiar with any tutorials, but for pbem, vassal allows you to interrupt your opponent's log and create your own log within it. You just select begin log file at the right moment, type "op fire" and roll, pretty much. If the results are big enough to derail your opponents turn, he may change his mind at that point. make sense?

Thread: Vassal for dummies?

MikeOberly — 2008-07-29T01:01:51+00:00

Hello, I have messed around a little bit with Vassal and TDC solitaire, and I understand the basic functions, but is anyone aware of a general tutorial, or, better yet, a TDC specific tutorial?

In particular, I'm unclear on how Opportunity Fire would work in a competitive game (and Assault, but baby steps first.....). When I'm playing solitaire, Op Fire is easy enough, I just take the shots -- but what is the procedure when you have to log your entire turn and then send to the opponent? Am I missing something simple here? I should mention that I have a little Aide de Camp and Cyberboard experience, but no expert on those, either.

Lastly, would anyone want to guide a newb through a quick game of 'A Victory Lost' via Vassal?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: 3 Player campaign Game on vassal : game in progress ....

Eric Brosius — 2008-07-26T13:44:54+00:00

More pictures, please!

Thread: Re: Units with MA of "*" and running away

nrichard — 2008-07-23T17:41:21+00:00

Yes. The unit may not move into an enemy Fire Zone.

Thread: Re: Units with MA of "*" and running away

chaltura — 2008-07-23T17:18:51+00:00

Does the restriction of not moving (running away in this situation) into enemy fire zone still apply for that unit?

Thread: Re: Units with MA of "*" and running away

nrichard — 2008-07-23T17:09:52+00:00

The Unit needs to pass a TQC in order to run away. If it fails the TQC, it's eliminated.

Thread: Units with MA of "*" and running away

chaltura — 2008-07-23T17:05:44+00:00

What would happen to the defending unit with movement allowance of "*" when it would not pass TQC in resolve charge step of assault? Is it permitted to run away or is it destroyed?

Thread: Re: The dice are nice......

ltdusky — 2008-07-22T13:52:55+00:00

nrichard wrote:
I think the dice are Koplow Opaque d10s.

They have a website at http://koplowgames.com and page 46 of their catalog shows the dice in question.

Nick: Thanks, I'll have a look. Sounds weird I know, but these dice are nice and I have several games that use d10.

Thread: Re: The dice are nice......

ltdusky — 2008-07-22T13:51:26+00:00

clownPL wrote:
You must buy another copy of TDC i think

The game is a very good game, but I think 1 copy is enough for this one. I'll save my money for the next in the series.

Thread: Re: The dice are nice......

Jan van der Laan — 2008-07-22T12:28:28+00:00

ltdusky wrote:
Does anyone know what brand these dice are, or where they came from? The dice are the nicest d10 dice I have used. I want to get more!

I've always thaught: a die is a die. What makes these TDC dice different from others?

Thread: Re: The dice are nice......

nrichard — 2008-07-22T12:12:31+00:00

I think the dice are Koplow Opaque d10s.

They have a website at http://koplowgames.com and page 46 of their catalog shows the dice in question.

Image

Nikku — 2008-07-09T13:40:18+00:00

Clipping setup

Image

Nikku — 2008-07-09T12:20:01+00:00

Unclipped ... 1 counter down, 1599 to go. :|

Image

dude163 — 2008-06-16T13:08:43+00:00

Start of the Campaign game ( version 1 , historical all the way)

Image

Codeine — 2008-06-10T20:11:56+00:00

TDC being played at ConsimworldExpo 2008

Image

dude163 — 2008-05-09T19:35:41+00:00

CG map all setup with all the counter sheets and playaids for the divisions

Image

dude163 — 2008-05-09T19:34:24+00:00

Campaign map all set up with 3 extensions

Image

dude163 — 2008-05-09T19:33:01+00:00

Pannerdan extension to Campaign map