We’re off and running in Maryland on the second operation. Now that we’re turning our attention to the second scenario, there appears to be a mistake.

The Game 2 directions tell you to assign numbers from one to three to the objective tokens with no duplicates. They then tell you that I if you’re within range one of a randomly selected objective token, you can take damage beginning on round 3.

Problem is, there are five objective tokens, not three. It seems as if they at some late point they substituted in Recover the Supplies but forgot to change the rule.

‘Anybody have an elegant way out of this? Right now I’m inclined to number them one to five, and the damage result only occurs to a unit currently claiming that token.

All other suggestions are appreciated.

My roommate and I assigned numbers to 3 of the 5 objectives. Made those other two hot spots for action.

That’s a very good thought.

Why not just expand the number range to 1-5? Does that break anything?

I haven’t been ignoring you, I’ve just been trying to think about it from a number of viewpoints and may end up doing what you suggest.

We did indeed end up numbering 1-5, and having everything within one get the potential hit.

It seemed to work fine, although we did have the number "5" come up three out of the four rolls, which was humorous, involving damage to bikes, Luke, kill the last figure in a squad, all kinds of mess!

I messaged a friend I have at FFG. They said they will try and fix the problem!

15 hours ago, Skarekrow07 said:

I messaged a friend I have at FFG. They said they will try and fix the problem!

Cool. We're past it now, but I wanted to give everyone a head's-up while getting some suggested alternative thoughts. Ours went fine the way we did it.

Did you like it?

Yeah, I thought that way of playing it went fine.

Still only using 1-3 would indeed make a fight for the non-exploding supplies a priority, but I think it was interesting enough with all five in the mix.

Having the explosions affect units out to range one was fun without being overly damaging. I think the way we chose (which really came from @nashjaee ) was probably about the best way to handle it. The fact that the explosions only occurred on rounds 3-6, and the fact that they were likely spread over a relatively large number of objectives over the entire board made it interesting, but not too game-changing.

I'm not sure if it was intended, but the thematic way we interpreted the scenario was that because the blue player had won the first game, the red player's command structure tried to guess about where they were, as they lacked the specific communication information. Thus they guessed where the good supplies were going to be picked up by their troops, and spiked the ones they thought would be picked up by the enemy. Sometimes those guesses were good......

On 5/11/2018 at 11:23 AM, nashjaee said:

Why not just expand the number range to 1-5? Does that break anything? 

That's what we did. Since the bombs only go off for 3 rounds it doesn't really change anything there are still 2 safe boxes.

So I noticed some other things looking through Silent Hail

It is ambiguous if there are two separate conditions for each battle based on winner or not.

For instance, all of them have the "If Red won read this" and "If Blue One read that"

Each scenario after the first has flavor text then something about the battle. Round two looks like it has two different conditions based on prior winner

Round Four ABSOLUTELY has different conditions based on prior winner, i.e. both players cannot be awarded the choice of deployment zone and being first player.

But then round three is completely confusing in that under red player it says if red won choose limited visibility or hazardous conditions and under if blue won it says to use Rapid Reinforcements which seems to indicate that the only difference is the flavor text.

So, either the blocks indicate discreet conditions based on who won the previous match or they don't. Or at least one does(because it has to) and the others do not or two of them do and one does not (because otherwise the battle would lack either a condition or an objective).

I'm used to FFG making incredibly unclear documentation but really? It's like they tried to make this one impossible to decipher.

On 5/31/2018 at 10:21 AM, kac said:

Cool. We're past it now, but I wanted to give everyone a head's-up while getting some suggested alternative thoughts. Ours went fine the way we did it.

I, however am in week one of this and am trying to head off the problems before we get to them.

@Skarekrow07 did your friend ever respond further?

7 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

But then round three is completely confusing in that under red player it says if red won choose limited visibility or hazardous conditions and under if blue won it says to use Rapid Reinforcements which seems to indicate that the only difference is the flavor text.

I'm a little confused as to what is confusing you, haha.

The way I read it: there are 3 possible conditions, but only 1 of those conditions will actually be used in the game you play. The 1 you use will depend on you won the previous game.

Are you saying that you think the if-statement only affects the flavor text you read? I think the non-italicized parts are also included in the if-else blocks.

This might make what I'm saying more clear

Ok, I think I've got ya. I believe the idea is that the previous winner determines both the flavor text and the rules text for the next game. So if Blue player won, ignore both the flavor and rules texts under the Red player option.

15 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

B) In Mission 3 it says under red player mission 2 victory that the red player gets to choose limited visibility or hostile environment and under blue player mission 2 victory it says to use Rapid Reinforcements.

If in the prior example you said that the only difference from the preceding victory is the flavor text and all listed conditions are in effect, that's fine (but causes a problem in mission 4) whereas if the condiitons are discreet to the prior winner then now you have a mission that is lacking either a battlefield condition (because that is contingent on the red player winning) or an objective (contingent on the blue player winning)

I think this is the source of the confusion. All 3 items there are conditions. Rapid Reinforcements is a condition, not an objective. So neither one leaves you missing anything. There should be 1 each of deployment, objective, and condition cards when all is said and done.

On 6/7/2018 at 10:29 AM, Zrob314 said:

I, however am in week one of this and am trying to head off the problems before we get to them.

@Skarekrow07 did your friend ever respond further?

Yeah, he updated the text to include assigning each objective token a number 1-5.

Yep, it definitely looks fixed. Tell your friend, "Good job."