I have another silly question in which I hope, and know you guys will help me out on... *looks at loophole master*

On scenario 3, the walls become breakable. Cool. But on Scenario 4 it states in the book that the walls break if the attacker broke the walls.

Question. What if the defender broke the walls? They are not the attacker. I know it is a technicality, and the answers seems obvious, but I just want to end further arguments in the future, cause I can see this as a problem for some of the technical gamers.

Thanks in advance!

I'm sure that it is not specifically called out in the rules because it is not in the defender's best interest to knock the walls down. Scenarios also don't address other issues like what happens if you decide to shoot your partner's troops in a 4 player game. Do you get victory points for taking them out? They are troops that you've killed, so they should count... Before anyone takes me seriously, I don't think that you should get victory points for taking out your partner. =)

If the defender wants to do 8 health against 5 vehicle armor, then they get a ruined wall, IMO.

Wow, that's pushing semantics to ludicrous levels.

" Attacker: Important: if you breached the surrounding wall in the previous game, the gap is still there."

If you're playing with someone who advocates that this means that because the walls were brached by the defender last mission, then they are rebuilt in this scenario, you should just shove a Luther or a squad of zombies down his throat.

True. But, a technical player can always say that since he broke the walls as a defender in scenario 3, the attacker on the scenario 4 doesn't get broken walls.

It can be used as a means to prevent your opponent from having a bigger deployment area on the next map, and at the same time, give you an extra breathing room, and another exit your opponent has to worry about.

LOl.

Well what can we do, technical gamers, will be technical gamers. Until this issue is resolved by an official statement, I fear we may never hear the end of it.

Again, you won't hear any rules complaints from a guy with a Luther stuck in his throat.

Just saying.

FFS

Lol, I wonder if the item shoving to the mouth to shut up technique will work on my GF... I will check and see, will update in the future, if I don't post here anymore, it means it did not work.

jowisu said:

Well, I think thats the first time sex has been brought up on this forum

Is that a Rhino in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Nope it's a fireball:D And srsly guys, what kind of defender would think about braking his own walls when the whole american army is at his doorstep;)

I can picture a rules lawyer that doesn't want the opening in the second scenario, and so does the final damage to make the opening at the end of the first scenario, thus denying the attacking player the ability to say they caused the opening.

The scenario does not specify that damage that didn't break the wall down carries forward, so an obnoxious rules lawyer could insist that a defender doing even a single final point of damage to the wall would block the opening for the next scenario, because the attacker did not cause the actual opening.

Rules need common sense, or outside control, or this kind of idiocy can take a lot of fun out of gaming.

I keep it simple for competitive leagues, because I stand as the final rules arbiter, and I would carry any opening forward, regardless of who caused how much damage, because the opening had been made. I'd also give victory points to the opposing side if someone shot at and destroyed a unit from the same side for any reason with the same kind of common sense ratianale; it doesn't matter who did it, it still gives the same advantage. Friendly fire isn't, but the opposition always gains and is happy to let you do it.

The only situation that would leave exploitable would be friends playing against each other in the first game, and the defending player opening holes to help their friend in their next game against a different player. It isn't such an advantage as to break the game, nor would it be easy to verify as fully intended as cheating, but it would certainly flag the defending player as someone to watch for further unsportsmanlike behavior that could get them banned from future events I ran.

For (questionably) friendly games against a player like this, before sides are chosen, make sure the impact is discussed before the game begins. If they seriously play this kind of idiocy, I'd suggest finding new people to play against for friendly gaming.