From: hcmeyer@uci.edu (Hank Meyer) Subject: A House Divided questions (Nov 95) Christopher Weuve [caw@intercon.com] inquires: >A House Divided, 1989 ed., Advanced Game Rules, p.1 reads: "If two or more >pieces are in a box, they must trace a supply line or forage." The rules >then go on and explain how to trace a supply line. As near as I can tell, >however, the rules for foraging are not included -- anybody have any idea >what the rule is? Yes. Next question ...(there is no official errata to the 2nd edition that I know about). This is a misprint left over from the 1st edition rules. There is no foraging in the 2nd edition. Either Frank Chadwick or Alan Emrich told me this in a conversation on the game. There is also a key word omitted in the Like Battlefield Targets rule on page 10. The second sentence of the rule should read: "Even then, the infantry pieces may choose to ignore the enemy ((CAVALRY)) pieces as targets and start ganging up on enemy infantry pieces (same source as above). There is some inconsistency in the rules as to what month the game starts in. Page 3 (Playing the Game) states twice that the game begins on the June 1961 turn while page 9 (Game Length) says the game lasts up to 40 turns, from July 1861 to June 1865. Page 9 (The Short Game) says it lasts for 10 turns, from July 1861 to June 1862. I don't know the answer to this one, as you can make an equally convincing argument for starting the game in May, June, or July of that year. The Turn Record Chart indicates the game starts in July. There are some errors in the Army Maximum Size Table on page 13. The rule above the table says the Alternate Endings are determined at the end of each March game turn while the Table says May. I believe the table to be in error ALTHOUGH if the game begins in June, then June through May of the next year is exactly 12 months (one year). This also seems reasonable (I never asked Alan or Frank about this). On the other hand, Union militia drafts take place in April, so it's logical to compare army size at the end of March. The numbers in the South Advantage column for 1863 and 1864 are wrong (it should be obvious) and should be 10 and 14 (rather than 11 and 15) respectively. The unanswered question I have is if a player can recruit new units in a city that was captured in a previous phase of a current turn. As the Capturing Cities rule states "a player captures a box by having at least one piece there at the END of either player's turn", so I'd tend to think not. Finally, through an error in production, the Union Generals were miscut in some copies of the game. The correct information for all generals is: GRANT: Factor 1 beginning February 1862, Factor 2 beginning June 1863. SHERMAN: Factor 1 beginning May 1862, Factor 2 beginning August 1863. LEE: Factor 3 beginning June 1862, Factor 2 beginning September 1863. Two articles on the 2nd edition have been published that I am aware of: *Wargamer #18 (Jan-Feb 90) by Alan Emrich (a 3 page overview of the game) *Wargamer #22 (Sep-Oct 90) by David Nicholas (an 8 page in-depth analysis of the game including designer notes by Alan Emrich). Well worth reading. Alan clarifies some other things in this piece: Only units which are currently routed are considered routed for desertion purposes. In fact, change the second morale die roll modifier sentence to read: "If the unit IS not routed (see Battle-field Morale): -1". Leaders move as infantry units of their respective side (there is not a cavalry Jump Move for them). They enter and change status after the player rolls marches for that turn. >Also, has anybody else noted that GDW has a tendency to leave out at least >one rule per game? The _Ironclads and Ether Flyers_ naval miniatures rules, >for example, refer to a "fire table" that does not exist. I really like >GDW, but proofreading has never been their strong point. Complain, complain, complain... Jim Sandefur writes: >Most of the advanced rules for HD violate the spirt of a great game. If you >want more detail or to simulate a particular element of the ACW you'd do >better ignoring the advanced rules by GDW and make up your own. I think that's far too strong a statement. Firstly, the intro to the Advanced Rules itself states: ...While they greatly enhance the simulation value of the game (making it more "realistic"), they also add a degree of complexity which should not be undertaken by novice players. Like the proceeding standard game rules, they are all independent in themselves and can be added to the game separately or together... This effectively says mix-and-match, which is kinda like making up your own with a pre-existing template. Also, as Alan says in his designer's note in Wargamer #22 (Sep-Oct 90): ...Mr.Nicholas rightly asks the question about the need to tamper with "a classic" instead of just re-releasing it. Well, the "classic" part of the game is still there, almost untouched, and the rest of it is just bells and whistles for devotees of the game. Everything is optional, and players can decide for themselves what rules level to play at... Hey, the capture Washington rule is a real killer for the Union player...you start acting like McClellan and feel good about it ... Hank "Bother," said Pooh as he [[deleted so as not to offend the racial, ethnic, gender, religious, political, cultural, or creedal sensitivities of any individual or group and so as to avoid any chance of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, inadvertent misstatement, poor judgment or poor taste, misuse of the English language in either composition or comprehension, or lack of sense of humor by any person - living, dead, unborn, real or imaginary - who may or may not read this sig line, and subject to approval of the moderator]]