Hi John, Love your videos. Just a note that your explanation for the AA at 23:41 is inconsistent with Rule 7.27 and 8.21E of the printed rules. I believe that what you are describing here may be a "CSW staff variant" of this rule - which is of course a completely valid variant to choose - but it may confuse people as this video is stated to be explaining the basic rules - and you do not explain that you are playing an optional variation of this important rule. In fact you explicitly refer to rule 8.21 and emphasize how important it is to get the rule correct. Rule 7.27 and 8.21E of the printed rules when read together explain that a CV cannot end its move in escort of a ground unit performing AA into an unoccupied enemy hex unless the CV has "some other legal reason" for being in the unoccupied AA hex. Under the example at 7.27 in the printed rules - the CV must declare and attack an enemy unit in another hex (either Guadalcanal or Rabaul in this case) in order to be able to escort the marine unit into Bouganville.
Thanks for raising this James. To clarify, the designer's interpretation of the naval movement rules has changed since these videos were created. These videos (including the AAR) were all done with the interpretation that naval units (especially CVs) could legally escort a ground force starting in the same port to an undefended hex without having to declare a battle hex. The current interpretation does not relax the restriction to declare a battle hex for escorts, which means that a CV CANNOT escort an AA to an empty hex UNLESS it's able to declare a battle against another hex in range. Obviously it could escort to a defended hex and declare that as the battle hex - that was always the case. I'm sure this issue comes up a few times in these videos. I'll try to highlight them as I see them or when folks point them out as you have done here. It's worth noting that this probably doesn't come up that many times in any given game, but when it does it can be significant. I have not explored the implications for strategy, so really don't know how much this changes the way either side needs to play the game.
@@johnsteidl293 Noted and agree with all of that John. I see that 5 years ago the designer himself commented on this video (below) and said nothing about your interpretation of the escort rule being inconsistent with his. Your videos are so clear and well explained (and the learning curve of the game so steep) that rightly or wrongly, people use them as a key training tool to learn and understand the subtleties of the rules of the game. This fact combined with the ambiguity in the printed rules and that fact that the designer's change in interpretation does not appear to have been accompanied by any significant marker or announcement or design note or clear change in the printed rules makes it extremely difficult for someone new learning the game to appreciate what the actual rules now are! Specifically - the printed rules do not make this "no escort" rule as explicit as they might, example 7.27 itself isn't clear and 8.21E as printed arguably allows escorting and more particularly if it does not allow it (which the designer states is now the correct interpretation), it makes no mention anywhere that Japanese organic naval transport into an unoccupied enemy hex (which is clearly intended to be legal) is an exception that otherwise breaches 8.21 I understand the designer has stated the text accompanying example 7.27 will be updated for the planned "4th edition" reprint and I have made a formal submission to the designer to clarify the language in 8.21
Just learning EotS via the South Pacific C3i variant. Rules are well written but I'm having a heck of a time "pulling it all together". Your videos here are helping a lot to see the bigger picture and process. Thanks!
Not germane to anything, but, my father-in-law was on the USS Mississippi during WWII. She has the distinction of being the last BB to fire her main battery at another BB in combat.
Yes. With Olmendorff's BBs...he always said that they were the battleship right behind the Missouri in Tokyo Bay at the surrender. All the pics I've seen are cropped so you can't tell. I always told him he was full of BS. :-)
Hi John!! First af all, thanks for these videos, they're really helpful for begginers like me. Just a questions regarding the move you propose in 24:10. You say a CV may escort an AA unit to a unoccupied enemy hex. That is what I thought at the beginning but it seems this movement is not allowed by the rules as the questions is addressed by Mark Herman in this thread (boardgamegeek.com/thread/2525598/article/36096463#36096463). I am not a native English speaker but it seems to me that he is quite cathegoric when he denies that possibility. Don't know if you understand the same thing. Again thank you very mucho for the time you devoted to these videos! Regards.
Missed this one but see the comment from James S. Such a move was legal five years ago but the designer's interpretation of the rule in question (8.21 I think) has changed since those days. Note that there is some further elaboration in the latest version of the rules. There are certainly a few places in this game where Antero or I made moves that are not consistent with the current interpretation.
Hey JS...I'm inviting you to join us over at Facebook's "EotS Mind Games" Over there...I sort of had to call you out about not playing the Arcadia card. It's all good. Come join us.
Thanks for posting. Not sure what your specific thought was. I find Arcadia to be very situational. If the Japanese are short on battle hexes or activations, playing it can create problems for them. Against an inexperienced JP it can also create problems. Against a competent JP with at least average cards, it often won't accomplish much. And it is an extra ISR ender that goes out of the game permanently if you play the event. In some games that can turn out to be huge for the Allies. (In others, it may not matter.) I don't think there is a correct answer (play or don't play) that is independent of the game context. At this point, I don't remember everything that was going through my head in this particular game.
Hi John,
Love your videos.
Just a note that your explanation for the AA at 23:41 is inconsistent with Rule 7.27 and 8.21E of the printed rules. I believe that what you are describing here may be a "CSW staff variant" of this rule - which is of course a completely valid variant to choose - but it may confuse people as this video is stated to be explaining the basic rules - and you do not explain that you are playing an optional variation of this important rule. In fact you explicitly refer to rule 8.21 and emphasize how important it is to get the rule correct.
Rule 7.27 and 8.21E of the printed rules when read together explain that a CV cannot end its move in escort of a ground unit performing AA into an unoccupied enemy hex unless the CV has "some other legal reason" for being in the unoccupied AA hex.
Under the example at 7.27 in the printed rules - the CV must declare and attack an enemy unit in another hex (either Guadalcanal or Rabaul in this case) in order to be able to escort the marine unit into Bouganville.
Thanks for raising this James. To clarify, the designer's interpretation of the naval movement rules has changed since these videos were created.
These videos (including the AAR) were all done with the interpretation that naval units (especially CVs) could legally escort a ground force starting in the same port to an undefended hex without having to declare a battle hex. The current interpretation does not relax the restriction to declare a battle hex for escorts, which means that a CV CANNOT escort an AA to an empty hex UNLESS it's able to declare a battle against another hex in range. Obviously it could escort to a defended hex and declare that as the battle hex - that was always the case.
I'm sure this issue comes up a few times in these videos. I'll try to highlight them as I see them or when folks point them out as you have done here. It's worth noting that this probably doesn't come up that many times in any given game, but when it does it can be significant. I have not explored the implications for strategy, so really don't know how much this changes the way either side needs to play the game.
@@johnsteidl293 Noted and agree with all of that John. I see that 5 years ago the designer himself commented on this video (below) and said nothing about your interpretation of the escort rule being inconsistent with his.
Your videos are so clear and well explained (and the learning curve of the game so steep) that rightly or wrongly, people use them as a key training tool to learn and understand the subtleties of the rules of the game. This fact combined with the ambiguity in the printed rules and that fact that the designer's change in interpretation does not appear to have been accompanied by any significant marker or announcement or design note or clear change in the printed rules makes it extremely difficult for someone new learning the game to appreciate what the actual rules now are!
Specifically - the printed rules do not make this "no escort" rule as explicit as they might, example 7.27 itself isn't clear and 8.21E as printed arguably allows escorting and more particularly if it does not allow it (which the designer states is now the correct interpretation), it makes no mention anywhere that Japanese organic naval transport into an unoccupied enemy hex (which is clearly intended to be legal) is an exception that otherwise breaches 8.21
I understand the designer has stated the text accompanying example 7.27 will be updated for the planned "4th edition" reprint and I have made a formal submission to the designer to clarify the language in 8.21
Just learning EotS via the South Pacific C3i variant. Rules are well written but I'm having a heck of a time "pulling it all together". Your videos here are helping a lot to see the bigger picture and process. Thanks!
Glad they're helpful. South Pacific is a wonderful intro to the system and a great short game all on its own.
I'm obviously way behind the power curve on this series but this was incredibly helpful.
Thanks for these. Appreciate the thoughts and examples on the strategy implications of various alternatives.
These videos have been great, John. Thanks!
Thanks for the videos, very helpful. Just a comment that the Special Reaction roll always uses the OC value not the EC value.
Great video... thanks...
Not germane to anything, but, my father-in-law was on the USS Mississippi during WWII. She has the distinction of being the last BB to fire her main battery at another BB in combat.
Very cool! Was that at Surigao Straight? (Leyte)
Yes. With Olmendorff's BBs...he always said that they were the battleship right behind the Missouri in Tokyo Bay at the surrender. All the pics I've seen are cropped so you can't tell. I always told him he was full of BS. :-)
Hi John!! First af all, thanks for these videos, they're really helpful for begginers like me. Just a questions regarding the move you propose in 24:10. You say a CV may escort an AA unit to a unoccupied enemy hex. That is what I thought at the beginning but it seems this movement is not allowed by the rules as the questions is addressed by Mark Herman in this thread (boardgamegeek.com/thread/2525598/article/36096463#36096463).
I am not a native English speaker but it seems to me that he is quite cathegoric when he denies that possibility.
Don't know if you understand the same thing.
Again thank you very mucho for the time you devoted to these videos!
Regards.
Missed this one but see the comment from James S. Such a move was legal five years ago but the designer's interpretation of the rule in question (8.21 I think) has changed since those days. Note that there is some further elaboration in the latest version of the rules. There are certainly a few places in this game where Antero or I made moves that are not consistent with the current interpretation.
Hey JS...I'm inviting you to join us over at Facebook's "EotS Mind Games"
Over there...I sort of had to call you out about not playing the Arcadia card. It's all good. Come join us.
Thanks for posting. Not sure what your specific thought was. I find Arcadia to be very situational. If the Japanese are short on battle hexes or activations, playing it can create problems for them. Against an inexperienced JP it can also create problems. Against a competent JP with at least average cards, it often won't accomplish much. And it is an extra ISR ender that goes out of the game permanently if you play the event. In some games that can turn out to be huge for the Allies. (In others, it may not matter.) I don't think there is a correct answer (play or don't play) that is independent of the game context. At this point, I don't remember everything that was going through my head in this particular game.