Second Front -- Errata and Rulings

Collected errata, rulings, clarifications, rules changes, and house rules, for Second Front

Last update: September 18, 2013

IMPORTANT! Carl Kleihege, formerly from GR/D, graciously authorized this work; almost everything here is copyrighted by HMS/GRD and I’m just collecting it. If you want to use anything herein, talk to them, not to me.

My thanks to John M. Astell and Paul Mills, who sent me some material from TEM I was lacking.

Interested parties may also take a look at a file sent by Alan Tibbetts with discussions on Second Front in the Europa mailing list.

Introductory Musings

I’m fascinated by HMS/GRD’s game Second Front. Both as a game and as a simulation of an intricate strategic situation, it is a magnificent undertaking.

However… the rules are a problem. Europa rules have been tweaked and patched a lot in the 25+ years since DNO, and it shows. As a relative newcomer on the Europa scene, I don’t have much of the knowledge and of the assumptions that older hands have.

Since I’m a lawyer, game rules acquire another dimension for me and I can’t avoid using the tools of my trade on them. Well, I’m from Brazil, and our legal system (Civil Law) has few things in common with Common Law. Unfortunately, this impacts on the interpretation of the rules, as more than one controversy in the Europa mailing list has highlighted. More seriously, apparently there is an unspoken assumption that the intent of the designer can override the actual wording of the rule, even without a formal errata. This is really difficult for me to accept.

But I’m learning. And, to help with that, I decided to collect all SF errata and rulings that I could find. (I still don’t have a complete TEM set, but I’m getting there.) The collected information is all on this page.

Of course, none of this information is mine; almost all information here is © copyrighted by HMS/GRD Games and perhaps some few selected people. This is but a compilation of their work.

Errata and other changes

Officially, there is errata (which change or expand the original rules) and rulings (which just clarify the RAW). The real situation is a lot fuzzier. “Official” errata has included clarifications, and rulings have changed the wording of the rules, sometimes with dramatic effects. Some articles in TEM and e-mail messages by the designer and others, while not “official” errata per se, carry such weight of authority that must be considered at least as new optional rules. The end result of all this is a confused jumble of changes, sometimes contradictory, and very hard to track down; in a sense, this is the major impulse behind this work.

On the web, SF errata can be found at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second%20Front/Second%20Front.pdf (comprehensive errata, Q&A, and Rules Court rulings; herein called Errata1), dated March 3, 1998. Rich Velay has two pages with errata (dated June 6, 1998; herein Errata2) at his site. Web Grognard’s Second Front entry has links to a few other pages with assorted errata and information.: http://grognard.com/errata/sf.txt (dated March 3, 1996; herein Errata3); http://grognard.com/errata/sf2.txt (no date, herein Errata4); and http://grognard.com/errata/sf3.txt (no date, herein Errata5).

In order to ease the referencing and the use of this page, I have put all errata and other rulings together, in the order of the rules that they reference.

Maps, Counters, Charts, and OBs

Maps

Map 16A

  • Ignore any minor spill-over of city hexes. For example, hex 0605 is a clear terrain hex. [Errata2]
  • Add a canal on the 0928/0927 and 0827/0927 hexsides. [Errata2]
  • Add escarpment on both sides of the river along the 4005/4105 and 4004/4105 hexsides. [Errata2]
  • Add a railroad crossing the 4302/4303 hexside [connecting the two halves of Wien] [Errata2]
  • The name of the river next to Steyr [3906] is the Enns. [Errata2]
  • Some cities adjacent to rivers have minor registration problems with the city symbol being ever so slightly too far away from the river, such that they could appear to be partial hex major cities instead of full hex major cities. For example, the central hex of Berlin, the SE portion of Hamburg, Prag, Frankfurt-am-Main and 1520. In all cases, these are Full hex major cities. [Errata2]

Map 17A

  • Change hex 0109 to Woods [from Clear] terrain [Errata2]
  • Change the sea portion of hexes 1013 and 1014 to restricted waters [Errata2]
  • Caen [1010] is an inland fragile port; add the artificial harbor notation to the port symbol in the hex. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Is Caen really a bigger port than Cherbourg?

Surprisingly, Caen is a more important port than Cherbourg. Cherbourg was a premier port for ocean liners in the pre-war period, but Caen was the heavy-duty cargo port of the area. This explains part of the Allies planning on capturing Caen early in the Normandy campaign, as they hoped to capture the port. In the event, the Germans blocked the British back from taking the port in the early days of the campaign, and then they wrecked the locks system that gave access to the port, so extensively that the port was rendered of little use for the remainder of the war. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Map 26

  • Add an internal [gray] border along the 0128/0129, 0128/0228, 0228/0227 and 0228/0328 hexsides [the boundary between Toscana and Liguria]. [Errata2]
  • Clarification: The Lipari islands in hex 3624 are Rough terrain. [Errata2]

Map 27

  • Weather line D turns northwest in hex 043 [instead of 0431] and runs through hexes 0331-0231-0132 [instead of 0332-0232-0133]. [Errata2]
  • The Zaroud wadi system is incorrectly shown as Salt Desert terrain. Only the 3912/3913 hexside [Kelbia Sebkha] is Salt Desert. All hexsides are Wadi beginning with 3913/4012 and including all hexsides of the system west of this point. [Errata2]

Counters

Note that many of these errors were corrected on the German Higher HQ counter sheet, available from GR/D. Also note that all of these errors have been corrected in the SF Refit counters, available from GR/D. The only errors on the Refit counter sheets are the misprinting of the 1-8 Mar Cmdo II 10 [IA] as a brigade (it is a battalion, not a brigade); and there is one Allied Italian 2-3-6 Inf X with no unit ID (it should have a unit ID of “Fol”). [Errata2]

The SF Refit counters are no longer available.

Note for owners of the SF Refit counters: The listing in Rule 2 - Game Components is incorrect if you have the refit counter sheets. If you do, then you should have counter sheets 60, 61A through 75A, and a Universal Marker sheet. (If your German Port Fortification counters have attack factors, then you have the old counter sheets, if they have zero attack factors, then you have the new counter sheets.) [Errata2]

US Army

  • The 1-8 Mortar II 96 has a 2-point position AA mistakenly printed on the back. Ignore this. [Errata2]
  • A 1-point position AA counter has no 2-point position AA on its back. It should. [Errata2]

US Army Air Force

  • The B-25G and one B-25J are mistakenly printed as “-25G” and “-25J” on their inoperative sides. Add a “B” to each. [Errata2]

British Army

  • The 4-10 Mech X divisional breakdown should have “B” on both its supported and unsupported sides [it mistakenly has “A” on its supported side.] [Errata2]

Why do British infantry divisions form stronger cadres than divisions of equivalent strength from other nations?

When the SF OB was almost finished it became clear that the US and British counters were very similar - too much so considering their differing characteristics. I suggested the change in cadre values in the British - not because of the ’thin red line’ and all that rubbish, but rather that:

  1. British infantry divisions had a formidable defensive capability that is not really reflected in their attack value (and simply splitting their attack/defense ratings did not work either) since they possessed:

a. very powerful anti-tank strength (at least twice that of an US division) especially after the introduction of towed and self-propelled 17 pounder; b. a strong MG battalion - the Vickers MMG being best in set piece attack and defense situations; c. a full ‘combat-motorized’ recon II - most useful as a last string emergency reserve (apart from its recon role).

  1. British infantry formalized a ’left out of battle’ structure in which at least 25% of men and almost all second in commands were not used in an attack. In Europa terms this meant that strong cadres remained in the division even after horrid losses.

Note that only British and Commonwealth infantry divisions get this benefit, and only after they convert to their highest rating, after getting machinegun, recon and AT assets. [TEM 59/60]

Polish Army

  • The 1st Polish Armored Division first configuration (forming in Jul I 43, ETO) should be an 8-7-10 (as per the OB). Since the division only enters play after upgrading to a 13-10 configuration, there is no effect on play anyway.

Royal Air Force

  • A P51D5, a Typhoon 1B and the Whirl air units all lack back printing. Each should have its model and “Inop” on the back. [Errata2]
  • The RAF ETO 3rd and 4th Strategic Wings mistakenly have “Typhn 1B Inop” or “Whirl Inop” printed on their backs. Ignore these. [Errata2]

German Army

  • The counters for the 1-10 mot Rkt Art II Lehr and 4-6-6 Inf XX 230 are inadvertently missing from the counter mix. Players will have to make their own counters for these units. [Errata2]
  • The 2× 3-4-6* Mtn Trng XX 11077, 11082 counters are mistakenly shown as divisions. They are brigades, 3-4-6* Mtn Trng X. [Errata2]
  • The 1-2-10 PzG II Lehr shows no self-supported indicator. It should be self-supported: 1-2-10* PzG II. [Errata2]

What sort of equipment difference is there between a German 1-10 mot AT II and a 1-2-10 mot AT II? They appear in the same time frame.

Antitank and Tank Destroyers:

  • 1-10 towed and early SP AT guns.
  • 1-2-10 Nashorns.
  • 2-1-10 Hetzers.
  • 2-8 Elefants.
  • 3-6 Jagdtigers (underequipped battalions; had sufficient Jagdtigers been available to fully equip a battalion, rating would be 3-4-6 or 4-6).
  • 3-8 Jagdpanthers.

[TEM 53]

I am guessing that, as illustrated above, the equipment is relative and changes over time without any player effort (a 1-10 AT II in 1939 is equipped with 37mm ATG, while the same unit in 1943 would have 5cm or 75mm… ?)

Yes. Europa assumes all sides are incrementally upgrading their equipment throughout the war, so that a 1-10 AT II vs. a 2-1-10 Tk II in 1940 could be a 37mm vs. a Pz II/III, while in 1944 it could be a 75mm vs. a late-war Pz IV, etc. Thus, most evolutionary equipment changes are not shown (otherwise we’d probably need triple the number of counters!) but revolutionary equipment changes are (for example, the appearance of the Panther tank). [TEM 53]

Luftwaffe

  • The 3× 0-1-5 Inf II 501, 502, 503 [LW] are all mistakenly shown as battalions. They are regiments: 0-1-5 Inf III [LW]. [Errata2]

OKW

  • The 2-3-4* Static XX Grp Altmrk [OKW] has a mistaken unit identification. It should be Altrch. [Errata]

Waffen-SS

  • The 0-1-4 Static II ASA [SS] has a mistaken unit identification. It should be AS. [Errata2]

RSI Italian

Note that the replacement counter for this unit included with the German Higher HQ counter sheet was also in error, showing the unit as a 1-4 Mtn III and having it in SS colors… [Errata2, Errata4]

  • The 1-8 Mtn III Tagl [CCNN] is mistakenly printed in regular Italian colors. It should be in CCNN colors.

Markers

  • The (-4) PzG markers are mistakenly missing from the counter mix. Players will have to make their own; there should be 7 of these markers. [Errata2]
  • Although it should be obvious, Rail hit markers are Red [with the “Line Cut” symbol on the back], while the Black Hit markers, with multiple hits on the back, should be used for non-rail hits, like airbase hits. [Errata2]

Charts

Optional AA Fire Table

  • Note that the -1 AA effectiveness modifier to the ADS of Code S type HB units when flying GS and DAS is superfluous, since no type HB air unit may fly GS or DAS missions. [Errata2]
  • Note #2 for this table is scrambled: replace it with the following; Lettered columns are only used as a result of column shifts. Column shifts are cumulative. Treat shifts that would go past the “A” column as positive dice roll modifications on the “A” column; treat shifts that would go past the “F” column as negative dice roll modifications on the “F” column. [TEM 37, Errata1, Errata2]

Unit Identification Chart

  • Note that on some copies of this chart, the unit symbol for “Other Motorized (mot) Units” is shown as mot Art. This is incorrect. The correct symbol for “Other Motorized” is an empty unit symbol box with the two “wheels” underneath, i.e. a Static unit symbol with the two “wheels”. [Errata2]

Is there any game significance to Alarm units, as opposed to infantry, or is this purely for historical information?

Purely historical information. [TEM 43/44]

Game Play Chart 1

  • The stacking summary is incorrect in one instance: regular stacking should be 3, not 6, units. [TEM 37, Errata1]

Game Play Chart 2

  • There should be a heading on the Success Table Die Roll Modifiers chart for Day Air units crash landing: +2 for all Day Air units landing at night. [Errata2, Errata4]

Game Play Chart 3

  • Note that the intrinsic AA listed for map items is cumulative. For example, Wilhelmshaven [16A:0612], a German dot city, Improved Fortress and major port, would have 5+ 3+ 1, or 9, points of intrinsic lt AA, the sum of all applicable values. [Errata2]
  • Note that the intrinsic AA listed for Units is not cumulative; a unit will either have one pt of intrinsic lt AA [if it satisfies any one of the conditions listed] or it will have no intrinsic lt AA [if it satisfies none of the conditions]. For example, the Herman Goring 18-10 Pz XX would have one pt of intrinsic lt AA, regardless of the fact that is a Luftwaffe division and an Axis c/m division and that it has a printed attack strength of 9 or more. Any one of those conditions is sufficient to grant it one pt of lt AA; the fact that it satisfies more than one listed condition does not increase its intrinsic lt AA. [Errata2]

Game Play Chart 4

The coastal defense table says ‘+ (something) for each port fortification" so apparently more than one port fortification may be placed in a hex? (Especially since we couldn’t find enough coastal ports for all Axis PFs in the setup for ETO scenario.)

Only one Port Fortification may be in any one hex. Similarly, you may only have one fort counter per hex (and none in a hex with a Port Fortification.) I think you must be reading the Axis OB incorrectly, since there are actually not enough Port Forts available to put one in each Axis great, major or standard port that the Axis own in the West theater. [TEM 54]

Victory Levels Chart

(Correction) The listing of turns which complete a quarter, and are thus turns in which VPs are calculated, is in error. Replace the listing of “Oct II” with “Sep II”.

Rule 42 and VP chart. Correction of Quarters to Mar, Jun, Sep and Dec. RCV 11/22/96 [Errata4]

When the Victory Levels Chart was compiled, the VP values of Axis-owned islands in the Mediterranean were not included in the totals. This affects the victory levels for the Crusade in Europe, Victory in Europe, and MTO scenarios (the ETO scenario is not affected). Corrected victory levels for the affected scenarios appear below.

   Victory Levels: Crusade in Europe and Victory in Europe Scenarios

   Victory Level                 VP Requirement

   Allied Decisive Victory       more than 414

   Allied Substantial Victory    365 - 414

   Allied Marginal Victory       325 - 364

   Axis Marginal Victory         295 - 324

   Axis Substantial Victory      265 - 294

   Axis Decisive Victory         less than 265

   Victory Levels: The MTO Scenario

   Victory Level                 VP Requirement

   Allied Decisive Victory       more than 164

   Allied Substantial Victory    145 - 164

   Allied Marginal Victory       135 - 144

   Axis Marginal Victory         125 - 134

   Axis Substantial Victory      115 - 124

   Axis Decisive Victory         less than 115

[TEM 82]

OB booklets:

Both booklets

(Addition/clarification) Note that when a conversion or reorganization deals with a unit at cadre strength, the conversion/reorganization must still take place; however, the owning player recovers replacement points equal to the difference between the unit at full strength and the unit at cadre strength. For example, on Jul I 44, the Allied player is required to convert a US 7-8* Arm cadre [1] to a 14-10 Arm XX [1]. Should there be no 7-8* Arm cadre in play, the Allied player would still perform the conversion, receiving 6 Arm and 3 Inf replacement points [the difference between the cadre called for and the full strength unit converted in its stead]. Replacement points generated in this manner may not be used on the turn they are received but are saved and may be used from the following friendly initial phase. [Errata2]

(Clarification) Note that the rule that allows permanent airfields and forts to be placed during initial deployment (by expending resource points) does not require the airfield or port be placed in the same area where its resource point can be deployed. A fort or airfield may be placed in any hex the player owns where such an item may be built. For example, using a resource point that would deploy in mainland Italy per the deployment instructions, the Axis player may place a fort on Sicily — or even in France or Germany. [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

Axis OB

(Addition) When the Axis OB requires the withdrawal/transfer of a unit that no longer exists, due to all of those units matching it in strength, size and type, having been converted/reorganized, the Axis player is required to withdrawal replacement points sufficient to replace the unit required to withdrawal/transfer. For example, if the OB calls for the transfer to the South East theatre of a 5-5- Static XX, but all such units have been reorganized to 5-7-6 Inf XX strength, then the Axis player would have to withdrawal 5 German Inf replacement points to fulfill the OB requirements. [Errata2]

(Clarification) Note that there is no Führer HQ garrison box in Second Front; this garrison is included for the purposes of Grand Europa. Führer HQ garrison units do not enter SF through garrison activation. [TEM 48, TEM 53, Errata2, Errata3]

(Clarification) Note that a port fortification may be placed at Toulon during initial set up, even though Toulon is an unimproved fortress. Note that the -1 DRM for the unimproved fortress is cumulative with the -1 DRM of the port fortification. Note also that Port Fortifications may not be placed in inland ports. [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

(Correction) For Axis Invasion Reaction [Luftwaffe Alarm]: Ignore the information below the German Strat Air OB, simply handle it as if you were calling up the Strat air forces. This does not count as one of the 5 times per year they may be called up. The Strat Air Warfare DRM for calling up German Strat Air Forces does apply. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

  • Oct II 43 West: the 1× 5-7-6 Inf XX 384 should be noted as withdrawing to the East; it is not forming on this turn. [the line of text with “Withdraw to East:” was left out of the OB] [Errata2]
  • Apr I 44 Initial Forces: “Capital of Germany: Berlin (16A:1902+) " should be “Capital of Germany: Berlin hex 16A:1902.” [Errata2]
  • RSI Italian Conditional Reinforcements: Occupation turn 2: Disband all former Axis Italian forces” should read “Disband all former Axis Italian units.” Note that ground units [only] are disbanded. [By this time, no former Axis Italian air units will be in play, and former Axis Italian naval units will have become Kriegsmarine naval units.] [Errata2]
  • On page 11, left column, the deployment zone for Central Italy should be: Place in Italy, south of hex row 26:1000 and on or north of hex row 26:1600. [Errata2]
  • May I 43 Reinforcements, Withdraw to East: The entry “1× 2-3-6* Inf XX (5-7-6) 25 Hu (SS)” should be “1× 2-3-6* Inf Cadre (5-7-6) 25 Hu (SS).” [Errata2]
  • Combined Tac Air OB, Luftwaffe: The initial forces for the DFS 230 for Apr should be 1, and not 3. Also, the Mar 44 entry on the DFS 230 should be -1, and not 1. [TEM 53, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]
  • Combined Tac Air OB, RSI Italian and the South Air OB, RSI Italian both contain the same error concerning the SM. 79-2 and SM. 79-3 air units. In both cases, the Apr 44 entry for the SM. 79-2 should be “-” [none] and for the SM. 79-3, “e1” [one eliminated] [TEM 53, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]
  • Northern Italy Invasion Alarm: the section labeled “Jul I 43 through Jun II 44” should read “Jul I 43 through Jun I 44”. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Where in the rules are Invasion Reaction air force units addressed? And, does this cause a -1 DRM to the Strat Air War die roll?

  1. Axis Order of Battle booklet, p. 15, under heading “Luftwaffe Alarm”. 2) Yes. [TEM 53]

The German OB for Jun I 44 note says: V-1 attacks may be made by “emplaced” Luftwaffe V-Weapons units. I have not seen any rule explaining how to “emplace” these units. Is the requirement to not move in Rule 43D considered “emplaced”? If so, why not say it?

V-weapons may only fire if they don’t move in a player turn, If it really bugs you, delete the word “emplaced.” [TEM 53]

The 505 Pz II “returns” to the West in Jun I 44, but is not mentioned previously.

It should be an “Arrive” instead of a “Return.” (The Axis OB originally included April through June 1943, but these months were dropped in favor of the July 1943 start up. The 505th is in the West in April 1943 and goes east before the July 43 start-hence it is actually returning in June 44 in the context of the wider OB. This listing inadvertently didn’t get changed for the SF-only context.) [TEM 41]

The 384 Inf XX is listed as `forming" in Oct II 43, but it is initially in the West on Jul I 43, and historically it went to the East Front about Oct II 43.

The Oct II 43 West listing is missing a line. It should read:

*West, Forming:

1 × 14-10 PzG XX 17 GvB (SS)

*Withdraw to East:

1 × 5-7-6 Inf XX 384

[TEM 43/44]

(Luftwaffe Alarm, Axis OB) Exactly how does this work?

It works per Rule 26B, with the number of air units and air replacement points as listed on the Invasion Reaction lines of the Greater Germany Strategic Air OB. The Luftwaffe alarm, however, does not count against the fivetimes-per-year limit for calling up the strategic air assets. [TEM 43/44]

When are Luftwaffe Alarm units withdrawn from play?

Same as other call-ups of Axis Strat Air units — at the end of the player turn in which they were called up/made available. [TEM 74]

Allied OB

(Clarification): If the US 12 pt TF (USN) to be substituted for the 8 pt TF (USN) has hits of damage, mark the 8 pt TF (USN) with the same number of hits of damage as the 12 pt TF (USN) had suffered. [TEM 59/60, Errata4]

  • Any reference to “United Kingdom” means “Britain”. [Errata2]
  • Ignore references to the Malta holding box. There is no such box; simply place the units in Malta on the map. (NOTE: There is a Malta Garrison box, and units in garrison on Malta are placed in that box.) [Errata2]
  • Italian Conditional Reinforcements: Occupation turn 5: “Disband all former Axis Italian forces” should read “Disband all former Axis Italian units.” Note that ground units [only] are disbanded, and not naval units. (no former Axis Italian air units will be in play at this time.) [Errata2]
  • The following OB information is missing from the Allied OB booklet should appear immediately before the “Sequester” portion of the OB for Jul I 44 Jul I 1944 MTO, French: Convert: 1× 4-3-8 Art X CEF to: 1× 3-2-8 Art X 1C (Afr) 1× 3-2-8 Art X 2C (Col) Convert: 1× 2-3-8 Hvy AA X CEF AA=5 to: 2× 1-2-8 Hvy AA X (AA=3) 1C, 2C. [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]
  • The following OB information is missing from the Allied OB booklet and should be added to the Sequester portion of the OB for Jul I 44: 1× 9-8 Inf XX 45, 1× 2-1-10 Tank II 753, 1× 1-10 Mech Cav II 117 and 1× 1-2-10 mot AT II 601 [Errata2]
  • The following OB changes must be made: delete the reference to the 1061 Port Cons X on Apr I 44, MTO arrive, and its notation on Jul I 44 as to its being “Sequestered”. Add this unit as an US MTO Arrival, on turn Aug I 44. [Errata2]
  • The above units should also be added to the Southern France Invasion Forces, for Jul I 44, MTO, American. [Errata2]
  • Jan I 44: If the 12-pt TF WNTF-1 (USN) has hits these must be transferred to the replacement counters 8-pt TF WNTF-2 (USN) and 4-pt TF FNFL (French). [Errata2, Errata4]
  • (correction) Note that there is a conflict between the Allied OB [re. Greece Garrison requirements] and the Allied Garrison Chart. The chart is correct; ignore all “Greece Garrison” references in the Allied OB. [Errata2]

Allied Apr I 44 Initial Forces: How is the Polish 13-10 armor upgrade accomplished with no Polish ETO inf RPs available?

Hmm . . . interesting point, looks like the Poles should have a 0.5 inf RP rate for Jul-Dec 43 in the ETO; with 1 Polish inf RP accumulated in the ETO for the Apr I 44 initial conditions. [TEM 41, Errata1]

Can the British 52 XX switch between forms, that is, 6-8* Glider, 7-8 Mtn, or 8-8 Inf XX at will?

NO! The 52nd can make each conversion only once during a game. It begins play as a 7-8 Mtn XX which can be converted into either the 6-8* Glider or the 8-8 Inf. In the same game, the 6-8* Glider XX (and its ex-organic infantry brigade) can be converted into the 8-8 Inf XX.

Note that once you have converted from the Mtn incarnation, you can never return to it; note that the Glider XX can only convert into the Inf XX and that you can not convert the Inf XX into anything at all.

This conversion is not like the SAS conversions, wherein the units involved in those conversions may go back and forth — that is, you can decide each game turn (as long as the involved units meet the requirements for conversion) which version of the unit you wish to use, either naval-commando or para-commando. But with the 52nd XX, it is a once a game choice for each incarnation. Basically, remember that the 52nd XX can never return to a version from which it has been converted. [TEM 53]

Is there any info on the possible carrier aircraft that can be used (and when they can be) for the CGs in SF? The countersheet has many aircraft, especially for the British, but nothing in the OBs about when these extra aircraft can be used For example, a Corsair counter is there but nothing on when a CG could use it. Also, each CG can have 3 air groups but the on-map US CG comes with only 2.

The game contains some counters that are not used in play; almost every Europa game includes extra counters for use with Grand Europa, or as replacement counters for other games, or for other purposes. In all cases, the OBs with the game, as modified by any published errata, limit the force pools of each side and which counters are and aren’t used in the playing of that game. So, to answer the above question, what may and may not be used is covered by the Allied OB, specifically the Conditional Reinforcements section. There are four separate sets of available Carrier Air Support OBs present and they detail which air units arrive and may be used with the CG Naval unit when it enters play. The fact that the US CG enters with only two air units simply reflects the historical situation and is not an OB error. [TEM 53]

Shouldn’t the note following the Mar II 44 transfer to ETO of the 2 SAS Para Cmdo II refer to the 2 SAS?

Yes. [TEM 43/44]

Rules

Rule 3

3A3

What is the RE equivalent for transport purposes (both naval and air) of a unit transporting one resource point? Is it the RE size of the unit plus one or only the RE size of the unit if it is a division (so the resource point is less than half of the RE size of the unit) or what?

Ground units may not carry resource points while being transported by naval or air transport, they may only carry resource points overland. Resource points and units are counted separately when shipped as naval or air cargo. [TEM 49]

Is the RE size of a c/m or cavalry unit doubled for port capacity purposes or not? For example, can a c/m division disembark in a minor port?

No, RE size is not doubled for port capacity, it is only doubled for transport, that is, naval transport or rail movement. So, yes, a c/m XX can disembark at a minor port. [TEM 49]

3G

Wasn’t there a Second Front ruling where you pointed out that isolation was only checked at the start of the turn, whereas out-of-supply was checked twice, before movement and before combat?

No, this is backwards. Isolation is checked more than once per turn, it specifically says so in the isolation rules. Supply is judged only during initial phases and that supply condition prevails trhoughout that player turn, regardless of changes to the local situation. It has always been so. [TEM 67, TEM 76]

Rule 6

If using normal movement, unit A moved along a path, could unit B then administrative move along that same path, assuming no enemy ZoCs along path?

Correct, for administrative movement the hex merely needs to be friendly owned at the moment that the admin movement occurs. For example, you can capture “admin paths” with friendly units using normal movement and then immediately (that is, in the phase of capture) use those captured hexes for admin movement, since they satisfy the requirements of admin movement, that is, that the hex be friendly owned, etc. [TEM 59/60]

Rule 7

7A

(Clarification) The ability to increase Rail Cap is based on current capacity, that is, what is available in the phasing player’s initial phase after taking into account Rail Marshaling Yard hits, and Strat Air effects. [TEM 53, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

See also the ruling on rail-only units under rule 14F1, below.

Rule 7A5 first paragraph says “A unit may not use rail movement to enter or leave a hex in which the rail line is broken. " However rule 14A4 allows RR engineers to repair rail lines as if construction engineers. Rule 14A] (construction engineers) last paragraph suggests that construction engineers must spend 4 MPs in the hex to remove a hit from the rail line. How can a RR Engineer enter a broken rail line hex in order to repair it?

I think you’re confusing railroad engineers (engineers with railroad repair abilities) with rail-only units (units that can only move by rail). The RR engineer simply moves into the hex using normal movement. All RR engineers in SF (except for one Indian brigade) have 6 MPs printed on the unit counter; they move like any other units. Note that they do not have a movement rating of “R”, but perhaps you were thinking that they were rail only units? Nope, only units with a movement rating of “R” are rail only. Please see Rule 14F.1. [TEM 59/60]

Are the only ways to permanently decrease Axis rail capacity, a) through the strategic air war effects table, and b) loss of ownership of all marshaling yards on a rail net?

Yes. [TEM 59/60]

Rule 9

If a hex has 12 REs and six 6 REs are attacking and roll an attacker retreat do all units have to retreat or just the six units that attacked?

Only units making an attack may be affected by the results of that attack; uninvolved phasing units are not affected even if other units in their hex are participating in an attack. [TEM 59/60]

We’re using the advanced rule 43. C 2, “Overstacking. " If the attacking units of the hex roll an attacker retreat do the overstack have to retreat?

Again, no. However, those units, the overstacked ones, are in big trouble since they have no defense strength throughout the following enemy player turn, making them easy meat for any counter-attack. [TEM 59/60]

9C

If a conbat result is DH (assume the survivors can retreat to a hex not in an enemy ZOC), and the defending stack contains one or more zero strength units and/or position AA units, how does the DH result affect these zero-strength units?

Since they have no strength to contribute to the defense, nor lose, they are not counted when considering strength point losses and therefore could not be taken as strength point losses. Zero strength point units are not affected by DH results, in so far as losses are considered; they must retreat, of course. [TEM 76]

Does the same principle hold for other combat results such as HX and AH?

Yes. Zero strength units contribute nothing to the numerical value of the units involved in the combat and half of nothing is still nothing. [TEM 76]

9F

A 2-6 cadre is forced to retreat onto a 5-6 XX. The 5-6 is then attacked, the result is EX. Does the attacker take 5 or 7 points of losses?

See rule 9F1, “Retreats”. Since the previously retreated cadre “contributes nothing to the defense” and “is ignored for exchange purposes”, the attacker would lose 5 strength points, the same as the defender lost, not counting strength points which are ignored. [TEM 76]

Rule 10

Units covered by Rule 12D neither “have” nor are “capable” of AEC/ATEC and therefore ATEC cannot be used if one is attacked by such units. Is this statement correct?

The units are counted as having “no capability for AEC/ATEC capabilities”; so in the case of loss of AEC through lack of supply, their participation in an attack would not trigger the use of ATEC.

Note that for both weather and terrain, re: ATEC, the rules say that ATEC may be used if the attacking units are capable of ½ or more AEC, even if they cannot employ it in this specific instance. So a tank brigade attacking into a swamp is still capable of AEC, it just can’t employ it to advantage; ATEC may still be used.

In poor weather when AEC is reduced or negated, the same applies, the units with AEC are still capable of AEC, they just can’t use it, fully, or only at reduced effectiveness, and ATEC is triggered.

However, supply restrictions differ in that they instruct you to treat the units as having no capability, this is quite differente than treating them as AEC capable but ignoring that capability, as is the case with weather and terrain effects.

Treat a unit for which lack of supply has restricted the use of AEC/ATEC as being incapable of any armor effects. It has no capability, and thus cannot trigger the use of ATEC, nor interfere with the use of AECD. [TEM 76]

10H

May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat engineer proportion in order to avoid “Required Losses?”

No. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Rule 11

Does this rule apply to NGS, in that the TFs must physically occupy the hex containing the units to be supported?

Yes. Rule 33A defines NGS and explicitly says it uses Rule 11 for the purposes of support. [TEM 43/44]

This has been superseded by a posterior ruling.

Does NGS make units supported? The rule about NGS would seem to imply so (“each point of NGS counts as 1/4 for purpose of artillery and support”, but I would like an explicit statement. If it makes units supported, is there some minimum requirement for NGS points?

Yes, per Rule 33A, each naval strength point is treated as 1/4 RE of artillery for purposes of Rules 11 and 14B. Since one RE of artillery will support all units stacked with it, you require 4 points of NGS, 1 REs worth of artillery, to provide support.

Now for some further thoughts on this…

As an unofficial option, allow NGS to support units, even if the naval units are not stacked with the units, if the NGS fire can assist the combat. Because of the two hex range, it is possible for naval units to fire NGS into hexes that they could not enter through movement, but it seems strange to require them to abide by a strict reading of Rule 11, in that they should have to be stacked with the units they are supporting.

In a similar unofficial manner, exempt NGS from the “being stacked with…” requirements of Rule 14B, that is, naval units firing NGS defensively do not have to be stacked with the units they are supporting. RE requirements, for all cases, are still in effect (one defending RE may only be assisted by four points of NGS at full strength; any excess NGS would add a total of one factor, regardless of the total present). Example: Two Inf lll are invading a beach and have 10 points of NGS. As each point of NGS is 1/4 of an RE, per Rule 14B 8 points of NGS (2-REs worth) have full effect and the remaining 2 points of NGS have a strength of 1 (so the 10 points of NGS provide 9 attack strength points). Since there is more than one REs of field artillery equivalents present, the ground units are supported.

The difference between this option and RAW is that these units will be supported regardless of the location of the naval units firing the NGS. [TEM 54]

Rule 12

Does a turn out of supply in SF consists of two player turns?

A turn out of supply in SF is one game turn, consisting of an Axis player turn followed by an Allied player turn.

Example: An Italian unit is put out of supply during the Jul I 43 Allied player turn. When supply is checked during the initial phase of the Axis Jul II turn, that Italian unit is noted as being out of supply and gets a U-1 marker (I use red for Axis turns).

During the Allied Jul II player turn the unit remains out of supply.

The Italian unit has now spent one turn out of supply (Axis and Allied player turns). If, during the Axis Initial phase of Aug 1, the Italian unit is still unsupplied at that time, it will be marked with a U-2 marker and is affected by all effects of being U-2’d from that instant on, until it is no longer unsupplied, is eliminated or (during the Axis Aug II initial phase) is marked with a U-3 marker for remaining out of supply. [TEM 59/60]

Are ground units on ships in supply?

The regular supply rules govern the supply of ground units, even when they are embarked on board ships. Note that in some cases units will become unsupplied when on board ships. For example, a unit embarks upon a NT and ends its turn at sea. In the next player turn, the unit becomes out of supply, since there is no way it can trace a supply line to a supply source. If the NT is in port, however, then an embarked unit on board may be able to trace supply, per Rule 12.

If this seems a bit odd, it works this way to prevent game abuses, such as embarking units on ships to establish a permanently-in-supply “floating reserve” or other silly things. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

If units start a turn loaded on transports in port, are they in supply? This is significant, because if the answer is yes, then Allied troops can start the game loaded in transports for a turn 1 invasion of southern France (the extra 30 NMPs are needed.)

Units embarked upon ships trace supply by the normal rules, so if they are in a port hex and the NT/LC is in port (not at sea in the hex) then, yes, they are in supply. Note also that for your first turn invasion, the units and NT/LCs they are embarked upon could be set up in the North Africa Holding box at start, they needn’t be deployed at separate ports on the map. Also note that since they are already embarked, port capacity is not an issue; all of your NT/LCs, along with anyone they are transporting, could be placed, for example, at Bougie during the initial phase and carry out their invasion from there. The fact that Bougie is only a minor port is immaterial. Note also that any units embarked upon NT/LC could remain in the North Africa Holding Box, or any on-map port, and remain in supply from turn to turn, indefinitely. [TEM 49]

12B

(Clarification) The ability to trace rail element supply lines is based upon total rail capacity, i.e. the player’s capacity on the net as calculated prior to considering Rail Marshaling yard hits and Strat War effects. [note that supply is checked before one builds capacity on rail nets during friendly initial phases.] [Errata2]

12C

Can German units in the Ruhr cities draw supply from the cities themselves or must the the cities of the Ruhr be connected by rail to another najor city in Germany?

Per rule 3E2 a combination of adjacent full and/or partial city hexes is considered a conurbation and therefore one city for game purposes. So you must be able to trace a rail connection from the Ruhr to another major city in Germany for the Ruhr to be a source of supply. Note that the supply rules specify major cities and not major city hexes. [TEM 66]

12C2

The final sentence of this rule seems to contradict the previous one. If in order to function as a limited supply source a standard or minor port must trace a naval element supply line to a major or great port, what does the last sentence of this rule mean when it states,”…supply line may be traced from a minor or standard port.”?

The last sentence allows you to trace a naval supply line from a standard/minor port; it has nothing to do with tracing the line to a major/great port. Instead, see Rule 12B4, which governs naval supply lines and says you have to trace from a major/great port. 12B4/12C1 is the general case, allowing both sides to get full regular supply via naval supply lines. 12C2 is the special case for the Allies, allowing them to get limited regular supply by using ports that don’t make the cut for 12B4/12C1. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Rule 13

For purposes of support can a player consider NGS as providing support to units being overrun, without taking into account the NGS points?

Per Rule 33A, TFs may only provide NGS during a combat phase. Therefore, NGS does not affect overruns, since they occur in the movement and exploitation phases. [TEM 49]

Rule 14

14A1

Is there anything to prevent the Axis player from running around with their engineers and damaging every port in sight?

See Optional Rule 44B3. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Can four construction units build a 12-capacity airfield in the same hex at the same time? Each unit builds a 3- capacity airfield.

No, Rule 14A1 states that you can’t build a permanent airfield in a hex that contains a permanent airfield. This includes a permanent airfield under construction, so once you start build a permanent airfield in a hex you cannot start building others there. Also note that augmenting a permanent airfield is a different concept than building a permanent airfield even though both use very similar procedures. For clarity, when the rule says “A construction unit may augment (increase) the capacity of an existing permanent airfield”, “existing” is meant to mean that the airfield has completed construction.

Also note that this answer does mean you cannot build two or more forts in the same hex at the same time. [TEM 53]

In a hex that has a 3-capacity airfield can three construction units each augment the airfield at the same time? In is way the 3-capacity airfield goes from a capacity of 3 to 12 in one construction cycle.

No, Rule 14A1 states that engineers can augment an existing airfields capacity by 3. In your example, the engineers are clearly augmenting the airfield by more than 3 (by 9, in fact) and this is illegal. No matter how many engineers are present, they may only augment an airfield’s capacity by 3 in anyone turn. [TEM 53]

Can c/m construction units repair ports, airfields and rail lines in the exploitation phase?

No. “Repair” activities are described under 14A1 “Construction” and are thus construction tasks. Rule 14A1d prohibits c/m construction units from using construction abilities in the exploitation phase. [TEM 53]

14B

Since each point of NGS is treated as a 1/4 RE field artillery unit, does this mean that NGS is limited by the number of REs participating in the combat?

Example: A British TF is supporting a single British 3-8 Infantry Brigade. Four of the sixteen strength points may be added to the combat due to the one RE non-artillery unit participating, and the remaining twelve strength points are in excess and thus have a total strength of one. Thus the total combat strength of this force is eight. Is this correct?

Yes. Rule 33A defines NGS and explicitly says it uses Rule 14B for the purposes of artillery. [TEM 43/44]

14B1 & 14B2

If a long-range siege artillery unit fires from two hexes in such a way that the “line of sight” crosses the vertex between two hexsides, one of which is an improved fortified hexside and the other of which is not, then is the artillery’s strength doubled?

Yes. [Errata1]

14F1

Do rail-only units use rail cap to move? To retreat? Shouldn’t Rule 14F1 mention this? Is it mentioned elsewhere?

Rail Movement: Everything that moves by rail in a friendly movement phase uses rail capacity. This includes units that can only move by rail. If these units were an exception, the rule would mention it.

Retreating: Retreats occur during combat phases, while rail movement and thus rail capacity expenditure occur in friendly movment phases. Thus, rail capacity is not an issue. [TEM 53]

14F2

This ruling was made during a heated discussion about Port Fortifications and redeployment. See also the rulings on 37B2.

“A unit with a movement rating of 0 can not move from the hex it occupies.” When deployed, the PF occupies the hex it is set up in. It can’t move from that hex, per the above rule. If it redeployed out of that hex, then it seems obvious it has moved from that hex - it didn’t disappear - if it is no longer in the hex that it deployed in, then it has moved out of the hex. And that is specifically prohibited per 14.F.2 Therefore, it may not move out of the hex it is deployed in, whether by ground movement, air transport, naval transport, advance after combat, retreat after combat, redeployment or any other method that would entail it no longer being in the hex that it was deployed in.

14H2

Is there a limit to the number of times a commando unit can retreat before combat? For example, if an SAS commando is being overrun by a panzer division, it can retreat before combat because overrun is a combat. Theoretically, however, that division could overrun more than once. And if you had multiple divisions, the commando could end up retreating several hexes from its original location.

No, there is no limit upon the number of times a capable unit may attempt retreat before combat, or retreat before overrun.

Note also that such units can not retreat before overrun “because overrun is a combat”, an overrun is not combat! They can retreat before overrun, a totally separate concept, because the rules say they can. This is not just nit picky-ness, there is a real difference between overrun and combat and the rules attempt to portray this. [TEM 53]

14H4

(Change) Resolve Commando Raids immediately upon entry of the raiding Commando in the CD’s hex. The Commando Raid is resolved before any CD (in the hex where the Commando is present) may fire. CD fire from adjacent hexes is resolved as normal. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

The above seems to supersede an earlier Rules Court example (in TEM 53):

Could you please give an example of example of how Coastal Defenses fire at commandos carrying out coastal raids?

The commando arrives in the hex, the CD fires once against the NT/LC (you should move adjacent at night for maximum protection), and then you resolve the commando attack immediately when the commando “arrives” (not lands) in the hex.

So the commando, moving in the first naval move step (for example) faces one round of CD and then resolves the attack. It must still spend the 90 MPs to disembark, as do any other units arriving later (but during the same naval movement step) if they want to invade, and face CD if any still survives. [TEM 53]

A marine commando unit is landing in a coastal defense hex and is attempting a coastal raid. Is the coastal raid attempt resolved before the CD fires any shot, or does the CD get to fire a shot when the naval unit transporting the commando enters the hex and before it lands the commando?

Amend Rule 14H4 (Third paragraph, first sentence) to read:

Immediately when a raiding unit enters the hex, prior to landing in the hex, resolve the effects of the raid

Note: This is an official amendment to the rules and replaces any previous answers that might have appeared. Note also that this change means that the CD will not fire at the marine commando in its hex prior to the CD rais attempt being resolved. Note also that if the marine commando did not land in the hex, no raid could be conducted, which is why the rule says “prior to landing in the hex”. (This is to stop people from gleefully running up and down the coast with embarked marine commandos, raiding CD without ever disembarking!) [TEM 66]

14J

If a movement counter is not carrying a unit is it treated as a 0-strength unit for combat purposes (e.g., not included in AEC/ATEC computations)?

Yes. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

When a transport counter (3 REs capacity) is carrying an infantry division, is it treated as having a 5 RE size for naval transport purposes or as having a 2 RE size (thinking the assets and men of the division are aboard of the truck and so are not occupying space on the ship or LVT)?

A Transport counter is a separate unit and must be transported as a separate cargo load. So, using your example, the Inf XX would count for 3 REs and the transport counter would count for 2 REs (I RE, but doubled for being c/m). They are not considered to be a single unit. [TEM 49]

What is the RE size of transport counters for purposes of naval and rail transport?

Its basic size is doubled for being c/m. A 1 RE-capacity counter that moves by rail or sea counts as 1 RE for transport purposes, and a 3 RE-capacity counter counts as 2 REs. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Are units being carried by transport counters considered to be ATEC/AEC neutral? I checked in the UIC and I don’t see anything listed. This would be important if you wanted to form armored corps that contained motorized infantry units.

See Rule 14I which details how movement counters work. Note that transport counters may not carry units during a combat phase, thus they have no effect upon AEC/ATEC calculations during combat phases.

LVTs and APCs may carry units during combat phases and their individual effects upon AEC/ATEC are clearly listed in the rules; that is: units carried by APCs are considered combat/motorized and mechanized and units carried by LVTs are considered combat/motorized. [TEM 53]

I am curious though, why the LVT and APC counters make units combat/motorized, but the transport counters do not. This does seem to create a problem for the Americans in 1943, since they cannot form large stacks of full AEC/ATEC units.

Transport counters represent trucks, with which the units are not used to co-operating regularly and mostly serve to get the units to the battlefield; think of a transport counter as a bus. APCs and LVT represent armored vehicles — “defrocked Priests”, Kangaroos, and the like for APCs, and Buffaloes for the LVTs. Units were meant to operate on the battlefield closely with these vehicles, hence the AEC/ATEC effects. And considering the number of c/m sub-divisional units and armored divisions running around, I have never found any of my opponents not being able to form large c/m stacks with the Allies… [TEM 53]

The Allied player aims to execute some overrun in the exploitation phase after an amphibious landing, using a transport counter. Rule 14J requires the units to be stacked with the counter at the start of the phase, while the counter can disembark from the LC not before the start of the naval subphase of the exploitation phase. Does this mean that the allied player cannot use the counter to motorize the units already on the beach (those that executed the amphibious landing)?

Correct. If the transport counter is on the LCs and the unit is on the beaches, they are not really stacked together and the transport counter may NOT motorize that unit. [TEM 59/60]

What if the counter is on the LC with the units it wants to motorize? And what if the counter (and eventually the unit it wants to motorize) is on AT and still requires to be transferred to the LCfor disembarking on the beach?

In these cases, the unit/s and transport counters are stacked together and could move as one unit. The unit would pay c/m costs for disembarking and could move from the beach if it has sufficient MPs. [TEM 59/60]

14J1

Can transport counters carry units during the combat phase?

No. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

14J2

May LVTs and the units they carry treat narrow straits hexsides as river hexsides, as per Rule 14J2? [Such a crossing was part of the historical battle of Walcheren Island.]

The rules as written don’t grant any special ability to LVTs for narrow straits hexsides. This was done for simplicity. Unlike LVTs’ ability on lake and major river hexsides, in the case of narrow straits hexsides, sea conditions come into play.

You can use the following option for LVTs: Under calm and rough sea conditions, an LVT may treat narrow straits hexsides as river hexsides. Under stormy sea conditions, it cannot do so. [Errata1]

(Rules 14J2 and 14J3) If a unit being carried by an LVT or APC counter is eliminated in the combat phase, is the carrying LVT/APC eliminated as well?

Yes, as they are treated as a single unit. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

14J3

Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 when determining losses, or is the APC treated as a separate unit with a strength of 1?

Neither, actually. The 1-strength point increase is a strength modifier (similar to the way siege artillery is doubled against fortresses), but losses are determined using printed strengths only, and the LVT/APC counters do not have a printed strength. Example: A 3-8 Inf X carried by an APC would attack with a strength of 4. If eliminated, both the 3-8 Inf X and the APC would be removed from play and would count as a loss of 3 attack strength points. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Suppose two 3-8 infantry brigades, each carried by an APC counter, participate in an attack. Would their attack strength be 7 or 8?

The bonus applies for each and every APC counter, regardless of the presence or absence of other APCs in the hex/attack. Thus, their attack strength would be 4 each, for a total of 8. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Can a unit be carried by several APC counters, and thus receive more than a +1 bonus?

No. Note the phrase “carried by an APC counter” in the rule. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 for purposes of overrun?

Rule 13 says “Overrun odds are computed in the same way that combat odds are…” Hence, the +1 attack bonus does apply for overruns. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

If units carried by an APC are attacked, is their total combat strength increased by 1?

The rule specifically covers attack, not defense, and so the bonus does not apply for defense. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Rule 15

How do the 14-8 incarnations of the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne XX’s enter play? Their conversions are not mentioned in the SF OB.

The Allied Unit Breakdown Chart details what is needed to assemble a 14-8 airborne division, that is, the specific unit breakdowns for the division and any one non-divisional 3-5 Para III. You can make this assembly anytime such components are available. Since the first 35 Para III arrives in Dec II 43, that is the first turn such an assembly could be made. Note that US airborne divisions use specific breakdown counters and that such divisions may only be built up to a 14-8 using those specific components, and any one additional non-specific 3-5 Para III. [TEM 66]

15C1

May French divisions use French Metropolitan breakdown counters, regardless of which French `force" they actually belong to (Colonial 8-8 Inf XX breaks down into Metropolitan regiments and a Metropolitan HQ)? This does have play significance, as the Afrique and Colonial forces did participate in AIL.

Yes, any French division may use the French Metro breakdown counters. [TEM 43/44]

Am I correct, then, that the replacement points needed to replace “Metropolitan” breakdowns are governed by the parent unit, and not by the breakdown counter itself?

Yes. Using Metropolitan breakdown counters is for convenience and does not actually change which French force the broken-down unit belongs to. [TEM 43/44]

15E

If a panzer division with an attached Panther (or Panzer IV) battalion suffers losses in combat, is the battalion considered to be a separate unit from the division for loss purposes?

Here’s how it works: if a 15-10 panzer division with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached is reduced to cadre, the division would count as 19 for loss purposes and you would be left with an 11-8 panzer cadre (a 7-8 panzer cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached).

If a 7-8 panzer cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached suffers losses in combat, the cadre would count as 11 for loss purposes, and both the 7-8 cadre and the 4-2-10 Panther battalion would enter the replacement pool. [TEM 37, Errata1]

If you attach a Panzer IV battalion does it add 4 or 2 to the strength of the panzer division?

“While attached, the battalion is considered to be part of the division: it contributes its strength to the division but neither counts against stacking nor increases the RE size of the division.” Since the strength of the Panzer IV battalion is 2, it would add 2 to the strength of the panzer division. [TEM 37, Errata1]

What strength Pz XX can detach the Pz IV Bn, and does such a Division become PzGren just as if it detached a Panther Bn? Should there be a (-2 PzG) marker to reflect this detachment?

The single Pz IV detachment in the game enters play already detached. The SF rules allow you to operate it independently or to attach it to a panzer division. Thus the question about what type of panzer XX it can detach from is immaterial, because the game does not allow you to do this. The Pz IV detachment operates in a similar manner as a Panther Bn (again per the SF rules), thus a 16-10 Pz XX with a 2-1-10 Panther Bn attached would be treated as a 18-10 Pz XX.

Can a detached Panther battalion be attached to a plain old Panzergrenadier XX, thus making it a Panzer XX?

Rule 15E allows a detached panzer battalion only to be attached to a panzer division, and not to a panzergrenadier division.

This covers all the historical cases I can think of off-hand, although I would not be surprised to hear about exceptions to this. I note that a panzer division had a panzer regiment headquarters, capable of controlling several panzer battalions. A panzergrenadier division, having only one panzer battalion, did not have a panzer regiment headquarters and thus on paper was less able to handle multiple panzer battalions. In reality, however, the German’s practice of cross-attaching units and forming battle groups (Kampfgruppen) probably meant that a panzergrenadier division could competently manage a second panzer battalion. So, if you want to add this to the game as a house rule (and your opponent agrees), go ahead. [TEM 41, Errata1]

Rule 16

16D

I can imagine situations where both sides will want to initiate an air mission at the same time (e.g., one side wants to bomb a port to prevent a landing, the other wants to bomb the bombers which want to bomb the port before they can leave base). Who gets priority?

If both sides simultaneously want to initiate an air operation, then choose at random which side gets to initiate the air op. The easiest way is to roll one die: 1–3 means the Allied player initiates; 4–6 the Axis player. (Use this in cases only when both sides truly wanted to initiate an air op. For example, if one player announces an air op and the other player lets him start moving air units unchallenged, then the second player can’t decide later that he really wanted to start an air op, too.) At the end of the air op, the other player may now initiate an air op, if he still wishes to do so. Continuing alternating air ops between the two sides until at least one of the players no longer wants to initiate an air op.

It’s also been reported that both players want to fly air ops at the same time, but they want the other side to go first (for example, so that they can see where enemy CAP is going). Follow the same procedure as above: randomly select one player to initiate an air op, and then alternate air ops between the two sides until at least one player is done. [TEM 37, Errata1]

Rule 17

Can a fighter scramble ftom an airbase that has a capacity that has been reduced to zero?

No. WitD Rule 17.A (airbases, Capacity) says specifically:

“Exception: Air units may not take off from or land at an airbase if its capacity is currently zero.” SF goes so far as to say “may not use” which covers a lot of ground.

One has to be careful about remembering this provision, when getting used to the new air on demand system, where base capacity has less effect upon initiating missions from a base, since capacity is normally most important for operative/ inoperative considerations. But the rule is clear, no use, that is, taking off or landing at a base with zero capacity. This prevents multi-leg transfers and staging as well, of course. [TEM 59/60]

17D

If an intrinsic airfield (a city hex, for instance) is reduced to zero capacity, can it be abandoned? If it can, can it be rebuilt normally?

No, the intrinsic capacity of a city is not an “airfield”, it is intrinsic capacity, so the abandonment rules [which specify airfields] do not apply to intrinsic capacities. Moreover, the cited rule even specifies which types MAY be abandoned, ie permanent and temporary. The intrinsic capacity of a hex is neither of the types specified so the rule does not apply.

Suppose there is a 6-capacity permanent airfield in a major city, for a total airbase capacity of 12. This airbase takes 6 hits of damage. May the owning player assign all six hits to the permanent airfield, and then abandon it?

Yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

Rule 20

Can patrol attacks and interception missions be flown during the initial phase? I would assume they can because of three factors: (1) all air missions use the standard air operation sequence that allows for patrol attack interception; (2.) both patrol attack mission and intercept mission both state that “Fighters mayfly patrol attacks interception missions during any air operation initiated by the enemy player “, (3.) how else would you patroll intercept planes flying CAP Harassment / Naval Patrol during the initial phase, so you must be able to fly patrol/ interception. Is this correct?

Yes. The rules say nothing about phases because the phase in which an air operation occurs has no effect upon whether or not it can be patrolled or intercepted. Rule 20C. states that you can initiate an interception mission during any air operation initiated by the enemy player, regardless of particular phase. [TEM 59/60]

20E

The rules state that planes already flying CAP (during initial phase) can switch their missions during the movement phase so I know they are not allowed to do anything (patrol intercept) during initial phase while the enem yplayer is flying his CAP or any bombing mission. Is this correct?

No. A mission force on CAP may always react to an enemy mission force that occupies or passes through the CAP hex. Rule 20E says that the owning player may (but is not required to) convert the CAP mission to Patrol / Interception / Escort during “the mission movement step of a subsequent air operation”. CAP may be switched to another allowable mission at any time during the player turn, without regards to particular phase. [TEM 59/60]

The initial phase step 11 has three activities that occur: 1) Cap, 2) harassment and 3) assign naval patrol. Since both sides can do some or all of the above in which order should one do it? The problem we’re having is that one side might want to see CAP before assigning Naval Patrol.

If both players want to fly missions at the same time, roll a die, on a 1-3 the Allied player initiates, on 4-6 the Axis player. Alternate missions from that point on until one side can’t or doesn’t want to initiate a mission. Note that since a player could initiate a one air unit mission, thus forcing the other player to initiate a mission, it may well be impossible to “see CAP” before assigning certain missions. [TEM 59/60]

During movement phase a friendly plane flying CAP (since the initial phase) could patrol intercept an enemy plane that has just (during the movement phase) flown a CAP mission into the same hex as the friendly CAP mission. Is this correct?

Yes. The plane(s) on CAP may (but are not required to) react to any enemy mission force that enters their hex, including an enemy CAP mission. Note that in your example any of the friendly air units that do patrol or intercept have then finished their mission and return to base. The enemy air units that survive this encounter remain in the hex to perform their CAP mission (that is, the friendly air units have completed their mission but the enemy air units have not). [TEM 59/60]

During movement phase a friendly air unit flying CAP (since the movement phase) could patrol intercept an enemy plane that has just (during the movement phase) flown a CAP mission into the same hex as the friendly CAP mission. Is this correct?

Yes. A CAP mission in place may react to any enemy air mission in its hex (as otherwise allowed by the rules). What you cannot do is fly a CAP mission and convert it immediately due to enemy air units in its target hex; that is, you can not fly CAP as a sort of double range interception mission. example: Player I flies a CAP mission to hex A. Player 2 then flies a CAP mission to hex A and declares that the CAP mission is intercepting the enemy CAP mission. This is illegal, since player 2’s CAP mission may only react to subsequent missions, and not to missions currently in its target hex. [TEM 59/60]

Flying a CAP mission or any mission in general may contain as many planes as the player wants as long as they are all flying to the same target hex, correct?

Yes. But remember that not all the friendly air units in a particular hex need be part of the same mission force and that depending upon player choice, not all air units present need to participate in any one mission. For example, imagine a hex with 10 phasing fighters on CAP. The phasing player now flies a bombing mission to the hex with two bombers. The phasing player may switch any, all, or none of his CAP air units to escorts for that air mission. Note that this occurs before the nonphasing player flies any patrol attack or interception missions against the bombing mission. [TEM 59/60]

During the initial phase when phasing and non-phasing players fly their CAP missions, who flies first?

Here’s how it works (text taken from WitD 16D):

One player, the initiating player, announces that he is initiating a specific air operation. Should both sides wish to initiate an air operation at the same time, the phasing player first initiates an air operation, and, when that operation is over, the non-phasing player then may initiate an air operation (he may decide not to do so - for example, the outcome of the phasing player’s air operation may have removed the reason for the nonphasing player to initiate an air operation). Continue to alternate air operations between the two sides until both sides no longer wish to initiate air operations at the same time. [TEM 59/60]

20F2

(Rule 20F2 and 24) Page 26, Rule 20F2 says ground units may air drop in any hex except prohibited, mountain, wooded-swamp, or forest. Page 35, Rule 24 says units and supplies may air drop in any land hexes. Which is correct?

Rule 20F2 is correct; Rule 24’s “may air drop in any land hexes, including hexes occupied by enemy units” is intended to let you know that you can drop in enemy occupied hexes, but I see how you misinterpreted the rule the way you did. Perhaps the rule should remove the “any” or even add a rules back-reference: “may air drop in land hexes (per Rule 20F2), including hexes occupied by enemy units.” [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

20F3

(Rules 20F3, 22B, and 34E) The minelaying rules seem to make mines excessively effective; in particular, the lack of breakdowns for the big Allied TFs seems to make sweeping mines ridiculously expensive. The rules seem to prohibit naval units firing AA at mine-laying aircraft in their hex — is this correct?

See also the proposed optional rules on minesweeping.

[One slick trick would be to wait for the invasion armada to end a movement step, then do a night mine-laying air operation in the hex (the rules do not seem to prohibit this, even if the Allies are not sailing at night). There would be no AA, and only night fighters to contend with. If successful, even one mine point could inflict very heavy losses, far more than seem to have occurred historically.

Naval units don’t fire AA at air units on aerial minelaying missions, as the air units do not lay the mines in the part of the hex where the ships currently are. (The hexes represent a huge expanse of area, with it being impractical to impossible for ships to cover the whole extent.)

Air units dropping mines in a hex containing enemy naval units at sea, thereby doing all sorts of harm to the ships at the start of their next naval movement step, can be abusive. However, it requires numerous sorties over the course of a turn to lay enough mines to qualify for a mine point, so the enemy can’t catch the ships by surprise through a single overnight mine laying. The game’s sequencing of activities attempted to show this:

  • A player may aerially lay mines by flying a transport mission, which can be done only in the movement and exploitation phases of his own player turn (Rule 20F).
  • Enemy naval units in the hex are unaffected at this time, since per Rule 34E1 they check for mine damage if they enter or put to sea in the hex (they are already in the hex, so this doesn’t count) or if they start a friendly naval movement step in the hex (since it is not their player turn, this can’t occur at this time).
  • After the mine-laying player is finished his turn, the enemy player turn begins. The enemy naval units now can be affected by the mines, but before they do check for damage, automatic mine clearing occurs if the mines are in various coastal hexes or beyond the range of certain ports (Rule 34E3).

I had thought the above sequencing would take care of things in most typical cases. However, reexamining the point leads me to believe that when automatic mine clearing does not occur, the naval units in the hex have a big problem in the game, whereas in reality this would not occur in such a fashion.

The best way to handle this situation is: When a player aerially lays mines in a hex containing enemy naval units at sea, then during the immediately following player turn those naval units (only) ignore the presence of those mines (only) during the naval unit’s first naval movement step (only) of the turn. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

20G

Bombing strengths of air units are halved in poor weather. ls the bombing strengths halved for units bombing in a weather zone with poor weather (because the weather makes bombing more difficult in the hex)? Or, is the bombing strengths halved for air units that initiate its bombing mission from an airbase in a weather zone with poor weather (because the airplanes can’t make as many takeoffs during these two weeks due to the poor weather)? or is the bombing strength halved in both cases?

Air unit bombing strengths are halved when bombing land targets present in target hexes in weather zones with poor weather; air unit bombing strengths are halved when bombing naval targets present in target hexes in sea zones with rough and stormy sea conditions. The location of the target is all that matters. Regardless of the weather present at the air unit’s base, it will be halved if the target hex of the mission is in a weather zone with poor weather.

For example, assume Mud in the D weather zone and Calm seas in the Mediterranean. An air unit bombing the city of Genoa, say its port capacity, would have its bombing factors halved, due to the Mud weather.

Another air unit, bombing enemy ships in the Genoa hex, either at sea or in port, would not be halved, since it is attacking a naval target and the sea conditions are Calm. [TEM 50]

Rule 20G1a Strat Bombing Rail Marshalling Yards says “Only a limited number of hits are allowed per yard in a player turn: 1 per dot city and 2 per major-city hex.” That seems to leave out the marshalling yards in ports (regardless of city size) " mentioned in rule 7A. Am I missing something, or are these port marshalling yards illegal targets? If not, what limit of hits on them, and is that limit cumulative with the one on dot/major city hexes?

The one hit per dot city limit should be one hit per marshalling yard in a non-major city. In other words, you can get two hits per major city hex and one hit per other city hex (note that all ports are also cities of some size). See the errata in this issue. [TEM 59/60]

20G2b

At what point is a phasing player using air for GS committed to battle? Here is example of a problem: A phasing player sends 30 air units for GS. The phasing player has 20 REs in hexes adjacent to the hex being attacked, but is not using all 20 REs in the battle of course the Allies don’t know that. After AA 20 air units are left. My question: Is the attacking player required to use 20 REs of ground units or can he use any number of units and ignore all the extra GS in the battle? If a battle is lost or if I wish to try and deceive my opponent can I use 1 unit and make a 1 to 4 odds attack?

First of all, combat is not mandatory, so any number of air units could be flown on GS and this would not “force” an attack, in and of itself.

However, once the phasing player initiates combat resolution for a particular hex, then combat resolution must proceed.

Any units that fire AA are automatically included in the attack, since firing AA is, per earlier rulings on this, part of resolving combat. Beyond this, however, there are no requirements that anyone attack. So yes, if you decide to begin the combat resolution for a particular attack, you are free to declare that of the x number of units available to participate, only one will do so, and if so, then GS calculations are governed by what attacks, and not by what is available to attack.

To be quite clear, the number of air units flown on a mission such as DAS and/or GS has nothing to do with how many may participate; one is always able to fly as many air units as desired and possible, the limitations are only in effect once the combat is to be resolved. Even flying the GS mission doesn’t mandate combat, as the rules make plainly clear (last paragraph, 20G.2.b). [TEM 59/60]

Does the limit mean total number of units that may be committed per RE or the maximum number that counts?

For example, I am attacking with three REs of ground units (one panzer division). I have committed 8 air units to GS. Per the rules, 3 air units provide GS, the 5 others don’t contribute any SPs. The defender now fires AA and turns back one unit. May the attacker “call in” one of the surplus 5 units instead of the one that was turned back?

This shows why the sequence of play and various activities is so important. The air units can not provide GS until combat is resolved and combat isn’t resolved until after AA has fired during the GS air operation.

You can fly as many air units as you want for a GS air operation. Some may be lost through air to air combat, others through AA fire. You don’t have any limitations upon the number of air units that can fly the GS mission, only upon how many can effectively aid the attacking units.

After all air to air combat and AA fire, the air mission is carried out, that is, the bombing strength is added into the combat strength of the units participating in the combat. The limitations of numbers of air units participating in the ground combat isnot figured until the ground combat is resolved. So, in your example above, the single panzer division an be aided by up to three air units. Regardless of how many air units began or participated in the air operation, three may assist the ground unit in its attack.

Please note the sequence, the air units are not limited in number until the ground combat resolution, and that resolution takes place after all air to air combat and AA fire in that air operation. [TEM 67]

20G2c

See also the discussion on DAS/GS missions.

There is a problem involving firing AA at DAS due to the new sequencing. The rules specify that AA is fired during the AA fire step of the air operation (including DAS air operations), and not (as used to be the case with DAS) just prior to ground combat resolution against the hex. This forces the phasing player to decide immediately upon the first DAS mission arriving in the hex if he is going to attack the hex (and with which units), so that he can fire his AA at the enemy air units. If such fire binds the phasing player to attack the DAS hex (and presumably it does), the enemy could theoretically continue to pile many other DAS missions into the hex to the point where the impending attack would become suicidal.

I see your point. I do not want to delay the AA fire, but until I can figure out a way to make this work, use the old sequencing. Modify the appropriate section of Rule 20G2c as follows:

“Each DAS operation follows the standard air sequence, until the AA fire step is reached. At this point the mission is suspended until the players are to resolve the ground combat in the hex.

When the players are to resolve ground combat in a hex containing a DAS operation, the remainder of the air operation occurs in conjunction with the ground combat, in this sequence:

    • When ready to resolve the combat, the attacking player declares the attack, indicating the attacking units.
    • The AA fire step occurs, per Rule 22B1.
    • The DAS mission resolution step occurs.”

[TEM 37, Errata1]

20G2d

When are harassment hits determined? Beginning of the movement phase?

Determine harassment hits when the mission is resolved during the initial phase. [TEM 59/60]

An Allied air unit flies a harassment mission during the Axis player turn but never makes it (aborted or killed by flak or fighters). Example: During the Axis Jul II 43 player turn, a USAAF p-400 participates in an air operation flying harassment mission against Messina (26:3823); during the AA fire step it is aborted, and does not participate in the mission resolution step. During the initial phase of the Allied Jul II 43 player turn it is replaced. May the P-400 become operational during the Allied Jul II 43 player turn initial phase? Or is the P-400 inoperative under Rule 20G2d last paragraph, “an air unit which flies a harassment mission during a player turn does not become operative at the start of the next player turn”? Under the Master Sequence of Play Summary air units are replaced (step 6) before air units become operative (step 8).

The air unit may become operational. Once it was aborted (or eliminated) it was no longer flying a harassment mission, it was out of play. No air unit “carries” over any status from previous turns when replaced/rebuilt from a replacement pool. [TEM 74]

Rules 20G2g & 20G2h

Losses to Naval Units: Are these allocated after each air attack, or after all air attacks in a player turn?

Rule 20G2g defines how this happens for both 20G2g & h: “For each air operation, resolve all bombing attacks of air units flying this mission before applying any hits achieved. (Keep track of the total number of hits achieved.) Apply the hits after all air units on this mission [naval units in port bombing] have finished bombing.” This means you do it on a per-air-operation basis, applying all hits (losses) to the naval units once all bombing attacks in the operation are over. [TEM 41, Errata1]

20G2h

Is an air unit assigned to a naval patrol mission susceptible to being damaged from an airbase tactical bombing attack, or are they flying (that is, on a mission)?

Air units assigned to naval patrol missions remain at their airbase until they fly a mission, so yes, they can be bombed on the ground. They might not fly any mission at all that player turn, so it would be a sick trick to allow air units to avoid being bombed at base simply by having them declare that they were on naval patrol. [TEM 53]

If any planes from an airbase with enemy CAP overhead leave for a Naval Patrol bombing mission they can be patrol attacked by the enemy fighters. Does this occur if the contact roll is unsuccessful? We think yes since the force went inoperative.

Yes, since the naval patrol air units have to fly to the target hex before they are able to roll on the contact table. It happens in the hex with the CAP fighters and the airbase, when the mission force begins moving to get to the target hex. [TEM 74]

Notes on Naval Patrol mission [Errata2, Errata4]:

    • Only one attack force from any given airbase may attempt contact against a given naval group in a given hex. Naval groups which do not leave a hex (such as those debarking at a beach) are not subject to another contact attempt from the same airbase in the same player-turn.
    • Aircraft on CAP can not switch to escort Naval Patrols. Escorts for Naval Patrols must originate at the same base, and be part of the same movement group which made the successful contact roll.

20g2i

Regarding the CD bombing air mission (20G2i), my opponents recall an official SF rules court ruling or SF Q&A entry that states that only multiples of two bombing hits are implemented as CD strength point damage, and that odd bombing hits resulting from this mission are not carried over from operation to operation. I do not recall ever hearing or reading such a ruling, and would not like to assume this, especially as I do not read it this way myself. Could you make it official, or point us to the already offical Rules Court ruling/Q&A entry?

I believe I did say that they were not additive, at one point, but upon further thought on the issue, I am not sure why I did.

The basic point is that it takes two hits on the bombing table to apply a “hit” to the CD, and there is nothing specifically saying that the total of bombing hits used to arrive at the number of CD hits is divided, so to speak, by individual air operations.

Therefore, I will make the official pronouncement that the number of CD hits applied due to air bombing is based upon the total number of bombing hits achieved in a player turn. Simply keep a side record of the number of bombing hits achieved in all of the CD bombing missions you fly and apply one CD hit for every multiple of two bombing hits you achieve.

Of course, any “half hits”, that is, any bombing hits not divisible by two, are ignored, once the final tally is arrived at. For example, suppose after 7 air missions (and moving on to a phase wherein they can no longer initiate such missions), the Allies have achieved 5 bombing hits on a particular CD. This would inflict two CD hits on the CD and the remaining bombing hit would have no effect. [TEM 73]

Rule 21

Suppose that a plane takes off from an airbase with a CAP mission over it, is patrol attacked and gets an R result. Where can that plane return to? Does it have to go back to the base it started from? Is this true of all R results?

The air unit “returns” to any friendly airbase within mission range, with a capacity greater than 0 — just like any other return result. Air units are never required to return to any particular airbase, not even the one they initiated the mission from. [TEM 74]

The Allies are flying a CAP mission to over an airbase with heavy flak (irrelevant but the reason why this is happening). German fighters are in range to intercept. How is this handled?

The CAP mission is a mission, so if the Axis want to intercept it, it is handled as any other interception. In this case, there is no escort for the mission force. The entire mission force consists of the CAP mission air units.

Let us assume that there are 12 Allied air units on CAP and the Axis intercept with six air units. Randomly select six of the CAP air units and pair each one off with a randomly selected interceptor. Since there is no escort, there is no screen to be attacked or bypassed. These six air to air combats are resolved. All of the surviving interceptors are returned to base once the combat is completed and the surviving CAP air units remain in the target hex with the other, unengaged CAP air units.

Note that the CAP air units, whether engaged or not, have not completed their mission yet and so none of them not affected by combat would be returned to base at this time. Let’s assume that the Axis achieved 1× K, 1× A and 1× R in the air to air combat and 3× no effect. Since 12 air units were part of the mission, we would end that interception with nine Allied air units on that CAP mission still over the target hex.

Note that just as a bomber doesn’t lose its mission ability by being intercepted (unless affected by the air to air combat), neither does a CAP air unit; it may defend itself against the interception, and still remain in the hex, and carry out its mission. [TEM 74]

Rule 22

It seems to me that the intrinsic AA of ports cannot fire at air units bombing ships in the port (“all non naval unit AA in the hex”), but the port intrinsic AA may fire at air units bombing any airfields in the hex. Is this correct? Should there be any changes when dealing with Soviet River flotillas?

Since the intrinsic AA is not generated by a naval unit, it may certainy fire against air units flying the naval units in port mission. The rules say that all non-naval unit AA may fire, as may the single naval unit with the greatest AA strength. Intrinsic AA is non-naval unit AA, as is the AA strength of any unit with AA or any static AA in the hex. River flotillas are “in general… treated as ground combat units”. So AA from river flotillas would also be considered as non-naval unit AA. [TEM 73]

Is there any standard rule for firing AA against air units making a Harassment mission?

Per Rule 20G2d, Harassment is a bombing mission. Per Rule 22B 1, the enemy player may fire AA against air units flying bombing missions. Harassment is not listed in Rule 22B1 as being one of the exceptions to the general rule on firing AA. Therefore, the standard rules apply, and any friendly units, except for naval units, may fire at any enemy air units flying a harassment mission in the hex the friendly units occupy. Advanced rules 43B1 and 43B2 simply modify the standard rules concerning AA fire versus this particular mission. [TEM 50]

When firing AA against air units flying GS or DAS missions, does the AA unit fire only against those air units effectively supporting the attack or against all air units in the hex making GS or DAS mission (even those not consideredfor combat ratio calculations)?

AA fire is resolved against all enemy air units flying GS/DAS missions in the hex. After AA fire is resolved, the owning player may decide which air units will participate in the combat resolution, up to the limits imposed by RE considerations. [TEM 50]

Is intrinsic AA cumulative? For example, a 20-10 SS Arm XX would have 3 points (1 pt for unit strength, 1 for SS, 1 for Axis C/M). I say yes, but we want to make sure.

No, intrinsic AA for units is not cumulative for the individual unit; if the unit satisfies any of the conditions listed, then it has one point of light AA, period. Intrinsic AA from map features is cumulative, but the rules say this specifically so that is not a problem. Since the rules do not say unit-based intrinsic AA is cumulative, we can assume it is not. Note also that in the example to Rule 22A.3, the British infantry division is listed as having one point of intrinsic AA; note well that this could easily be a 9-8 or stronger British division, but the note ignores that issue. Obviously then, the division is getting its one point of AA by virtue of being an Allied division, the strength of the unit is ignored. Therefore, we can conclude that satisfying one condition grants the unit the AA, but satisfying more than one condition does not increase the AA strength of the unit. [TEM 59/60]

Is a player required to use AA against air units? Rule 22, page 32 states, " Air units may undergo enemy antiaircraft fire when they fly certain missions. " The word may seems to imply that AA is optional.

See Rule 22B.2, first bullet: “Total the AA strength eligible to fire at the target air unit’. The word eligible here would seem to indicate it is an all or nothing affair; if you choose to not resolve the AA attack then no AA fires, but if you choose to resolve the AA attack then all “eligible” AA must fire. So it would appear that while making the AA attack is optional, who participates in that attack, if made, is not optional. [TEM 59/60]

When is AA fire against DAS resolved? Rule 20.G.2.cpart 3 says “Each DAS operation follows the standard air sequence, until the mission resolution step is reached. " That step (#5) occurs after the AA Fire step (#4), so that means that AA fire should be resolved when the mission is flown. However, this is impossible, because at this point no one knows whether the hex will be attacked, much less what the AA strength of the attacking units will be.

Resolve AA fire versus GS and DAS during the mission resolution step. Fire AA for individual combats immediately before resolving the individual combat. [TEM 59/60]

Are position AA counters “ground units” for purposes of supply? In both SF and WitD position AA units are defined as having “neither a printed combat strength nor a unit size… Position AA units function somewhat differently than do regular combat units.” Therefore, are position AA values affected by being out of supply?

Yes. [TEM 67]

Are intrinsic AA values affected by being out of supply?

Intrinsic map features are not units, therefore they are not affected by supply; intrinsic AA strengths of units are affected by supply, since they are a component of the unit, which is affected by supply.

The supply rules specify that they affect the abilities of units in movement and combat; there is no mention of it affecting the abilities of map features. [TEM 67]

Rule 23

23A1

You have mentioned that fighters on ground support missions that jettison their bombs when intercepted do not become escorts. Scorched Earth Rule 24A states the fighter is treated as if it were flying an escort mission. Is this a Second Front rule?

Yes this is a SF rule, or more correctly a rule that goes along with the other rules associated with the “new” air rules.

It is an important change. Under the new rules, if the owning player uses the fighter as part of the mission force, then it is stuck as part of the mission force. It can get its regular air combat ratings back by discarding its bomb load, but it can not switch from the mission force to the escort screen by doing so.

One look at the Allied OB and the TB ratings of Allied fighters should illustrate why the change was needed and apporpriate. Without it, Allied players would never bother to fly escort, they would always carry a bomb load and only jettison it if they had to — that is simply wrong and not the way tactical air forces operated, for the most part. Interceptors and dedicated escorts did not routinely carry full loads of bombs.

Older games, like SE, use different rules for dividing up combat and for controlling who is and who isn’t in the escort screen. However, to those who want to use the “new” air rules in old games, this is certainly one nuance it is especially important to remember to incorporate. [TEM 74]

23A2

It seems almost impossible to take out enemy fighters if they don’t want to fight, since even inoperative ones can scramble. This seems too generous; fighters certainly did get caught on the ground from time to time; it is actually easier to overrun them with tanks! Perhaps they should have to make some kind of escape die roll in order to scramble?

Inoperative fighters must be able to scramble. Otherwise, players would resort to the ahistorical tactic of waiting for enemy fighters to become inoperative and then immediately flying to bomb their airbases. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

23B

If I would read the SF or FWtBT staging and transfer rules, what would I discover?

Per the SF and FWtBT RAW, staging consists of flying one single-leg transfer mission prior to initiating another mission, and per the transfer rules, a single leg of a transfer mission uses three times the air units printed range. So… an air unit may stage to a friendly airbase within three times its printed range and then initiate another mission. [TEM 50]

Rule 23.B, Staging, states the initiating players units fly a “1-legged transfer mission”. The transfer rules state that transfer missions occur only in the movement and exploitation phase. I assume that this restriction does not apply to staging, otherwise the prohibition against staging of DAS missions would not be necessary. Is this correct?

Staging is not a “mission” in itself Staging is a separate concept from transfers and while it operates similarly to the transfer mission, it is not exactly the same. The staging rules detail any restrictions upon this mission and staging may be performed during combat phases. [TEM 59/60]

Staging is not allowed for DAS missions. However, the RAW allows a fighter flying escort for a DAS mission may stage, since escort is a different mission from DAS. Was this intended?

Yes. Escorting fighters may stage prior to escorting a DAS mission. [TEM 59/60]

23C

Rule 20F3 clearly says transports may air transport, but not lay mines. Rule 23C (3rd bullet) says a transport may fly extended range minelaying missions. Which is correct? (Laying mines is a transport mission which only B and HB types can perform, but so why not say " a bomber may fly extended range minelaying missions”?)

In essence, a B or HB laying mines is acting as a transport and thus 23C is technically correct, but I see your point. Note also that the second bullet of 23C covers this situation implicitly, since aerial minelaying is one of “most bombing missions”, in that it is not explicitly stated as a mission wherein air units may not fly extended range, in the specific mission rules. Since the rules do not disallow extended range aerial minelaying missions, it follows that the rules do allow them.

Note also that transports may carry mines at extended range, as a transport mission, so the third bullet of 23C is correct as well. [TEM 53]

An air unit is doing a transfer mission using triple range. It is patrol attacked and returned to base. Does it return to base using triple range, or just normal range?

Triple range, which means it may well “return” to its desired, destination airbase. It is very difficult to interfere effectively with enemy transfer missions. [TEM 66]

23G

(Addition) Modify the success table die roll by +2 for day air units checking for crash landing after flying night air missions. [TEM 59/60, Errata2]

Why are there NA air units if no tactical bombing missions can be flown at night?

Obviously, type NA air units can fly transfer missions at night without fear of crash landing! Actually, if we ever allow (some) tactical bombing missions at night, then these air units are already rated and will automatically retrofit. Don’t hold your breath waiting for night tac bombing, however. The case for this having any appreciable effect at Europa scale is rather tenuous. Still, someone someday may marshal enough data to convince me otherwise. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

What happens to the cargo of a transport aborted when making a night landing at the intended mission hex? Does it end up at the mission hex, mission origination hex, dead pile, or somewhere else?

I assume you mean when the air transport is aborted for landing at night? In that case, the cargo is at the airbase where the air transport landed.

Abort results never eliminate cargo. The cargo could not be at the mission origination hex, since the air unit may not return there. Therefore, the cargo is at the destination hex. It is delivered before the roll for crash landing is made.

When making a night transport mission involving staging how many times does a transport roll for night landing? For the staging? For the mission hex? For the landing upon return?

It rolls every time it lands at an airbase at night. Staging happens during the mission movement step of an air op, and you have to declare night or day at the START of an air op. If the air op is declared as night, then so is the mission movement step of that air op, which is when staging happens. Since one may not stage during day time if one is flying a night air mission, the air unit would roll for crash landing following its one leg transfer mission, again when it landed at the mission hex, and again when it landed at the airbase chosen during the air return step. cf SF 23.G which states that a day air unit “may crash land whenever it lands at an airbase…” “Whenever” means at any time that it lands at an airbase - and per 23.B a staging air unit lands at the staging airbase, per 20.A.

23H10

If I understand this rule correctly, then a code X air unit which suffers an “A” result in combat is considered aborted and not eliminated. Is that correct?

The unit would suffer a “double abort” (once in combat and once per Rule 23H10), but in SF this still equates to an “abort” and not an “eliminated” as in some other Europa games. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

23I

Can any number of air operations (with an unlimited number of air units) originate from the same airbase and/or all-land clear terrain hex in the North Africa or Britain holding boxes?

Yes. airbase capacity does not affect the number of missions that may be initiated from an airbase. Since the entire off-map box is an unlimited capacity airbase, all air units therein become operative during initial phases; then they may fly missions from any hex that qualifies as being part of the off-map holding box, even if, say, all units take off and return to the same single hex. [TEM 71]

The issue arose whether an unlimited number of naval patrol units (the Allies have about 30 assigned) can fly from Bizerte, a reference city.

The Allies claim that any number of air units can fly from this airbase, even though it has a capacity of one and naval patrol units are not supposed to stage. They also claim that they can make an unlimited number of contact attempts against the same hex from this airbase, even though only one stack per airbase is allowed to make a contact attemp against the same hex. I gather from your ruling above that Bizerte, by being part of the holding box, does not have to abide by the usual restrictions on staging and airbases with regard to naval patrol missions.

This is close, but not completely correct. The off-map holding box is considered an airbase, a single airbase; therefore the Allies may make one contact attempt from that single airbase. The fact that the holding box has an unlimited capacity doesn’t change the fact that is considered a single airbase, and only one naval patrol mission can be flown from any airbase.

So the Allies can make one contact attempt from the holding box, and have that mission, of as many air units as are available, initiate that mission from any valid airbase/hex of the holding box.

To make multiple contact attempts would not be allowed since the naval patrol rules are specific that only one mission can be initiated from any single airbase. The off-map holding box rules plainly state that the holding box is considered an airbase, not a bunch of airbases but a single, discrete airbase, albeit with unlimited capacity.

To allow the Allies to attempt multiple contacts from the holding box, which is considered the air unit’s airbase, goes against the naval patrol bombing limitations on initiating missions from s single airbase. Thet would be in direct contravention of the rules regarding naval patrol missions.

While the Allies do get a bonus from using the holding box, in that the number of air units on the naval patrol mission can be artificially above the normal maximum of 12, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t claim that more than one naval patrol can be initiated from this single airbase. [TEM 71]

Rule 23I2 states that Allied air units may enter and leave garrison boxes. Rule 37E1 says that the Allied player “must maintain garrisons in certain districts or pay a penalty”. Does this mean that the Allied player can voluntarily exit air units (for instance, the 20 fighters from the Britain garrison) and then later return them to the garrison again? If yes, when is the penalty implemented?

Yes, you can choose to have air units leave a garrison. They may do so during a friendly initial phase, simply move the air unit from the garrison box to the associated holding box. This occurs when you do replacement/reinforcement activities. Note that you check required garrisons before replacement and reinforcement activities. So, if you remove one or more air units from a garrison, you will be short that many air units from the garrison at the beginning of your next friendly initial phase. When you check required garrisons, you will be penalized one ARP per air unit missing from the harrison at that time. You will be unable to have any air units enter that garrison before the penalty is assessed, due to the sequence of play. [TEM 73]

Rule 23J

May the Allied anti-shipping forces fly transfer missions?

No, Rule 23J states explicitly that these air units “may only fly naval patrol bombing missions”, and transfer missions are not naval patrol bombing missions. Note that the naval units in port mission is not a naval patrol bombing mission, either. [TEM 74]

Rule 24

I should start by admitting that I am playing the Axis side, and therefore my views are nor very objective. I have however some serious problems with the rules on paratroopers. The following exaples should give an idea of what I mean:

  1. The Sudden Death ploy: The Allied player plans an invasion of the Berlin hex containing the German government. This invasion has about 20 percent chance of success each time the Allied player is willing to risk one 1-8 unit (4 VP). Disruption occurs on a die roll of 3 or less if using a glider. AA strength of 7, capture government on a die roll of 3 to 6. If the German government is captured, the Axis surrenders (Rule 38A2).

This is incorrect! The Axis surrenders if “The Axis Player owns six or fewer major cities in 1939 Germany; and The German government has been relocated outside Berlin or captured at any time in the game.” Note the and there, you must fulfill both conditions to force Axis surrender. [TEM 74]

  1. The Para Invasion ploy:Why should the Allies ever bother to plan a conventional amphibious landing? Here is what you do: Plan an air drop for one para unit in a coastal hex. If the coastal hex is unoccupied, or only lightly defended at the beginning of your next turn, proceed with the operation. In this way the Allied player can plan a large number of invasions per turn using only one air droppable unit per invasion site and then choose which one to execute after seeing the exact positioning of Axis units.

This is how it works. If the Axis leaves important areas underdefended, it pays the price. By the way, it pays to have fort counters in all minor ports, even ungarrisoned ones, just to get the extra -1 DRM on the Parachute Disruption table. It may be useful to point out here that even if the parachute battalion does grab the hex, it only owns the beach there in the following exploitation phase, not immediately. It only owns the port there for purposes of naval transport if the hex is still Allied-owned in the next Allied initial phase. [TEM 74]

  1. The Missing Garrison ploy: The problem with the Sudden Death ploy is that garrison units cannot appear at a city if an enemy air unit air dropped in the hex has gained onwership of the hex. This ploy can be used in many other ways: the Allied player could drop units on Bucharest, Budapest or Rome attempting to capture the governments of these countries. The Allied player could attempt to take any city, regardless of the size of its garrison.

Note, however, that you activate the garrison immediately upon the entry of the first enemy unit in the region. Also, if the air-droppable unit was disrupted, garrison forces could appear in the same hex with them. Note also that the utility of this ploy was based upon the faulty rules interpretation that simply capturing a capital caused a nation to surrender; this is not so. None of the Axis nations that appear in Clash of Titans (nor Second Front for that matter) will surrender due to the loss of their capital unless other conditions have been fulfilled as well. Besides, having one battalion of on-map forces defending your capital is probably not too much to ask of a player, if it is at risk of being captures by such a daring raid. [TEM 74]

24B1

All mentions of “airborne unit” should be “air-droppable unit.”

An Allied airborne unit lands in an unoccupied Axis-owned hex that contains an airbase and becomes disrupted when dropping in the hex. Therefore, the Allied player is unable to use the airbase there. May Axis air units continue to operate from the airbase?

Yes. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Suppose the hex in the example above is also a port. May Axis naval units continue to use the port? If so, may Axis naval transports land ground units at the port? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of in-hex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

They may use the port there, but ground units may not be disembarked at the port. Rule 6 lists “In general, a unit may not enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit. Exceptions to this are covered in the appropriate rules.” Note that the naval transport rules do not list this as an exception. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Suppose the hex in the example above is also a city. May Axis reinforcements/replacements appear in the city in the Axis initial phase? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of in-hex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

Yes. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

[Ruling 213] “An undisrupted airborne units gains immediate ownership of the hex it drops in” Situation: 82nd Airborne is planned to drop on hex A, 101st Airborne is planned to drop on hex B. Hex A has an airfield in it. The 82nd starts dropping its regiments; the first dropped does not disrupt and now owns the airfield. Can the further units of the 82nd be flown in as cargo and not dropped?

Yes. [TEM 59/60]

Referring to ruling 213 above, can the units from the 101st then be flown in as cargo?

Yes. [TEM 59/60]

Again referring to ruling 213, if not, could the 1 OP operation be canceled and its units then be flown in during the exploitation phase as cargo?

They can do this as well. [TEM 59/60]

Still referring to ruling 213, if not, could the 101st operation be canceled and the transports that were to fly the 1 OP be used to fly in other cargo (but not the 101st)?

When a special operation is planned for a unit it allows that unit to participate in special operations; it does not interfere with the unit doing something else, per se. Actions by the unit may cancel its ability to participate in the special operation, but it is not limited to only doing that special operation with regards to actions that do not require pre-planning.

So in all your examples, the fact that the 101st Airborne has a special operation planned for it does not interfere with its ability to be moved by air transport to a friendly owned airbase. Of course, its special operation must be cancelled if it can no longer fulfill the requirements for that rule after the air transport to the newly captured airbase, but this cancellation could take place after it had moved to the airbase; perhaps it is now in a ZoC, or perhaps there are no air transports based there (after staging) to provide air transport for the units.

The important concept to remember is that having a special operation planned for a unit is an enhancement of its abilities; it does not deny the unit the ability to perform any other actions normally allowed. Note that units are not prohibited from performing actions that can cancel the special operation; the special operation is simply cancelled if the unit does these things or if it is no longer able to meet the requirements of the rules regarding planning (Rule 24C). [TEM 59/60]

24C

In planning an airborne operation, such as an eight-regiment drop, may various components of a special operation be postponed or canceled without having to scrap the entire operation?

A strict reading of the planning rule reveals that each unit is planned separately and thus can be postponed or canceled by itself.

When planning Allied airborne and amphibious operations “an operation may not be planned for a unit that is in an enemy ZOC at that time. Once an op is planned for a unit, it must be cancelled if the unit is in an enemy ZOC, attacks, or is attacked at any time between the planning and the execution of the operation” (Rule 24C). Since amphibious planning capacity is based on LCs, not ground units, do attacks on LCs cancel operations? Example: an LC has an operation planned for Apr II 44. It moves to disembark cargo at a friendly beach on Apr I 44 and comes under attack by Axis air units. Does this cancel the planned operation (or does the ground unit have to be attacked to cancel the op)?

Per Rule 3, a naval unit is not a unit, so no rules referring to units apply to naval units. Each initial phase, you may plan amphibious landings for as many units as you have LCs, as well as for any or all intrinsically amphibious units. Since an LC is not a unit, the rule you quoted does not refer to an LC. As long as the LC is neither sunk nor damaged, it may participate in the invasion. [TEM 66]

24E

If an Allied airborne HQ is air transported to an airbase in its airborne mode, without heavy equipment, may it form its division if all other components are in the hex? Can it provide support to all units in the hex?

Yes. A sentence is missing from Rule 24E. The rule is repeated below, with the missing sentence added (it’s the one in italics).

E. Allied Airborne HQs

The HQ of an Allied airborne division has two sides: an airborne HQ side and a parachute HQ side:

  • The airborne HQ can be carried in a regular transport mission, as a 1-RE unit without heavy equipment. It is not air droppable.
  • The parachute HQ can be dropped in an air drop mission, as a 1-RE unit without heavy equipment. This HQ is marked with the self-supported dot, which indicates that it may only provide support to 1 RE of units. It cannot provide support at all if disrupted.

The Allied player may not use a parachute HQ to assemble a broken down airborne division: only the airborne HQ side may he used to reassemble the division.

A player may freely convert the HQ between its parachute and airborne sides during his initial phase, provided the HQ can trace a supply line to a regular source of supply.

[TEM 43/44]

Rule 25

What is the order of air replacement activities, or do you have to follow an order?

I don’t think it makes any difference, really, but I do them in the order that they are presented in the rules:

    • Regrouping
    • Withdrawals
    • Reinforcements
    • Replacements

Note that in the SF Master Sequence of Play, these activities occur in step 6 of the initial phase (together with naval and ground R&R activities). Since they are all in the same step, they “may be done in any order.” [TEM 59/60]

Where do the rules explain the e (eliminated) and a (aborted) on the air OBs? 6a5 could mean 5 out of 6 are aborted, or 5 out of 11.

This is actually never spelled out in the rules. 6a5 means 6 air units are available operable and 5 air units are available aborted (for a total of 11 air units). A listing of 2a2e2 would indicate 2 operable, 2 aborted, and 2 eliminated (a total of 6 air units). [TEM 53]

When using the Greater Germany Strat Air OB it is very clear that 5 of the available Me lO9G6s are aborted during the Apr I 44 turn. But what about other turns? Are any of these units aborted on Jun I? How about Nov I 44 when 8 of them are withdrawn?

Air units in the German Strat air box remain aborted unless repaired by the Axis player, using ARPs from his normal allotment. Note that unlike other ARPs, the ones that are listed for the Strat air force do not enter play every air cycle, indeed they do not “enter play” at all, unless the Axis player calls up his Strat air for a special effort. Then the ARPs listed arrive in the initial phase in which the special effort occurs.

These ARPs, and any other German ARPs under the control of the Axis player may be spent to repair air units in the Strat air box, at the Axis players option. [TEM 53]

In the example above the OB calls for one more Me 1O9G6 to arrive in Mar 45. Shouldn’t this be a withdrawal of the last remaining aborted unit instead of an arrival?

No, the OB is correct here. Note that Me 109G6s transfer out of theater from both the West and North Theaters on this turn; I assume the arrival of this air unit represents the transfer of an Me 109G6 from the West to Greater Germany. [TEM 53]

25B

When making withdrawals from the German Strat OB are regular Air Replacement Rules followed (Rule 25B)? Example: The OB for Apr 44 calls for 6a5 Me 109G6. In May and Jul, 2 more are added for a total of 8a5 Me IO9G6 in the German Strat Air OB. In Nov 44 8 are withdrawn. These should be the 8 operative units if following Rule 25B. In Jan 45 4 more are withdrawn, which must come from the aborted units. Rule 25B would require the Germans to spend 4 ARPs. I assume the payment of ARPs is already accounted for in the Strat Air ARP schedule. Is this example correct?

No. The cost to repair these air units is not included in the Strat Air OB and must be paid by the Axis player, per 25B. [TEM 53]

Rule 26

When a strategic wing flies a mission in poor weather, is the bombing strength halved before or after AA fire?

Halve it at the moment of bombing, which comes after AA fire. [TEM 41, Errata1]

Are the SAF strengths halved due to terrain and weather effects?

Strategic Air Forces and Wings are treated as any other air unit with regards to terrain and weather, so yes, they would be affected by terrain and/or weather considerations. [TEM 50]

26B

The Second Front Greater Germany Luftwaffe Startegic Air OB includes a number of aborted units. Can these units be repaired during any initial phase? Or must the Strategic Air be called up before aborted strategic air units can be repaired? I note that under the Master Sequence of Play Summary air reinforcement/replacement activities under Rule 25 take place in step 6 of the Initial Phase and calling up Strategic Air assets takes place in step 7.

Yes, the Axis player can repair these air units, using ARPS that are available for him to use. Just remember that the ARPs listed for the Strat air force do not arrive every cycle, like normal ARPs do. They only appear when you call up the Strat air. So repairing aborted Start air units has nothing to do with the Strat air ARP rate.

So yes, if you have the ARPs on hand, you may repair aborted Start air units before you call them up, or even during turns in which you don’t call them up at all. This can be a good use for any excess, left over ARPs that are going to disappear anyway. [TEM 67, TEM 76]

26C2

Is there any limit to the number of bombing points a strategic wing can allocate to GS or DAS?

For 26C2b, note that the wing flies any tactical mission that heavy bombers may fly; and per 23E2 heavy bombers may not fly GS or DAS.

For 26C2c, every 3 bombing strength points (or fraction thereof; calculated before any halving due to weather or terrain) delivered by a strategic wing counts as 1 air unit for the GS/DAS limit. [TEM 41, Errata1]

26C2b

May the Allied player divide the bombing strength of a wing into several attacks? (for example, to make 9 attacks on the “2” column instead of one attack on the “18”)

This depends upon the mission being flown. Per 20G, Air units bombing may bomb individually, or some (up to all) may combine their bombing strengths to make a single bombing attack. Note that air units can not split their bombing strengths so as to make a number of individual attacks. Per Rule 26C2, “Unless otherwise indicated, all regular rules for air operations and missions affect the operations and missions of strategic wings.” Therefore, for most missions, each wing will make one bombing attack with whatever strength was provided to it when activated. Exceptions to this are the Rail Marhaling Yard mission and missions with naval units as their target, using Tactical Bombing factores. This mission abides by the rules for either naval patrol bombing or naval units in port missions, e.g., a number of one point bombing attacks equal to the total bombing strength of the wing. [TEM 74]

26C2c

(Correction/addition) Delete mention of Strategic Wings flying DAS; Strat Wings may not fly DAS since Allied DAS missions are flown during Axis player turns, when no Strat Wing could be available. [TEM 50, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Add at the end of this rule, “Every 3 TBFs, or fraction thereof; calculated before any halving for terrain or weather, are considered to be one air unit for purposes of determining how many air units may assist a combat.” [TEM 50, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Rule 26 states that the Allies may call up Strategic Air Forces (SAF) during the Allied initial phase and that a special effort turn lasts for the Allied player turn; is it right to say that the SAF cannot be used for Harassment and DAS missions as they occur during the Axis player turn? If yes, why is there a reference to DAS missions in the 10th line of Rule 26C2c?

Correct, Allied Strategic Air assets may not be used in the Axis player turn, thus they may not fly Harassment, nor DAS missions. The reference you speak of is in error. Delete all mention of Allied Strategic Air Forces flying DAS. [TEM 50]

Rule 27

27A2

Is there a limit to the number of naval units that can be stacked in a hex?

Theoretically? Sure. A (sea) hex is well over 6 billion square feet in extent. Generously assuming that the average ship takes up 100 feet by 50 feet, you could phisically fit well over 1 million ships in the hex. Ok, that’s just parking them there, so let’s say with sufficient navigational controls a ship needs 100 times its area to be able to maneuver: 10,000 ships. This is still pretty tight, but giving 1,000 times the space still yelds 1,000 ships per hex, so for practical effects we can ignore naval stacking.

27A3

(Rules 27A3 and 31) Can you deliberately allocate excess naval transport to a unit in order to avoid losses at sea?

No. Several naval transports can combine to carry a unit. But, assigning “excess” naval transports to a unit doesn’t ensure it will avoid losses at sea, since if any of the naval transports carrying the unit is sunk, the unit is eliminated. (I suppose you could make a case that if 20 NTs were assigned to carry a brigade and only one was sunk, the unit has lost only 5% of its strength and should remain in play. I believe, however, that this is getting into the silly zone and would encourage players to adopt ahistorical tactics.)

However, there is a way to get a result similar to the one you’re looking for. Don’t assign “excess” NTs to carry a unit, but include NTs that are not carrying anything as part of the naval group with the NTs that are carrying the unit. If naval units in the group take damage from air units, it may turn out that empty NTs get hit rather than laden ones. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

27B3

Add the following sentence to Rule 27B3: “Exception: LCs can not carry rail-only units.” [TEM 40, Errata1]

27B6

Rule 27B6 is rephrased for better clarity: [Errata1]

“6. Amphibious Ability. Any unit with the amphibious or marine symbol as part of its unit type is intrinsically amphibious. The following units are also amphibious:

  • Any unit carried by an LVT per Rule 14J2, so long as it is using the LVT.
  • Any non-motorized unit without heavy equipment that is embarking, disembarking, or being transported by an LC.”

[TEM 40]

Is an infantry division or port construction engineer unit carried by an LC amphibious?

Both of these units have HE, so neither can be considered amphibious. They meet neither of the conditions required by rule 27B6 that allow a unit to be considered amphibious. [TEM 66]

27D

Rule 27D states that the enumerated naval actions must be resolved in that sequence. But the Master Sequence of Play Summary lists some actions outside the list in 27D (prepare NGS, danger zones attacks) and, except for the landing sequence, lists the other actions with no numbers (and thus falling under the “any order” proviso). How are these two sequences reconciled?

RCV: Do as the rules specify with regard to sequencing, ie the provisions of 27D take precedence over the MSP. Note also that air missions and naval combat interrupt naval movement, so they occur before the completion of multiple MP tasks such as preparing to fire NGS, ie you can not claim the MSP “allows” you to complete preparation for NGS fire simply because the MSP lists that action and reaction movement within the same numbering. Naval sequencing spelt out in the rules supercedes the sequencing listed as a convenience on the MSP.

Rule 28

Do all naval units individually keep track of how many MPs they’ve used, and is it across naval phases or player turns? For example, we had 28 MP left at end of first phase and wanted to unload in port, so should it only costs 2 MP in the next phase? if so, then this makes it a nightmare of keeping track of all those NTPs and Ws but, if not, then they’re losing vital MPs.

You may expend MPs to perform a task, such as disembarking ground units, for example, over the course of multiple naval movement steps (although not movement phases). Use status markers on each naval unit or naval group, as appropriate, to keep track of situations, like the one you describe above, where a naval unit or group may have spent some of the MPs needed for an action in a previous naval movement step.

As you point out, this can rapidly become a playability problem if employed rigorously. As an optional house rule, you can simply not allow MP carry over between naval movement steps; while solving the playability problem, it does penalize the naval units/groups by forcing them to “lose” MPs if they have any remaining in a naval movement step. [TEM 49, TEM 76]

Can a naval unit do actions overlapping Naval Movement steps? For example, suppose it costs 20 MPs to get to a port. Can an NT start doing its 30 MPs of unloading immediately, or does it have to wait until the next step starts? This can make a difference with whether units qualify as being in port or at sea, I suppose, and/or if some sea lane is <15MPs, they can save a step of movement on the return leg.

It is the total cost that is important, not so much when those costs are paid. So, yes, just as construction tasks can stretch over turns, naval costs can stretch over multiple phases. You don’t lose any MPs simply because the event is taking place at an awkward time. [TEM 73]

To put it another (clearer) way: Are the assorted Naval costs in increments of 30 MPs supposed to be read as increments os Naval Movement steps, or just a part in the continuation of the 150 MPs a naval unit has per phase?

To answer in another way, as MPs, not as naval movement steps. Let’s say an NT gets to a port in the fifth naval movement step of a movement phase with 15 MPs left. It can expend those MPs to begin loading a c/m unit and have it loaded, therefore, after having spent the remaining needed 15 MPs in the first naval movement step of the exploitation phase.

Note that you could not do this with a non-c/m unit, since they can not embark during an exploitation phase. They can disembark, but they can’t embark. [TEM 73]

(Rules 28 and 28A) These rules state a naval group may split at any point during movement/reaction. Does this just mean that two TFs may move independently, or does it allow you to split a single TF into two TF units?

Rule 27B2 governs the general concept of naval groups, and the seventh paragraph of Rule 28 specifically governs how you split up a naval group. Note that both rules define naval groups in terms of naval units: you can break one group up into several groups, each of which can have one or more naval units. A TF, however, is a single naval unit: it can be part of a naval group (or even the only unit in a naval group) but it cannot be split into two units. [TEM 41, Errata1]

28A

(Rule 28A) Is it correct that non-phasing naval units cannot move at all, except by reaction?

That is correct. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Is a naval unit considered moving any time it expends movement points, or only when it enters a new hex? If only the latter, this means that NTs and LCs in the process of disembarking at a beach hex could not be intercepted (i.e., do not trigger reaction) once they reach the beach.

For the purposes of reaction, a naval group is considered moving if it is spending MPs (for any purpose). [TEM 40, Errata1]

If a reaction attempt is triggered at night is the reacting group considered to be moving at night?

No, see Rule 34A4, only phasing naval groups may use night movement, and per Rule 28A, only non-phasing NGs may use reaction movement. So the two are mutually exclusive. [TEM 49]

May a reacting naval group opt to use night movement and if so, at what allowance?

Per above, a reacting (that is, non-phasing) naval group (NG) may not use night movement. Note however, that if the reacting NG forced combat (by moving into the hex occupied by a NG moving at night) then night combat rules would apply. Simply by reacting, the non-phasing NG can’t strip the phasing NG of it’s night movement status. [TEM 49]

28B

(Correction) The sentence “A cargo naval group does not have a combat zone.” is incorrect. Replace this sentence with “A cargo naval group has a combat zone in the hex it occupies.” [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

The rule on combat zones of naval groups refers to the Rule 27B5 definition of adjacent, while the rules on combat zones of CDs does not. Is there a difference here?

No, Rule 27B5 applies to CD combat zones as well as to NG combat zones. The word “adjacent” used with reference to naval rules always means adjacent as defined in Rule 27B5. [TEM 73]

28C

CD cannot fire on naval units in the CD owner’s player-turn unless the naval units expend NMPs. So, ships firing defensive NGS are immune from CD while doing so, but can be fired on while setting up for NGS in the other player-turn. Correct?

Correct. [TEM 59/60]

Can naval units enter a hex adjacent to a 2+ point CD at night, during the last naval movement sub-phase of their turn and not be subject to any CD combat?

Sure, I guess so, but then they won’t have enough MPs to prepare to fire NGS, will they? But this seems legal as stated; if the NG arrives in the last movement step and moves at night while doing so. [TEM 59/60]

Rule 29

29B2

If naval units are in a combat zone, does a player have to have naval combat. In other words can a player ignore naval combat if so desired (even if being fired upon)?

Yes, the naval units must have combat. No, they do not have to fire during that combat. Returning fire is a choice made by the owning player. See Rule 29B, fourth paragraph. [TEM 59/60]

This rule states that combat between naval units and CDs is resolved in a single round. Exactly what does this mean?

Naval combat between naval units and an enemy CD is initiated as per Rule 28C. Once initiated, the combat is resolved (per Rule 29B2) in a single firing round (unlike combat between naval units and enemy naval units, which can last for several rounds). When the round is over, naval combat between the naval units and the CD is over, and the naval units can resume movement or whatever else they were doing. [TEM 41, Errata1]

If the naval units still have MPs remaining, can they conduct other naval activities in the hex, such as sweeping mines?

Yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

If the naval units still have MPs remaining, can they leave the hex in which they engaged the CD? For example, can they move further down the coast and engage another enemy CD?

Yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

If the naval units still have MPs remaining, can they engage the same CD in another round of naval combat?

Yes — but only if the naval units do something that meets the requirements for initiating naval combat again with the CD per Rule 28C, such as entering another hex in the combat zone of the enemy CD. [TEM 41, Errata1]

29C

I have just started a game of FWBT and this is my first try with the new SF style naval rules. First, I guess it is due to remembering some other naval mechanic but it is not explicit in the rules that after declaring disengagement only one more round of combat is played. Is this true? Or is there unlimited rounds until the disengagement attempt is successful?

Per SF 29C. third bullet, “If the player’s disengagement attempt fails, another round of naval combat occurs.” This new round is handled as per SF 29B I e, in that one returns to step Ia, of the naval combat sequence. At the end of this new round, either player can attempt disengagement again, as usual. So yes, there unlimited rounds of naval combat until either one side is totally eliminated or one or both players successfully disengage. [TEM 49]

Next, suppose a disengagement is successful, which happens to be the non-phasing player, and the naval unit moves 15 Ws away but can’t quite get away. Now the rules say that this is a reaction per the reaction moves so by them only one reaction is allowed OK, so next the phasing player is still trying to hunt this group down. And moves to reinitiate combat. This happens to be in the same step. If disengagement is successful can there be another reaction to get away again to some port this time. Or must the group stay in the hex and a fight to the death ensue?

First of all, even if the reacting NTF stayed in the hex, the phasing player would have to re-initiate combat by moving into the reacting Naval Group’s Combat Zone following the disengagement. Note the fourth bullet of 29C, “It must, if it has sufficient MPs. This indicates that the reacting Naval Group does not have to leave the hex to be “disengaged” since Naval Groups may not be able to leave a hex.

And if so disengaged, the phasing Naval Group would have to retrigger combat, by entering a hex in the combat zone of the Naval Group.

Secondly, note that 29C says that “If a non-phasing group disengages, it makes a reaction movement, with a movement allowance of 15 MPs, per the reaction movement rules.” It does not say it makes a reaction movement attempt, and rule 28A limits reaction attempts, not reaction moves.

So, the non-phasing Naval Group may attempt disengagement after one round of the new combat and if successful, may make a reaction move of 15 MPs away from the hex (indeed it must leave the hex, if able). [TEM 49]

Rule 30

Let’s see if I have ownership and use of owned points under control. One owns and can use anything one has one’s units on or an uncontested ZOC on. One can use anything one has just acquired with the exception being that if one seizes a port, one cannot use the port for unloading during the exploitation phases set of naval phases. Correct?

Correct. [TEM 59/60]

Is this (see ruling above) true no matter how one seizes a port? If one air drops onto an undefended port it still could not be used for unloading?

Correct. The use of ports for naval transport is specifically prohibited unless the port is friendly owned during a friendly initial phase. One could use the beach there (in the phase following the phase of capture) but not the port. [TEM 59/60]

30A

Rule 27B2 states that “the RE size of cavalry and c;m units is doubled for naval transport purposes.” Second Front Rule 30A1 states that the Re capacity of a port is “the number of REs” that may embark;disembark at a port in a player turn. 12 NTs would be required to transport 6 REs of combat/motorized units. Correct?

Correct. [TEM 67, TEM 76]

During a player turn up to 6 REs of cargo may be disembarked at a standard port (total for both movement and exploitation phases). Correct?

Correct. [TEM 67, TEM 76]

But while it costs 12 NTs to transport 6 REs of c/m units, they still only use 6 REs of port capacity. Correct?

Correct. They count double for transport purposes, not against port capacity. [TEM 67, TEM 76]

30A2

Clarification: If a port normally has a rail marshalling yard, the port no longer has one while it is destroyed. [JMA]

30A2, 30A3, and 30A4

If a port has maximum damage (e.g., a standard port with 8 hits) or is destroyed per Rule 30A3, does it still qualify for purposes of Rules 34E3 (sweeping mines) and 34F (danger zones)?

Neither 34E3 nor 34F require that the port be functioning, so a bombed-out or destroyed port does still count for purposes of danger zones and sweeping mines. [TEM 43/44]

See also the Amphibious Recap.

30A3

In port destruction, does a port take damage if the Allies walk into an unoccupied but Axis-owned port?

You bet. The Germans had port destruction preparations and detachments all over the place to prevent the Allies from unexpectedly grabbing a port.

30B

Delete the following sentence from Rule 30B:

“However, cargo that has heavy equipment may not embark/disembark at a beach unless it is amphibious (per Rule 27B6).” [TEM 40]

Under the original SF rules, Rule 30.B, cargo could be disembarked from NTs without the need to transfer to LCs beforehand onto a friendly owned beach it did not have heavy equipment. If I understand the original rules correctly, this would allow follow-up landings of unsupported infantry brigades and other non-combat/motorized units without heavy equipment (and supply points) on beaches without LCs in the exploitation phase following an amphibious landings during the movement phase. Here’s my question: under the “new, improved and revised” amphibious rules for SF, is this still allowed?

Per the Official Amphibious Re-cap, no. Only amphibious units may embark/disembark in a beach hex without LCs. The re-write of Rule 31B states, “Any amphibious unit (as defined in Rule 27B6) may land at a beach. A non-amphibious unit may also land at a beach, if it is solely on board LCs at the time of landing. (Note: A non-amphibious unit on board NTs or NTs in combination with LCs may not land at a beach.) [To make the above even clearer, read “embark/disembark” for “land” when it appears above.]

Here comes yet another naval transport example.

For the purposes of naval transport and amphibious invasions, there are really only three classes of units in SF:

First, there are the intrinsically amphibious types, such as Marines, Marine Commando, Ranger, Amphibious Assault Engineers, Amphibious Tanks and any non-HE, non-c/m units being carried by LVTs. The above units may embark or disembark at friendly owned beaches when using solely NTs; the NTs spend 60 MPs to embark/disembark amphibious units at a friendly beach. These units may also invade enemy owned beaches when using solely NTs; the NTs spend 90 MPs to disembark amphibious units at an enemy owned beach; this is an amphibious invasion.

Second, there are non-amphibious units which do not posses heavy equipment (and, obviously, are also non-c/m). These units may embark/disembark at friendly owned beaches but only if they use LCs solely. Since non-HE, non-c/m units are considered to be amphibious when loading or unloading from LCs, the LCs will pay 60 MPs to embark/ disembark such units at a friendly owned beach. These units may also invade enemy owned beach hexes as long as they use only LCs solely to do so; the LCs would pay 90 MPs to disembark such units in an enemy owned beach hex.

Third, there are those units which posses HE (and, obviously, all c/m units possess HE). But note well that intrinsic amphibious ability overrules any question of HE possession, in effect, if a unit is intrinsically amphibious, its HE status is ignored for purposes of naval transport and amphibious assault. For example, even though amphibious tank units have HE, this alone does not interfere with their ability to invade/ transport to beaches. Basically, if a unit is intrinsically amphibious, this supersedes any other considerations, like HE.

For brevity, assume any reference to a unit with HE below means a non-intrinsically amphibious unit with HE. Units that possess HE may be embarked/disembarked at friendly owned beach hexes as long as they are transported solely aboard LCs; the LCs in this case spend 90 MPs to embark/disembark units with HE at a friendly owned beach. Units with HE may not disembark at enemy owned beaches.

Notes: In all cases, units which require LCs to embark/disembark at a beach only require them to embark/disembark; this means that the units may arrive at the beach hex using NTs, as long as they transfer from the NTs to LCs before they begin to disembark. This transfer costs an additional 30 MPs for both the NTs the unit transfers from and the LCs that the unit transfers to.

Example: A US Inf XX embarks upon NTs in Tunis (30 MPs) and moves to a friendly beach hex in Sicily (15 MPs).

In the beach hex, the NTs spend 30 MPs to transfer the cargo to waiting LCs (30 MPs for the NTs and the LCs; 15 MPs in the second half of Naval Movement Step II and 15 MPs in the first half of Naval Movement Step III).

During Naval Movement Step III, the LC begins spending the 90 MPs required to disembark the division; 15 MPs in NMstep III, 30 MPs in NMstep IV and 30 MPs in NMstep V. This ends the naval movement Phase; the Inf XX is still aboard the LCs, the LCs were short 15 MPs.

During the first NMstep of the exploitation phase, the LCs will spend 15 MPs, which completes the disembarkation process and the Inf XX is ashore (being non-c/m, it may not move, of course, but it may disembark, per 31A.) It may be useful to record such partial MP expenditures during the turn; using status markers or scrap paper.

Note that one cannot expend MPs to disembark a unit into an enemy-owned beach when using naval transport as distinct from amphibious landings. So, for example, units that are part of the follow up wave of an amphibious landing, that is, they are not invading, may not be even partially unloaded while the beach is still enemy owned.

Example: In an enemy owned beach hex are a number of NTs and LCs disembarking amphibious units to make the invasion. Also in that hex are a number of LCs carrying non-invading units. The LCs carrying the non-invading units may not expend MPs to disembark those units during the movement phase, since the beach is currently enemy owned. The beach will become friendly owned during the combat phase (assuming successful combat…) and the LCs carrying the non-invading units will be able to disembark those units during the exploitation phase. The LCs must spend the full number of MPs required, either 60 or 90, solely in the exploitation phase. Note that it may be possible to sequence things so that the LCs carrying invading units can receive the non-invading units, using transfer at sea, during the movement phase, as long as the LCs have MPs remaining after disembarking all invading units.

Put simply, you can not expend even one MP for naval transport disembarkation on a currently enemy owned hex.

Note also that ownership of beach hexes, for the purposes of naval transport, is gained/lost during friendly phases. This means that you may not disembark units in a beach hex that you did not own at the start of a particular phase.

Example: Friendly airborne units make an airdrop into, and gain ownership of, an enemy owned beach during the current friendly movement phase; no friendly units may be transported to that beach during the movement phase, since it was not friendly owned at the start of the movement phase. During the subsequent combat phase, the undisrupted airborne units gain control of the beach. Now friendly units may use naval transport to disembark in the hex during the subsequent exploitation phase. And per the above note, no MPs for disembarkation could have been spent during the movement phase, since the beach was still enemy owned at that time.

Note well that you may not use a port that was not friendly owned at the beginning of the initial phase of the current player turn. So one may not use ports, captured in the current player turn, for any naval transport. One can, of course use the beach in the port hex, as long as it was friendly owned per the paragraph above. [TEM 53]

Rule 31

(Rule 31) If an NT unit is bombed and hit while embarking ground units, does anything happen to the units (i.e., are they considered cargo or not)?

Nothing happens to such ground units. They are not embarked until the naval unit has spent all necessary MPs to embark them. Once embarked, they’re cargo and are affected by what happens to the naval unit. (Similarly, a unit is considered cargo if it is embarked on a naval unit which is spending MPs to disembark it and is subject to adverse effects on the naval unit until the naval unit has spent all necessary MPs to disembark it.) [TEM 40, Errata1]

Is naval transport of air units allowed?

No. [TEM 37, Errata1]

However, see the off-map movement rules.

How does one transfer (that is, pack into crates) air units to transfer between theaters (I know there’s no rule, but how the heck do you think airplanes got to England in the first place.

Air units with “used” aircraft simply were not “crated up” and moved between theaters in real life, certainly not in the manner or numbers that some players seem to want. You can fly transfer missions with those air units able to, and you can replace/rebuild air units without regard to theater location; I think that covers things adequately. [TEM 50]

However, see the off-map movement rules.

Does the non-phasing player get to know what cargo is in a convoy before he launches an air attack on it?

Yes. This is the same as asking if the phasing player gets to know what ground units are in a stack before he attacks it. In Europa, players may freely inspect enemy stacks at any time.

As a house rule, however, you can prohibit the enemy player from examining the cargo of any naval unit or air unit that is transporting cargo. This adds more excitement to play without upsetting any game system. If you want to do this, simply stack the cargo underneath the transporting naval or air unit and do not allow the enemy player to peek underneath. (If you have a stack of several air or naval units in a hex, the other side can demand that you show all the air or naval units in the hex.) Use status markers as usual to denote supply points being carried as cargo.

This system still lets the enemy player distinguish between empty and cargo-laden air or naval units. Of course, in most cases you can fill up an otherwise empty air or naval unit with supply points. I also see no problem with adding another house rule allowing such units to carry dummy cargo; use a hit marker or the like for the dummy cargo. [TEM 41, Errata1]

31A

If you can land/unload units during the naval part of exploitation, and units must spend MPs to disembark, how do non-c/m units do this? No exploitation is allowed for them?

Rule 31A states “During the exploitation phase, a non-c/m unit may disembark… during this phase.” [Errata1]

(Rule 31A) Can a naval unit expend naval MPs for embarkation in an empty beach hex, in anticipation of friendly ground units entering the hex and embarking during the upcoming ground movement sub-phase?

No. The prospective cargo must be present for the naval unit to spend MPs to embark it. You can’t embark something that’s not there yet! [TEM 40, Errata1]

Can a TF spend a naval sub-phase simultaneously preparing NGS and replenishing?

No. One action or the other.

Does a c/m unit that lands on a beach in the exploitation phase have any MPs left to move? How about if it lands during normal movement phase? If using the optional rule on MPs being used depending on how many steps in transit and only paying to disembark. What about disembarking in a port?

Whether or not a unit will have any MPs left or not after naval movement depends on a number of factors. Perhaps some examples will help.

Using basic game rules, and a c/m unit with 10 printed MPs.

If the unit embarked at a port in the exploitation phase, it will pay 2 MPs to do so (1 MP to embark, ×2 for c/m unit), will pay 4 MPs to disembark (1 MP to disembark, ×2 for c/m unit, ×2 for non-amphibious unit to a beach) and will thus have 4 MPs remaining to expend during the exploitation phase. If embarked at a beach, the unit will pay 4 MPs to embark (1 MP to disembark, ×2 for c/m unit, ×2 for non-amphibious unit from a beach) and the same 4 MPs to disembark, leaving it with 2 MPs to expend. If the unit embarked during any previous movement or exploitation phase, then it would only pay to disembark during this phase, paying 4 MPs to do so, and would thus have 6 MPs to expend.

Having moved by naval transport during a movement phase does not affect movement capabilities during the following exploitation phase; thus the unit would have 10 MPs to spend in the exploitation phase following a momvement phase in which it used naval transport.

If using Optional Rules 44G2… Regardless of when the unit embarked, it will pay 2 MPs (being c/m) for each naval movement step at sea during the exploitation phase. Let us suppose that the unit begins the exploitation phase loaded upon an LC in a friendly beach hex. It will cost the LC 90 MPs to disembark the unit so our unit will have been at sea for a minimum of three naval movement steps; thus it will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark, for a total of 10 MPs. Thus it will have no MPs to expend during this exploitation phase for ground movement. Since this example is the most favorable possible situation for a c/m unit disembarking on a beach during the exploitation phase, it may be useful to simply understand the optional rule as requiring a c/m unit to pay all of its MPs to disembark on a beach in an exploitation phase; this is the effect of the rule in practice.

When using the basic rules, and disembarking at a friendly owned port with sufficient cpacity: the unit, if embarking at a port during the exploitation phase, will pay 2 MPs to embark and 2 MPs to disembark (1 MP, ×2 for c/m unit) to disembark for a total of 4 MPs, and will thus have 6 MPs to expend during exploitation ground movement.

If using Optional Rule 44G when embarking at a port: the unit will pay nothing to embark, 2 MPs per naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs (1 MP, ×2 for c/m unit) to disembark. If it began the exploitation phase loaded on an NT in a friendly port, then the NT would spend a minimum of 30 MPs to disembark the unit, or one naval movement step. Thus the ground unit will pay 2 MPs for the one naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs to disembark; leaving it with 6 MPs to expend for ground movement. [TEM 76]

UPDATE: Rich has amended the previous ruling as follows:

Unfortunately, my example of play in that ruling is in ERROR, and should be ignored. One of my more egregious mistakes while working as the Rules Court Editor. :( Perhaps the WORST blunder I made in that capacity. The mistake I made in the example in that answer was that I ADDED the costs from both the basic rules AND the Optional rule - the correct interpretation is that you pay ONLY the costs associated with EITHER the basic rules case, OR the Optional rule case, definitely NOT both.

The actual case here, when using Optional rule 44.G.2 is that the C/M unit simply pays 2 MPs per naval movement step spent at sea during a Naval Movement sub-phase.

Thus, if a C/M unit spends three naval movement steps at sea, being disembarked by one or more LCs [depending upon the RE size of the unit - remember that C/M are treated as twice their RE size for naval transport purposes], it would pay 2 MPs in each of the three naval movement steps required for the LC/s to expend the 90 MPs required by the LC/s. Thus the TOTAL cost for a C/M unit to disembark would be 6 MPs, 2 per naval movement step, if it spends only three naval movement steps at sea in the exploitation phase [the minimum number of steps for it TO disembark].

This is why, in the example I explained in the previous post, the C/M units transferred to the LCs during the movement phase, so that they would be able to begin disembarking immediately when the exploitation phase begins.

Here’s a detailed example of what is going on in what I described in the previous post:

Remember that in my example from the previous post the C/M units are loaded on LCs at the beginning of the Exploitation phase;

Naval Movement Step 1; the LC/s expends 30 MPs to disembark while the C/M unit expends 2 MPs for being at sea during the NMStep

NMStep 2; the LC/s expends 30 MPs to disembark while the C/M unit expends another 2 MPs [total 4 MPs expended] for being at sea

NMStep 3 the LC/s expends another 30 MPs to disembark while the C/M unit expends another 2 MPs [total 6 MPs expended] for being at sea; the LC/s has/have to check for damage at this point.

NMStep 4 the C/M unit is now completely disembarked and in the hex, having expended a total of 6 MPs, the LC/s is/are now empty and free to continue on with naval movement.

When the Exploitation Phase Ground Movement Sub-Phase begins, the C/M has expended 6 MPs for naval movement and has 4 MPs remaining for ground movement during that Exploitation Phase [since all of the C/M units involved in the example from my previous post, are 10 MP units].

31B

Rule 31B claims “Non-amphibious units with heavy equipment may not embark/disembark at beaches.” This is WRONG: such units can land at beaches if they use landing craft (LCs), as explained in the rewrite of Rule 31B below:

“B. Beaches

Any amphibious unit (as defined in Rule 27B6) may land at a beach. A non-amphibious unit may also land at a beach, if it is solely on board LCs at the time of its landing. (Note: A non-amphibious unit on board NTs or NTs in combination with LCs may not land at a beach.)

A naval unit may not embark or disembark cargo at a beach during stormy sea conditions.”

[TEM 37, TEM 40, TEM 66]

Can NTs land resource points and supplies directly to a friendly owned beach?

Yes. [TEM 49]

Are supply points and resource points amphibious? That is, do you need to use LCs to land supply points and resource points on a friendly beach, or can NTs be used for that purpose?

NTs may land supply points and resource points on friendly beaches by themselves. While not exactly “amphibious” per se, supply and resource points operate that way in the game. [TEM 59/60]

Is it possible to land an infantry division, port construction engineer, or artillery unit on a friendly beach? Can they participate in an amphibious invasion?

Yes, any unit may be transported to a friendly beach, per the amended rules above. All of the units you list are non-amphibious and would therefore have to be disembarked solely by LCs, which would pay 90 MPs to diesmbark non-amphibious units on a friendly beach. No, none of these units in your question can participate in an invasion, since none of the listed units are or can be considered amphibious (they all have HE, which disqualifies them under rule 27B6). [TEM 66]

Rule 32

The last bullet point in the first paragraph of Rule 32 is incorrect and must be deleted:

“Only LCs may disembark the cargo making an amphibious landing.” [TEM 40]

32A

Once the Allies begin expending NMPs for an amphibious assault can they change their minds and sail off with their troops, or are they committed to spending 90 NMPs to land?

They can change their mind by leaving the hex. I don’t see anything in the rules that forces one to complete an action that requires multiple naval movement steps to complete. I see this much like engineers performing construction tasks that take multiple turns; the unit is still free to move if otherwise allowed, thus abandoning the construction task. [TEM 59/60]

32B

The first two bullet points in Rule 32B are correct as written, but some players have complained they are difficult to understand. Another way to put them is:

  • An intrinsically amphibious unit has its attack strength halved.
  • Any other unit making an amphibious landing has its attack strength quartered.

[TEM 40]

Related to support, does halving of attack values while conducting an amphibious landing already account for being unsupported, or will that come on top of usual quartering of non-amphibious invaders?

All halving or quartering of strength is calculated separately; an unsupported non-amphib unit conducting an amphibious assault would be halved for lack of support and quartered for invading (1/2 × 1/4 = 1/8 in total). All other effects are cumulative as well, such that the above unit assaulting a partial hex city, with a port fort, during rough seas would be havled a further three time (halved for the terrain, halved for the fortification, and halved for rough seas). Our elite 4-8 Inf III in this situation would contribute a mighty attack factor of 0.0625! [4 × 1/4 × 1/2 × 1/2 × 1/2 × 1/2 = 4 × 1/64] I could be wrong, but I don’t think things can get worse than 1/64. Better have some air power and NGS present to help out! [TEM 54]

All Allied units making amphibious landings are isolated in their first combat phase so any losses don’t receive special replacements? And it counts against Allied disastrous Operations for VPs ?

No, to both questions. The units making an amphibious landing will normally be isolated after disembarking in the enemy owned beach. And if isolated, follow all normal game rules associated with being isolated. But, note that there are cases where a unit could make an amphibious landing adjacent to friendly units, for example, and thus be able to trace an LOC through those friendly units to a regular source of supply. The unit checks isolation at the beginning of the combat phase following the amphibious landing. The fact that it got to that hex by naval transport, even amphibious transport, doesn’t, in itself, affect its isolation status. All that is required is that it be able to trace either an overland supply line, of unlimited length, to a friendly regular source of supply if using the basic rules, or an LOC if using optional Rule 44B1 and 44B1a.

On a related topic, units lost while being transported by NT/LC may or may not be isolated; again it depends upon their status at the time of the last isolation check, and not simply that they are aboard an NT/LC. If our invading units mentioned above were not isolated during the initial phase, then they will not be isolated during the following movement phase, and if eliminated by reason of their NT/LC being sunk/damaged, would generate special replacements. If they began the initial phase isolated, then they would be isolated during the movement phase, and if sunk, would not generate special replacements.

One last note, for general interest; if our invading units were aboard an NT or LC and isolated in the initial phase, they would also be unsupplied, U — I’d and have their attack factor halved, in addition to any other modifiers, when making their amphibious assault. Note that it is impossible for a unit aboard an NT/LC to be in supply if it is isolated; if able to trace to a regular supply line, it would not be isolated, and there is no way for a unit aboard an NT/LC to trace to a special source of supply. [TEM 49]

An Allied division, disassembled and in regular supply, amphibiously invades with two regiments, captures the beach hex, and lends the third regiment and its HQ in the 2nd wave. If no supplies landed in either wave, then the Ist wave regiments, would be in supply for the next enemy player turn, whereas the 2nd wave units would not, per rule 32B last bullet. If however, the division reassembles, then what is the supply status of the division in the next enemy player turn?

First, a hint: land supply points. Second, the rule. See Rule 15A, which states that if a division is built up from units at different supply states, “The assembled unit assumes the supply state of the most out-of-supply components.” Halfway down the second paragraph.

But, per your example, all components would be at the same supply state when assembly took place. Assuming that the components were all in supply when loaded on to their transports, they would remain in supply throughout that friendly player turn, including when assembling at the end of the exploitation phase. At the beginning of the next player (that is, Axis) player turn, supply would be judged again for all units, including the now built-up division; its supply status would depend upon the situation on the map at this time. (and no, the fact that some components, get the “free” turn of supply from rule 32B does not affect things, since those components are no longer in play. This is a trade off you make to get the support, extra combat strength and (probably) AA factor of the BU division; since the HQ was not eligible for the “free” supply, the whole division, if assembled, is not either, per rule 15A above. Since there is no way for the broken down HQ to be an “invading unit”, it can not possibly benefit from the special supply situation detailed in 32B.) [TEM 59/60]

(Rule 32B and 32D) Do divisions making amphibious landings have ZOCs (which might affect enemy reaction)?

Divisions are not amphibious units and therefore cannot make amphibious landings. Divisions must be broken down unsupported and transported by LCs and LVTs to make amphibious landings. The divisional headquarters can subsequently be landed in the exploitation phase and the division re-formed at that time. (Exception: The optional U.S. Marine XX Exp is intrinsically amphibious; its ZOC would be considered when determining enemy reaction.) [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Coastal cliffs halve units making amphibious attacks. If the landing hex is vacant, but the units makeing the amphibious assault atack an adjacent hex are they still halved?

Yes [TEM 66]

32C

Rule 32C: replace the existing rule with the following [Errata1]:

“C. Planning and Preparation

An amphibious landing must be planned in advance, similar to an airborne landing (Rule 24C). Use Rule 24C for planning an amphibious landing with these modifications:

  • A player may plan an amphibious landing for each of his intrinsically amphibious units (that is, any unit with the amphibious or marine symbol as part of its unit type).
  • For all other units, a player has a maximum RE planning limit equal to the cargo capacity of LCs currently in play (not sunk). For example, if a player has in play LCs with a total cargo capacity of 20, he may plan amphibious landings for an additional 20 REs of units in that initial phase.

The player may not plan amphibious landings for any other units.” [TEM 40]

(clarification) And please note that a player can not “carry over” REs of units with plans made for them, from turn to turn. The RE limit is on a per turn basis, i.e. the total of intrinsically amphibious units in play, and the cargo capacity of all LCs in play, is the maximum planning limit each and every turn. For example, if you had no intrinsically amphibious units, and only one LC, you could make plans for an amphibious landing involving only one RE of allowable units. Let us imagine you have made such a plan, for a 3-8 Mtn III on the Jun I 44 turn, to land on the Jun II 44 turn. During the Friendly initial phase of the Jun II 44 turn, you may: cancel that planned landing and plan a new one for that particular unit, cancel that landing and plan a new one for a different unit, carry out that landing and plan a new one for either the same, or a different unit. Note that if the plan for the 3-8 Mtn III [in this example] is not canceled [for example, by just changing the date of its occurrence] then no new plan may be made during that initial phase.

Rule 32.C. says a player may plan amphibious landings for his units. In this context, may units be taken to mean divisional breakdowns, even if the parent divisions are still assembled when plans are made?

No. If the units are not in play, i. e. the broken down units are not deployed on map [and are not components of a division arriving as a reinforcement on the invasion turn] then no invasions can be planned for them. You plan invasions for “units”, not for components of a unit. Same thing for airborne - if you have an Allied Airborne division on board and in play as a divisional counter, then you can not plan airborne operations for its component regiments - since those components are not in play.

32D

Past Guru posts have said a reacting unit may not enter a hex containing enemy units only. If there are no units friendly to the reacting unit it may not enter that hex. Correct?

See SF 6, Movement, “In general, a unit may not enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit. Exceptions to this are covered in the appropriate rules.” This is the general case, and applies to Reaction movement as it does to any other form of movement. There is no exception for solely enemy occupied hexes in SF 32D, so none apply. Therefore, as is always the general case with regards to ground movement, you may not move into a hex solely occupied by enemy units using reaction movement.

Rule 33

33A

(Change/clarification) TFs providing NGS are not required to be stacked with friendly units, for the purposes of Rules 11 (Support) and/or 14B (Artillery). All friendly units involved in a combat involving friendly NGS are considered supported; any friendly non-artillery units involved in a combat may be counted towards the REs of non-artillery units required by 14B, regardless of whether or not they are stacked with the TF providing NGS. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Naval TF NGS must be “at Sea” to prepare and fire NGS. [Errata4]

The six turns that Allied TFs can provide NGS, is it 6 player turns or 6 game turns ? That is, if it fires in the Allied turn to support a landing and then in the Axis turn to help defense does it counts as 1 or 2?

Six “player turns” - that is, each Allied TF can fire NGS a total of six times a year; regardless of whether those firings happen in the Allied or Axis player turn. By extension, this would also apply to the Axis TFs or the TFs in FWBT.

On a related matter, note that a TF must prepare to fire NGS again, after it has fired NGS, in addition to the two conditions listed in Rule 33A, that is, having moved or participated in naval combat. [TEM 49]

Can NGS be performed while “in port”? This has some advantages, such as not being subject to torpedo attacks or naval patrols. It also allows the TF to protect any NT/LC which are also “in port. "

No. However, the designer suggests allowing this option: NGS may be fired from naval units in port at friendly naval bases that are in regular supply. [TEM 53]

Coastal cliffs “half attackers making amphibious assaults.” Does this include any NGS, or only the ground units?

No. Naval units cannot make amphibious assaults. They provide NGS to units, but whether these units are making amphibous assaults or not does not affect the NGS. [TEM 53]

A TF spends 90 MPs to prepare for NGS; during the combat phase the TF fires NGS and is marked as being ammo depleted. In the ensuing first naval step the TF spends 30 MPs to replenish. Must the TF spend another 90 MPs in order to fire NGS again?

Yes. A TF must always prepare to fire NGS after it has fired NGS, even for the immediately following combat phase. In essence, firing NGS is another condition that forces the TF to prepare again to fire NGS, in addition to those listed in Rule 33A, namely not moving or engaging in naval combat. [TEM 49]

Is the NGS strength of a naval unit modified for terrain (for example, by a major city hex)?

Per Rule 33A, NGS is treated as artillery strength points and would be affected by the terrain of the hex it is fired into as any other friendly artillery strength would be. Since defense strengths are not modified by terrain, NGS would not be. When attacking, NGS is affected per the normal combat rules; to use your example, since artillery units are not affected by major city terrain, neither would NGS. But, for example, artillery is halved versus (unfrozen) swamps, (unfrozen) wooded swamps and mountain hexes, so NGS would be halved when attacking units defending in these hexes. Note that since moutain terrain is prohibited to artillery units during Winter and Snow weather, it would be prohibited to the fire of NGS. [TEM 73]

It seems that some players are confused abouth which hexes Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) can affect. One instance is when an Allied player NGSed the heck out of Roma (an inland hex) to take the city, with the Axis player screaming “ahistoric!” and other choice words. Instead, he should have screamed “illegal!”.

Second Front 27B5 defines the term “adjacent” for naval purposes. For naval purposes, adjacent hexes means one hex has a connection with an adjoining hex that includes a natural sea route between them. SF 33A states that NGS can be fired into the hex the TF occupies, or any adjacent hex.

Therefore, to fire NGS into a hex, it must be “adjacent” to the TF in a very real and legally binding naval sense. It must be fired into a hex that is adjacent to the TF in terms of there being a natural sea route between the hex the TF occupies and the hex into which the NGS is fired.

Thus, NGS cannot be fired into an all-land hex, since there cannot possibly be a sea route between the TF’s coastal hex (partial sea hex) and an inland, all-land hex. Per 27B5 and 33A, NGS may only be fired into coastal hexes that the TF either occupies or is adjacent to; adjacent as defined in 27B5.

The rule represents the historical operational restrictions of Allied NGS, and not the physical limitations of naval guns. Of course, heavy guns on many warships were capable of firing quite a ways inland. However, the Allies actually used NGS against targets that, at Europa scale, were in coastal hexes and not inland hexes. I thought it best not to allow them an ability (inland NGS) that they did not use historically. [TEM 79]

33B

Why are hits on a CD temporary only? It seems to me if you blow up the gun emplacements (especially with naval guns), they don’t get fixed easily.

Think of this as harassing and suppressing fire, more than actually destroying the guns. The Allies discovered that it was nearly impossible to destroy well emplaced coastal artillery, and German CD was extremely well emplaced. [TEM 53]

If the CD strength in a hex is greater than level 4 (e.g., a port fortification in a major port on the Atlantic Ocean, for a level of 5) does that imply that the CD strength of the hex can never be totally suppressed?

Yes, per the fourth paragraph of Rule 33B: “For every hit of damage up to 4 hits, the coast defenses in a hex are reduced by 1 level. Hits of damage in excess of 4 in a hex have no effect.”

In case you’re wondering about this, it is my belief, based on analysis of historical actions against coastal defenses, that it is virtually impossible to knock out the entire coastal defense ability of a massive coast defense complex. The 4-hit limit builds this consideration into the game. [TEM 43/44]

If the Allies leave ships within I hex of an Axis railroad can the Germans move in 2×LR RR Arty and begin CD combat during the German exploitation phase? The hapless Allied ships won’t be able to move! This could happen at Anzio or numerous other places. The idea of 2× LR RR Arty Bn (with no other CD assets) engaging Allied ships seems a bit much.

Perhaps it does because this is illegal. Note 28C. Phasing CD may only fire on enemy NGs that enter a hex in the CDs combat zone, only non-phasing CD may fire on enemy NGs that remain in a hex without moving while expending MPs.

The only way this RR Artillery CD could fire after having moved into the hex during a friendly movement phase is if the enemy NG remained in the hex and spent MPs without moving during the following player turn, then the RR Art could fire during the enemy player turn. The only possible way for these RR Art units to engage in CD fire during the turn that they moved is if an enemy NG used reaction movement (during the exploitation phase) to enter a hex in their combat zone. [TEM 59/60]

Does the 4-2-R Siege artillery in the South in the 1944 scenario have a CD like other LR rail artillery?

No, because it is not a Long Range Siege artillery unit - it is a siege artillery unit. The fact that it is a rail only unit doesn’t affect its unit type, which is definitely not LR Siege artillery. [TEM 59/60]

Rule 34

34A3

Please refer to the definition in Special Naval Rules, 34A3, Protected Waters. Is the title “protected waters” on the weather table identical to the definition referenced?

Alas, “protected waters” on the weather table is different from the “protected waters” of Rule 34A3, and neither has any bearing on the other. Protected waters per the weather table refers to those sea zones that are greatly bound by land masses and not exposed to the full force of the open ocean-the sea conditions there tend not to be as bad as those in the more exposed zones, hence the modifier.

Protected waters per 34A3 refers to the ability of coastal shipping to elude enemy interdiction: many cargo ships can operate in shallower waters than can major warships, the cargo ships can use the topography of the coastline to their advantage (quickly ducking into estuaries and small inlets to hide, for example), enemy warships are reluctant to venture into enemy shallow coastal waters due to mines and coast defenses, etc.

The two situations are obviously different. The fact that they have the same name escaped me when I was finishing the rules; had I noticed I would have named them differently (probably calling one of them “sheltered waters” and the other “protected waters”). Sorry for the confusion. [TEM 43/44]

So, there are never rough waters in the Med in the summer?

That is correct, from Apr II through Oct I. [TEM 43/44]

Using Rule 34A3 “Protected waters” Cargo groups (only) may avoid combat with CDs in adjacent hexes. I won’t even ask why TF, or NT/LC in mixed groups can’t use this rule, because there is no valid answer. My question is, does this apply to ships in a friendly port? Can they claim ‘protected’ waters " or only those NT/LC not under escort by a TF that are “at sea “?

No, since they are not “entering” the hex, and the rule specifies that eligible naval units may use protected waters when “entering” the hex. Ships overloading in Deauville are under the guns of Le Havre. [TEM 59/60]

Are naval units using the protected water rules able to unload cargo in that hex?

Yes. [TEM 59/60]

34A4

(Rule 34A4 and 34F) A naval unit starts several consecutive naval movement steps (not moving) in a danger zone. May the contact die roll be modified in each step by having the unit start the step at night?

Yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

This has been superseded. See below.

Does the requirement to use 20 MPs before moving at night carry over to the next game turn?

No. It doesn’t even carry over between naval movement sub-phases, since per the exception listed in Rule 34A4 refers to the naval gunfire being limited in following naval movement steps within a naval movement sub-phase. But note the earlier answer that all naval movement steps begin in daylight and no naval group can claim night status until it begins moving. [TEM 73]

If a TF is sitting in a coastal hex while a landing is continuing then how is an anti-naval patrol air unit supposed to make contact with it? The TF can start each naval step as night when anti naval patrol attacks can’t be made, and the naval patrol air units may only attempt contact when a TF enters or starts a step in a hex. Logically, of course, they should be able to delay attempting contact until the night movement points are used and day arrives, but we can’t see anything in the rules or errata or Rules Court about this.

Let’s clear up this “claiming night status” interpretation, right now.

This may have been answered differently in the past, but the following is how things are.

Rule 34A4 is very specific about “Movement at Night”. Your NG must be expending MPs to be considered moving at night, simply sitting in a hex, without moving and/or expending MPs, is not enough.

So your TF sitting in a coastal hex may not be considered as “moving at night” at all; not for Danger Zones, not for CD or naval combat, nor for naval patrol bombing missions.

In cases where the NG is spending MPs without moving, for example, disembarking cargo or preparing to fire NGS, the NG may not be considered “moving at night” since it is still not moving, that is, leaving the hex it occupies.

Please keep in mind what is being simulated here; the naval rules and naval MPs are, in effect, tracking time more than distance. Just because a NG is spending 10 MPs (ou 1/3 × amount of time) in the hex at night, it is still spending 20 MP2 (ou 2/3 × amount of time) in the hex in daylight.

Obviously the planes on vaval patrol missions search for and possibly find the NG during the daylight portion of the naval movement step, the CD fires at adjacent NGs during the daylight portion of the naval movement step, the subs/MTBs/what not that make up a Danger Zone sortie during the daylight portion of the naval movement step.

As an option, if you wish to bother, you could allow NGs that will be moving out of a danger zone to declare that their first 10 MPs spent will be at night, thereby allowing them to gain the -1 DRM for danger zone contact during that naval movement step. Note that they must leave the danger zone to benefit from this. [TEM 76]

34E

There is some confusion on where mines start. Is it any port or airfield in supply? This sounds stupid but I want to start mines at a naval port then move them to an airfield or a port.

Mines may appear, in a friendly initial phase, at any friendly owned port if a supply line could be traced from the port to a regular source of supply. [TEM 59/60]

When laying mines by air do you treat the mine points as cargo? In other words can mine points be delivered to an airfield rather than transport those mine points with a B or HB to its destination? Could you please give an example on how all this should work?

Yes. An air transport could carry the mine from a port with an airbase, to another airbase, from which B/HB air unit(s) could then begin an aerial mine-laying mission.

Example: Axis player turn. Axis player spends one NRP for five mine points. He declares that one of these points is present in Genoa. During his turn, he has a Ju 52 air transport carry the mine to an airbase in central France. A Ju 88A4 stages to that base from Germany, picks up the mine and lays it in a coastal hex adjacent to La Rochelle.

Under normal circumstances the desired air unit will be able to simply stage to the port where the mine point is and fly its mission from there. However, there are certainly situations (mostly involving Mediterranean islands) where the air unit that wants to lay the mine can not be based at the port where the mine appears; in these cases you can transport the mine, by either air or naval transport, or both, to an airbase from which the B/HB can fly its mission. [TEM 59/60]

Does a TF sweeping for mines have to roll for mine damage twice (once when it enter the hex, and again when it starts the following step at sea in the hex)?

Twice. [TEM 41, Errata1]

34F

See also the discussion on Danger Zones in the Mediterranean.

It seems a little strange that there would be a danger zone around some of (but not all of) the ports in Sardinia and Corsica. Is this supposed to be the way it is?

This is correct. There is, however, an important omission in the danger zone rule (Rule 34F): All hexes within 5 hexes of an Allied-owned port are automatically both an Axis danger zone and not an Allied danger zone, regardless of the standard danger zone definitions. (Note that this allows the Allies to overcome danger zones as they advance. This accounts for Allied local naval superiority.) [TEM 37, Errata1]

May multiple contact checks be made if a TF enters more than one port’s danger zone in the same hex?

Checking for Danger Zone contact is not affected by the number of ports that might be available for tracing a five hex radius for creating a danger zone. See Rule 34F for when you check for danger zone contact; you check once, maximum, per naval movement step, regardless of the number of ports projecting danger zones. This is why the rule says “the first time”. [TEM 49]

Is a non-functioning port still able to exert a danger zone?

No mention of port status is mentioned in the Danger Zone rules, so yes, even a non-functioning port exerts a danger zone. [TEM 49]

Is the Adriatic Sea north of hex row 2000 an Allied danger zone after Italy surrenders? (rule 34F implies it isn’t, but rule 27B1 states that the Adriatic is part of the Mediterranean, which implies that it is.)

Rule 34F simply details how to handle the (entire) Adriatic sea area prior to Italian surrender. Once Italy has surrendered, that area of the Mediterranean also labeled the Adriatic Sea is treated as per any other part of the Mediterranean. Please note the following Official Errata to Rule 34F:

Once Italy has surrendered, Allied danger zones in the Mediterranean are only those hexes within 3 hexes of an Axis-owned port on or north of the 2000 hexrow on maps 26 and 27. Once Italy has surrendered, Axis danger zones in the Mediterranean are all hexes within 9 hexes of an Allied-owned port. Note also that, at all times, Allied danger zones are negated for all purposes by Axis danger zones, i. e., a hex which is within 5 or 9 hexes (depending upon Italian surrender) of an Allied port is an Axis danger zone and is not an Allied danger zone. [TEM 66]

34G

Do you check LCs for damage when they EMBARK cargo at a beach?

No, only when disembarking cargo. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

What is the purpose of the “Amphibious Repair: 1, 2 " listed on the Allied OB booklet under Initial Conditions / Miscellaneous ’ (and not the Axis OB booklet) Is it just a reminder (to the Allies at least) of rule 34G last paragraph, which allows a roll of I or 2 to repair damaged LCs during a players initial phase? Isn’t it relevant to the Axis player as well?

Sure, although it doesn’t seem too important, considering the lack of opportunities for the Axis LC to do beach landings.

But certainly, the repair rules apply to the Axis as well as the Allies.

Perhaps the note was left in the Allied OB by mistake, or left out of the Axis OB by mistake. Regardless, the repair die roll and procedures are the same for the Axis and the Allies. [TEM 59/60]

34H

Can the Italian fleet avoid paying the MP cost by paying it once to go to sea then staying at sea all the time ?

Sure, but they will be sunk for failing to replenish! That’s if you use Advanced Rule 43G.

Otherwise, using basic game rules, yes they can avoid paying the one resource point cost. However, in either case, they will likely be putting themselves at risk as to danger zones, naval patrol bombing and/or naval “interception”.

If using the basic replenishment rule, 34B, then you could, as an option, assume that the TF in question had to get to a “Friendly owned functioning naval base” and get out of it again, to remain “on station”. Thus, an Axis TF would have to pay the one resource point each time it replenishes, even if it doesn’t physically enter and leave a port. [TEM 49, TEM 76]

34I

The six turns that Allied TFs can provide NGS, is it 6 player turns or 6 game turns? That is, it fires in Allied turn to support a landing and then in Axis turn to help defense it counts as 1 or 2?

Six player turns, that is, each Allied TF can fire NGS a total of sis times a year, regardless of whether those firings happen in the Allied or Axis player turn.

On a related matter, note that a TF must prepare to fire NGS again, after it has fired NGS, in addition to the two conditions listed in RUle 33A, that is, having moved or participated in naval combat. [TEM 76]

34J

See the discussion on the straits of Messina.

Do LCs acting as ferries have to be at sea? If so, is this throughout the turn?

Yes, an LC must be at sea to operate as a ferry; it cannot be in port. It must remain at sea throughout the player turn it operates as a ferry. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Do restricted waters affect LCs acting as ferries (Rule 34J again)?

No, you may allow an LC to enter a restricted waters hex and act as a ferry across a partial or full sea hexside. [TEM 53]

You have previously stated that any LC performing ferry service “must be at sea for the entire player-turn.” My questions in relation to this are: a. Does this mean it must be “at sea” in the initial phase, in other words, end the previous player-turn “at sea”? b. This requirement would seem to make it impossible to replenish under the advanced replenishment rule because it must be “in port” to replenish, and will most likely have to leave the hex to do so.

a) Yes. b) Yes. Per 341, LCs acting as ferries must “start the initial phase adjacent to the hexside and may not move at all that turn.” So, for The LC must begin the initial phase at sea, adjacent to the hexside. It will become unsupplied that turn. During the next friendly player turn, it must either replenish or be scuttled. You need two LCs trading off each turn to maintain a ferry crossing point over multiple turns, when using the advanced replenishment rules. [TEM 53]

An LC acting as a ferry does not have to enter the hex in which the ground units are disembarked. In this wy no mine attacks occur. Should this rule be altered on this point?

No, this is correct. Mines in a hex do not affect the LC acting as a ferry if those mines are not in the hex physically occupied by the LC. [TEM 73]

Rule 35

Must a player decide either to roll the dice or to use NRPs to repair damaged LCs or can he first roll the dice and then spend NRP for remaining damaged LCs?

This is an “either or” situation; if you choose to roll for the LC, you give up the opportunity to repair it using NRPs. You decide whether or not to roll for any LCs before you may expend any NRPs to repair any other LCs. So, if you roll to repair an LC and fail, you may not repair it in the same initial phase through the expenditure of NRPs. [TEM 49]

Rule 36

The weather table lists both “snow” and “winter” weather. What’s the difference?

Snow is fairly obvious — significant snow cover on the ground, cold temperatures, and fairly frequent snow storms. In Europa territory, these conditions occur most often in northern and eastern Europe during the winter months. The “winter” weather condition covers typical western European winter conditions: rainy, muddy weather with occasional frost or snowy spells, and snow in the mountains.

36B

The Terrain Effects Chart for mud weather states “General -2: no AEC”. Is this in addition to the other effects stated in that category? Ex: woods states -1, would a defender in a woods hex be -3: no AEC?

Yes, weather effects are in addition to the normal terrain effects listed on the charts, for that weather type. So during mud weather, you combine the general -2 DRM with the terrain specific DRM. In clear terrain, you add -2 and ±0 and get -2, in rough, you add -2 and -1 for a combined total of -3 for that combat (barring other factors of course). [TEM 76]

Rule 37

37A4

Rule 37-A.4 “Massive Flooding” states that “if flooded the hex becomes a prohibited terrain hex for the remainder of the player turn and throughout the following player turn. Thereafter the hex is treated as a swamp hex. " As I read this then, if the German massively floods as the Allies attack, the hex is prohibited during this Allied turn (the attack attempt) and during the next player turn, the following German turn. Since the Germans must retreat from the hex when it floods, the hex is currently empty. So during the next Allied turn they can just walk right in. This may be the intent. For one turn’s grace the Germans may give up the hex without a fight. But I would expect that if a massive flood was done (was this ever really done?) it would be far easier for the Germans to leave paths into the ’new swamp’ and to get back in before the Allies would be able to slog in. Ruling and comments?

That is the Rules as Written, and the design intent. If the sequencing seems odd, it’s because it uses existing game systems for simplicity, rather than adding yet more rules for an already complicated, minor rule. If you want a better “feel” for the situation, you can try the following house rule, courtesy of John Astell:

Change the first bullet point of 37A4 to: “If flooded, the hexes become a special prohibited terrain hex for the remainder of the player turn (only). Thereafter, the hex is treated as a swamp hex.” Note that this means the hex will be swamp, not prohibited, during the following Axis player turn.

Change the fourth bullet point of 37A4 to: “Any Allied units allocated to attack the hex may advance into this specially prohibited terrain hex. For the rest of the player turn, Allied units that do advance into this hex may not attack in the combat phase or move or spend MPs for any purpose in the exploitation phase. All other Allied units treat the hex as prohibited terrain for the remainder of the player turn.” Note that now the Allied forces get to occupy the hex in some fashion, should the Allied player wish it (massive flooding doesn’t mean the entire hex is entirely flooded, after all). Should the Allied player forgo this, the Axis can reoccupy the hex in the following player turn, should the Axis player so desire. Overall, this sequence may be more pleasing to use (it avoids the awkward-seeming sequence of the rule as written), but it’s more complicated for roughly the same overall effect. Not particularly recommended. [TEM 59/60]

Does massive flooding destroy a fort marker in the hex?

No. A fort marker is removed only when it is captured by enemy units. However, given the sequence of events in Rule 37A4, the Allied player will have the first opportunity to re-enter the flooded hex, and if he opts to do so, the fort will be destroyed at that time. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

37B2

(Clarification) The attack factor printed on Port Fortification counters is for special replacement purposes only. Note that Port Fortification counters included with the SF Refit counter sheets have no attack strength; Port Fortifications with zero attack strength use one half (rounded down) of their defense strengths for the purposes of calculating Special Replacements. [TEM 43/44, TEM 53, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

Can Port Fortifications be disbanded?

Yes, the disbanding rule allows units to be disbanded, and neither it nor 37B2 prohibit PFs from disbanding. Although 40B2 prohibits them from being replaced, it does not say PFs don’t have replacement costs (which you would need to know to get the RPs from disbanding), and 40B1a which does explain replacement costs governs.

Can they be redeployed?

Yes. 41A does not prohibit this, nor does 37B2 or any other rule I am aware of.

Note that this has been overruled by the Guru in a recent discussion on the Europa list; see the ruling on 14F2.

37D

It is indicated here that to be eligible for a surprise attack, an OSS Commando must have either (It) or (Ger) as part of its unit identification. However, the OSS 2677 Mtn III is listed on the special forces summary as being capable of surprise attacks vs. Italians, even though it does not have (It) as a part of its unit identification. Which is correct? (If the chart, why? The 2677 OSS spent most of its time at Bari, and was mainly a headquarters, coordinating resupply and support efforts for the OSS Balkan partisan operations.)

The counter is correct; delete the “Mountain” line from the “OSS Special Forces” section of the special forces summary. [TEM 43/44]

37E

Does the Sicilian garrison activate when Allied units land on Calabria?

Using the fix for the Straits of Messina (see TEM #48) means that Sicily and Calabria are adjacent, since ground units (albeit only Axis ones) can move directly from Sicily to Calabria; therefore Allied units in Calabria would activate the Sicily garrison on the Axis player turn following the Allied player turn in which Allied units first entered Calabria.

Note, however, that Sardinia and Corsica, for exemple, are not adjacent, for the purposes of garrison activation. [TEM 76]

Can the Axis place any units he pleases into a garrison? If so, these would be “hidden units” the Axis player could pop up in any city within the district. For example, the Axis player, anticipating an Allied descent on the Netherlands, might like to place a couple of SS Pz cadres into garrison while building up, so that they can appear at cities in the district when activated, like, say, Arnhem? A liberal interpretation here would also allow the “hiding” of forces in the border WKs for the WACHT AM RHEIN offensive; not as good as a surprise turn, but something, at least, to model the shock and confusion of these units appearing before the Allied line in an unexpected place. This would actually give them more “mobility” than other units, given probable Allied air harassment on a wide scale.

When this rule states that units can “return” to garrison, this precludes placing other units INTO garrison, if they were not originally part of the garrison. Units which were released from garrison when the garrison was activated per Rule 37E may return to garrison. (As usual, you can ignore specific unit IDs.) Units also enter garrison per OB requirements. No other units may enter garrison. [TEM 43/44]

(Addition) In addition to cities, activated garrison units may be also be placed in any friendly owned Fortress in the activated district or region, as appropriate. [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

(Correction) As an exception to the normal rules for placement of activated garrison forces, Valetta is the activation hex for the Malta garrison, even though it is a point city. [TEM 37, TEM 48, TEM 59/60, Errata1, Errata2, Errata3, Errata4]

This rule allows half of a garrison’s REs to be placed “immediately whenever any enemy unit enters any hex of the district.” Does this include enemy units entering the district via airborne drops and amphibious landings?

Yes. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

If yes, the garrison of France is quite large. Consider the case of an airborne assault on two or three undefended French ports, hundreds of miles apart, undertaken after most German units have moved south in August 1943. Do several 5-defense strength security brigades appear immediately the paras leap out of their transports in time to affect the disruption die rolls?

The garrison activation is triggered “immediately whenever any enemy unit enters any hex of the district.” In the case of an airborne landing (and similarly for an amphibious landing) triggering a garrison, the garrison is triggered immediately when a unit (the first one, if several are dropping in the same air operation) lands in a hex in the district. Note that the disruption die roll is part of the procedure to land the unit, so it occurs before activated garrison units are placed. After the landing of the (first) airborne unit, the enemy player may place up to half the REs of ground units in the garrison, in any hexes where it is legal to do so (any friendly owned cities in the district, including the hex the first airborne unit landed in, if the unit became disrupted when dropping in the hex). The regular course of play resumes when this is done. Note that the newly placed garrison units may now affect the landing of subsequent airborne units.

Note that an airborne assault on two or three widely-separated French ports cannot occur as part of a single air operation, since the air drop missions will have different target hexes. Such assaults must be performed in separate airborne operations. Thus, when the first drop comes in, the Axis player will only know for sure that one particular port is the target of a drop and will have to guess if and where any other drops may occur. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

If Allied units make an amphibious landing in the Axis-owned coastal hex of Catania in Sicily (26:4025), thereby entering the province of Sicily for the first time, may the Axis player immediately place Sicily off-map garrison unit(s) in Catania?

Whether or not garrison units may appear in Catania depends upon Catania’s status. If the first Allied unit landing in Catania gains control of the hex, then garrison units cannot appear there. Otherwise (such as an Allied unit landing at Catania, but Catania is Axis occupied and not immediately overrun upon the unit’s landing), garrison units may appear there. If .Allied and Axis units are now in the hex together, the standard rules for both sides being in the same hex apply. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

The garrisoning player may activate up to half (rounded down) the REs of his garrison immediately whenever any enemy unit enters the district. Is this valid only for the FIRST unit that enters the district or for ANY unit? You see, it is possible for the Axis player to activate half of the current RE of garrison for the first Allied landing unit, another half of the remaining RE for the second one, and so on until only one RE of garrison remains.

To clarify, you activate the region upon arrival of the first enemy unit and deploy up to half the garrison’s REs at that point only. A garrison cannot be activated more than once in a player turn. Note the last sentence of the first bullet of Rule 37E, “He may receive the remaining REs and any replacement points in the garrison in his next initial phase.” [TEM 53]

What is the garrison of the island fortresses in Greater Germany (Helgoland, etc.)? Does it have to be scrapped up from the minuscule Greater Germany forces?

No garrison per se is required by the set up rules, and a fairly sizable garrison is available from the WK X garrison, should one be needed. Note that garrison forces may be placed in Fortresses, as well as in “cities”, and since the Allies can not get an airborne or amphibious overrun vs these coastal fortresses, some garrison forces will always be able to appear there if the Allies attempt an invasion.

Actually, I don’t quite get the idea behind “since the Allies can not get an airborne or amphibious overrun vs these coastal fortresses”.

Once the Allies enter WK X in Greater Germany, the conditions for releasing the Denmark garrison are met. Where do the units released from the Denmark garrison enter the board? Rule 3 7E specifies that activated units enter in any cities in the district. However, the only city in Denmark shown on the SF map (Odense: 17A 0103) is not connected to the rest of mainland Denmark. Are the activated units able to enter onto the road at 17A 0106 from off-map? If so what happens if the Allies occupy all on-map hexes of mainland Denmark and/or block this road?

The only entry point for Danish Garrison forces to activate in is Odense, the only Danish city on the SF maps. There are no provisions for having garrison forces enter from off-map.

All units of the Denmark Garrison, if activated, must appear at Odense and be shipped elsewhere by naval transport, if so desired. (Considering the withdrawal of all available German Naval Transports on Oct 1144, this could be a real problem!)

This situation is intentional, since most of Denmark is off map and the Germans used the country as a transfer point between Germany and Norway-considerations outside the scope of the game. In the designer’s opinion, any special rule for the garrison of Denmark would probably be that it cannot appear at all in the game, so perhaps we should be happy with whatever part of the garrison we can get into play! [TEM 59/60]

Rule 37E (Garrisons) implies that, for example, once the Allies have landed in France, the Axis player can activate apart of his garrison, put other units back in the garrison, and in the next turn repeat that cycle. This means that the Axis player can use the garrison rules to transfer units around France, ignoring railways, harassment bombardment, weather, etc. He would be able to put into garrison units on the other side of France, and on his next turn pop them up right next to the Allies. Is this correct? Can the Axis willy-nilly move units in and out of garrison once the activation criteria are met?

Note however that only units that match the unit types and strengths of the units listed as being part of a garrison, per the OB, may be returned to garrison. Note also that you cannot have more units in garrison than are called for by the OB; you can not “add” to a garrison, which is why putting units back into garrison is referred to as “returning units to garrison” in the rules.

So, yes, the Axis player can play some games with a couple of 2-3-4* Static division groups and some 1-5 Security brigades although I doubt if it will materially affect the outcome of any game. Think of it as minor transportation assets not otherwise covered in the game. [TEM 59/60]

The Allies have already landed in France several turns ago (and maintain a presence there), and the Germans have returned several units to the France garrison. The Allies make another landing elsewhere in France. The Germans cannot immediately activate half the garrison forces. They must wait until the next Axis initial phase. Correct?

Correct. Note that Rule 37E in effect has two conditions of a garrison: an “inactive” garrison (that is, before it is activated) and an activated garrison. Note also that there is no rule “deactivating” or “reactivating” a garrison. Accordingly: When an inactive garrison is activated, its forces appear as described in the first three paragraphs of 37E. Note that not all forces in a garrison need to be activated when the garrison is activated, and indeed forces can be returned to garrison in an activated garrison (fourth and sixth paragraphs). Forces in garrison in an already activated garrison may subsequently be activated, but only as described in the fourth paragraph of 37E: in the player’s initial phase and only if the requirements for garrison activation are still met. [TEM 59/60]

When Allied ships containing ground units enter a coastal hex of France is this an opportunity to pop-up the garrison, do the ground units need to start unloading, or do the ground units actually have to make a landing (LC /NT expend the 90 NMPs to land the units)?

They have to be unloaded to “enter a hex”, before that they are at sea and not “in” the district. Otherwise, you could force garrison activation by merely transporting friendly units into coastal hexes of districts, or even just air transporting them over the district! [TEM 59/60]

That doesn’t seem right. Note: If the last case is correct, given the 90 NMP needed to complete the landing there is no way to fool the Germans before all landings have actually begun.

Correct, you have to send in the sky-gangsters first and hope the Germans react to the airborne landings. [TEM 59/60]

Forcing garrison activation based on the mere presence of an embarked ground unit in a district’s coastal hex seems way out of line. It would appear that the Axis can react to the landing with no harassment bombing, pop-up the garrison after waiting to see the entire Allied landing plan, and hold units in garrison to pop-up in every subsequent turn.

Correct, except for the last part. Note too that the units reacting to the invasion also get to wait until everyone is ashore before they have to roll for reaction. [TEM 59/60]

37F

The German Order of Battle for May I 45 states that the Germans must withdraw all forces within 4 hexes of the East edge of the map, and that Allied forces may not enter this area.

Berlin is one of these hexes. Does this imply that the Soviets capture the Government, thus potentially inducing a German surrender and the negative combat effects that go along with the surrender rules (SF Rule 38)?

Yes. See Rule 37F: “If an Axis government is in any hex that becomes Soviet owned, the Soviets capture it (see section G below).” (Section G defines governments and the basic effects when they are captured. For the German government, Rule 38A also governs.) [TEM 53]

Rule 38

38A3

Declaring German Emergencies. It says you have two opportunities to call an emergency and then lists two bullet points. Does this mean you can only call an emergency once for each occurrence (an invasion and the Westwall), or twice for, say, a >2RE invasion in ‘43 (which you kick off the coast) then again for another invasion in Jan 44 for example?

You can declare an emergency in responde to any appropriate event. Any invasion at all between Jul I 43 and Mar II 44 is one event; the West either has been invaded during this time period or it has not. It is a one shot deal for the invasion and a one shot deal for the Westwall restoration. You can have up to two emergencies in a game, no more.

38B2

Do aborted Italian air units count as losses for Italian surrender? At a convention I attended, the answer I got was, “No.” I see nothing in the rules that say aborts are not losses. My opponent now is very aggressive with the Italian air. Why not? After all you have to eliminate quite a few air units to get 50 REs.

You were not misled, it just seems you got an answer you disagree with. The Guru says aborts don’t count as losses for Italian surrender, only eliminated air units count, at one RE equivalent per eliminated air unit. [TEM 53, TEM 79]

The Alied player invades the coastline south of Cosenza landing 25 REs there during the movement and exploitation phases. During the movement phase he launches a paradrop at the lightly defended port of Ancona and captures it during the combat phase. This triggers the Allied Presence condition, although:

a) there is no Allied controlled connection between the port and the 25 REs, and

b) Ancona cannot be used as a supply source due to the Axis danger zone. This is legal after the wording of the rule, but is this really what the designer meant?

Correct. The port need not be operable, functioning or anywhere near the 25 REs of units required by this surrender condition. Simply owning a non-minor port in mainland Italy and having 25 or more REs in mainland Italy is enough. [TEM 79]

38B3

(Correction) Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of this rule (that beginning with “Allied-owned Italian provinces…”

Insert the following in its place: “Allied-owned Italian provinces do not generate production prior to Italian surrender. Following Italian surrender, Allied-owned Italian provinces are considered liberated and liberated Italian provinces may receive production. Liberated Italian provinces do not generate production (replacements, resource points and naval repair points) for twelve game turns following liberation.” [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

May the Allied player gain production from Italian provinces liberated after the Italian surrender, and if yes, does it work the same as for French MRs, per Rule 38D?

Yes; yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

38B4

Do RSI Italian forces remain in play even after all of Italy has been overrun by the Allies?

Yes. Remember, the RSI was a puppet government, with the Germans running things behind the scenes, so the RSI government actually mattered little to its forces in the field. Also, many soldiers in the RSI forces were pro-Axis extremists, who feared what would happen to them should they surrender.

38C

May the Axis fly bombing missions over Great Britain (air units are not “units’)?

Yes. [TEM 50]

This means the Germans can bomb naval units in Britain, right?

Correct. [TEM 50]

How about bombing naval units in the offmap ports?

No, the off map areas of North Africa and Great Britain are noted throughout Rule 3E.5 as being for the Allies “use” only; thus Axis forces may not “use”, including entering, such off board areas. You can also accept this as applying to all Holding boxes as well; non-friendly forces may never “use”, that is, enter, a friendly holding box. [TEM 50]

What about naval patrol moving to/from the off map ports?

Per above, enemy air units, may not fly missions into a friendly holding box and/or off map area. This would prohibit Naval patrol missions flying into a holding box or off map area. Allied air units on Naval Patrol must fly missions from any friendly airbase or all land clear terrain hex of the off map area they are currently based at. Note that the air units do not fly “from” the off map area, they use the special basing provisions of Rule 23I. Note well that by virtue of Rule 23J, Allied AntiShipping Forces may only base at Allied off map areas, that is, Great Britain and North Africa. [TEM 50]

If Axis air units fly bombing missions over Great Britain or Malta, may the air unit components of the required garrisons intercept these missions? (we are not talking about V- Weapons, Rule 43D)?

No, the air garrison is never released within the context of SF. [TEM 50]

Rule 39

39B

Add to end of 1st paragraph: “Ignore Allied units in England.” [Errata2]

Rule 40

Are Axis transfers between theaters handled like withdrawals?

A transfer that is required is handled the same as a withdrawal. (Note that not all transfers are required: you ignore transfers between theaters you control.) [TEM 37, Errata1]

I had a fairly good Axis set-up until I remembered the garrison requirement for France. If I count the number of units that must be in garrison correctly, I am looking at 41 REs that must be in garrison. Of that total, 16 REs are already part of the “French Garrison” and so can be counted against that 41 RE total. The Italians in southern France can take up another 11 REs against the garrison requirement.

Pos AA and port forts don’t count toward the RE total. Le Havre is a dot city, and knocks off one more RE. Now I’m down to 13. If I place four divisions in Paris (or 12 REs) and one more in Nancy or some other dot city I have met my requirements and may place the rest of my units on the Atlantic wall, correct?

By my count that leaves 14 REs that must be based somewhere in France in full, partial or dot cities. Is this correct?

Your French city count is close, but not “Bang on”.

First, Strasbourg and Mulhouse are not French cities; they are part of Greater Germany by this time frame and thus do not require garrisons. This reduces the total of French major and dot cities to 21, namely:

9× major city hexes: Lyon, Marseilles, Nice, Bordeaux, Lille, Paris #1 through #4.

12× dot cities: Grenoble, Toulon, Rheims, Nancy, Le Havre, Rouen, Brest, Nantes, Tours, Toulouse, Clermont-Ferrand and St. Etienne.

So, 3×9-27 and 12×1=12, for a total garrison requirement of 39 REs.

Also you appear to have miscounted what is in the French garrison — I see 1× 3-4-5* Static XX, 3× 2-3-4* Static [XX], 4× 1-2-4 Trng X, 1× 1-6 Inf III [German Foreign] and 1× 1-5 Sec X [Ger. Foreign] — that’s 18 REs total.

The Italians can indeed take care of 11 REs worth of the garrison requirements, that leaves six major city hexes and ten dot cities. That is 28 REs needed. The French garrison provides 18 REs, so we are short 10 REs. Surely both Le Havre and Brest deserve at east one unit as defenders, in addition to any port forts, so assuming they are defended, we have 8 REs left to make up. Myself, I always put the German 3-5* Security Division in the fill city hex of Paris. That way its APZOC covers every hex of Paris. Its strength will hardly be missed on the coast, it prevents Partisans in four hexes, each of which is both an airbase and a rail line. It is even historical.

That leaves us with 5 REs to make up. I always defend Bordeaux with a division, but one could forego that and put something in Lille or another coastal dot city. The point is that once you have defended the two ports and provided for the Paris garrison, there are only 5 REs left to fulfill. Some Police boys in various inland dot cities will take care of that easily enough. [TEM 73}

What about units that are forming? Do they or can they count as garrison units as they are “fitting up” in the West? Or do they have to be “activated” first?

No, they don’t count as being part of the garrison — units have to be in the garrison, specifically and per the OB, or in play and on map, to be counted. Forming units are not on map nor are they specifically detailed to the garrison. [TEM 73]

40A

Do off-map transfers and arrivals from non-land access locations need on-map shipping assets to enter the theater?

No. Keep in mind that you ignore OB transfers between theaters you control. (You can move forces between your theaters as you wish, but these are never “transfers” as defined in the rules.) OB transfers to theaters outside your control are mandatory and per Rule 40A1 are handled as withdrawals. Arrivals are also covered in Rule 40A1. Rule 40A1 in both cases makes no mention about using anything like shipping assets or rail capacity to do withdrawals or arrivals. [TEM 53]

See also the off-map movement rules.

40A1 & 40A2

The Axis Order of Battle booklet specifies several transfers or withdrawals, e.g., “Oct I 43, West, German, Transfer to Southeast: 1× 5-5 Static XX 264.” As 5-5 Static XX are eligible for reorganization to 5-7-6 Inf XX as of Jul I 43, I understand that if a specified division has been reorganized, another 5-5 Static XX may be transferred in its stead. However, if ALL 5-5 Static XX have been reorganized as 5-7-6 Inf XX, what should be done to fulfill this requirement? Should a 5-7-6 Inf XX be transferred?

No, simply follow the rule for withdrawals. If all 5-5 Static XXs in play have reorganized, yank one from the replacement pool and pay the RP cost, per the withdrawal rule. I note that the withdrawal rule possibly should cover the case where an appropriate unit is neither in play nor in the replacement pool: don’t yank any unit, but pay the RP cost. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

(Rule 40A1) In the definition of “Convert” this rule states, “If it is not possible to convert the unit on the turn specified, it must be converted in the first friendly initial phase in which it can be converted.” Does this mean the first turn the converting unit happens to be in a supplied, non-isolated city hex, not in a ZOC, etc., or is the converting player obligated to withdraw the unit from the line and move it as quickly as possible to such a hex?

The former: the first turn the converting unit happens to be in a supplied, non-isolated city hex, not in a ZOC, etc. This method is guaranteed to work for all game purposes. Yes, this can get a bit silly — you can avoid a particular conversion by trying to ensure the unit never ends up in a city. If you’d like to know how the rule would work in an ideal world, read on.

If you and your opponent are reasonable players, then the conversion is mandatory. (The intention of Rule 40A1 is that reorganizations are voluntary and conversions are mandatory if possible. Conversions are mandatory because not every conversion “makes sense” in the confines of the game: sometimes you incur a net loss of strength or a net loss of special abilities such as AEC/ATEC. These rare “net loss” conversions are usually due to factors outside the scope of the particular game, such as a unit hiving off a cadre of veterans to form a new unit in a theater not in play.) Once a conversion is specified in the OB, you are required to make a reasonable effort to fulfill it as soon as possible. (This does not require you to replace the unit if it happens to be eliminated. If it is eliminated and you do replace it, however, then you must also convert it ASAP.) If you and your opponent are reasonable, go ahead and use this interpretation of the rule.

Mandatory conversions, however, fall prey to gamesmanship if any of the players in the game are unreasonable. For example, suppose your only unit that can be converted is in an isolated pocket. An unreasonable opponent would argue that you must now move your forces and conduct attacks so as to give every possible chance (regardless of all other consequences) for the isolated unit to get back into a situation in which it can be converted as soon as possible. So, if your opponent is unreasonable, then don’t use this interpretation of the rule — better still, find a more reasonable opponent! [TEM 40, Errata1]

On Nov I 43 can the Axis player convert 9-8* Para-Inf XX 2 (LW) [instead of 4-8* Para-Inf Cadre 2 (LW)] and 1-8 Para-Inf II I/1 St (LW) to 7-8* Para-Inf XX 2 (LW), and receive 5 inf RPs?

This is allowable. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

When a conversion or upgrade is called for and the unit is in another theater, can it be converted or upgraded, even before coming back to the theater specified in the OB?

Yes. Remember (per Rule 3F), the theater rule does not bind you for theaters you control. [TEM 41, Errata1]

When the OB lists a “replaced” unit, can the replacement be deferred and used later if the unit is not present at this time in the replacement pool?

Yes. [TEM 41, Errata1]

May the Axis player reorganize divisions (e.g., 5-5 Static XX to 5-7-6 Inf XX) that are in garrisons? In the North? In the Southeast?

No for all cases above. You can reorganize (or otherwise do things with) only those forces under your control. Rule 37E defines that garrison forces come under a player’s control when the garrison is activated. While in garrison, these units are not under the player’s control and thus cannot be reorganized. Rule 3F defines how theaters are handled: if you control a theater, you control its forces. Depending upon scenario, the Axis player may control one or more of the Greater Germany, West, and South theaters. Neither the North nor the Southeast theaters come under the Axis player’s control in SF, so the player does not control the forces in these theaters (and hence cannot reorganize them). [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

When the OB requires for a unit to be withdrawn, what happens if the unit is unique in the theater and it has been reorganized ? I think in particular of the 5-8-4 Static XX 76, which arrives in Aug 143 and is withdrawn in Nov 143 and that can be reorganized.

Withdraw replacement points sufficient to replace the unit instead. For example, the Axis can keep the 76 XX in play (as a reorganized 5-7-6) if they pay 5 inf replacement points instead. If they don’t have the required number of replacement points available, then they are out of luck… [TEM 59/60]

When the Allied player is required to withdraw a naval TF and the Allied player cannot meet the requirements for withdrawal because of losses is he required to use another unit even if there is no other unit of that size?

The withdrawal must be made, even if it is from the replacement pool. If the naval unit is completely eliminated, then withdraw it from the replacement pool and require the Allied player to withdraw naval repair points sufficient to replace it to full strength. Use saved naval repair points; if the Allied player doesn’t have enough saved Naval repair points to cover the required withdrawal, then he maintains a deficit until the required points have been spent. He may spend new points to offset this deficit only, until the required number is withdrawn. [TEM 59/60]

40A2

Rule 40A2 states, at the word “NOTE”, that the Axis player can always take any of his reinforcements as a Greater Germany one; when playing a single theater scenario it seems possible for the German player to take quite all his reinforcements in the order of battle, place them in Greater Germany and use them as he wishes; is this right?

No. You only receive units which are under your control, when playing a single front scenario. For example, reinforcements for the Southeast theater are never under the control of the Axis player, so he may not change their arrival location, since he doesn’t control them. In a similar manner, if playing the ETO scenario, the Axis player does not control forces in the South theater, nor reinforcements for the South theater. It is assumed, for purposes of the note, that players will understand that reinforcement activities may only be under a player’s control if the units involved are under the player’s control. See the explanation of what regions/theaters a player controls, under the particular scenario rules, listed in Rule 41B1 through Rule 41B4. [TEM 53]

What actually happens when the Allies start overrunning and occupying whole WK districts? Are the reinforcements scheduled for those districts allowed to enter play?

See 40A1, first sentence, second column, p. 61, “Unless otherwise specified, reinforcements that are unable to enter play as specified have their appearance delayed until they are able to enter play.”

Note also that if a “player loses ownership of all cities in a theater/district, then all units in the appropriate forming box are eliminated.”

So a specific reinforcement, say an arrival in a WK, would be delayed until a city was made friendly again, while “Forming” units would be eliminated and available for replacement.

New units to be placed in the Forming box of a WK no longer friendly controlled would simply be added to the appropriate replacement pool. [TEM 53]

FITE/SE states that “If all dot and major cities of the MD are enemy owned; then reinforcements scheduled to arrive there are eliminated and may enter play only through replacement. " I would think that a WK should be treated the same as a MD.

In essence they are. Other than forming/full reinforcements (which are handled in the same way as an MD — they go in the replacement pool if they can’t form in their specified WK), I am unaware of any WK-specific reinforcements in SF. [TEM 53]

US commando units (except OSS) can’t be replaced when lost; does this apply also to US rangers or only those explicitly stated as commandos (for example, parachute and mechanized commandos)?

Yes, this applies to all US units with the Commando symbol as all or part of their unit type. US Rangers can not be replaced once eliminated. This also effects the US/Cdn 1st SSF Brigade, the “Devil’s Brigade”. Besides the special one time replacement ability listed on p.12 of the Allied OB, it may not be replaced either. [TEM 54]

Most Allied minors do not get RPs of their own, before their home countries are liberated. Does this mean their units can’t be rebuilt prior to liberation if lost?

There is no rule prohibiting this, but this is how the game plays in effect. Since you must spend RPs to replace units, you can’t do this for units of a nation until you get RPs for that nation.

Note that special replacements and foreign aid are not affected. Units of such a nation generate special replacements, as per normal. These are saved in national pools for each separate nationality and may be spend when there is enough to replace a unit. Of course, if a nation has only one unit in play, it generates few special replacements that it needs to be replaced, so in effect again in this case the unit cannot be replaced.

The Allied player can transfer armor RPs to these nations. In at least one case, a player can replace a unit using a combination of special replacements and foreign aid: If the Czech 5-10 Armored X is eliminated while not isolated, it generates 1 Czech special inf replacement point. Amazingly enough, it costs 1 inf RP and 4 arm RPs to replace this unit! So, with 4 foreign-aid arm RPs and its own special replacement, the unit can be replaced. You are out of luck, though, if the unit is eliminated while isolated. [TEM 54]

40B

In SF, a replacement inherits the supply status of the hex that it appears in. However, when an area is being supplied through a port only, the supply is supplying units. Since the replacements appear after supply status is determined, they cannot be supplied with supply points. So the replacements arrive fully supplied if they are built in the same hex as a fully supplied unit? This is important. The Allies are building 5 US Arm XX in southern France, where they have a single 3 RE port functioning. (I believe they can supply 15 REs through this port?)

Hexes, including cities, do not have RE sizes. The minor port is a limited supply source, but it is still a regular supply source. So any Allied-owned city able to trace to the port would be in regular supply, even though through a limited supply port.

The Allied maneuver above is legal; the city is not isolated so it can be used as a placement hex for replacements. Therefore, any replacements placed there would have the supply status of the hex, which is supplied, so too would be the newly placed re placements. The limited nature of the port’s supply capacity does not affect the fact that that port puts friendly-owned nonisolated hexes able to trace a supply line to that port, in supply. [TEM 59/60]

Is this legal? Allies have landed in southern France. They have captured a 3 Report and an interior reference city. They are not isolated and can draw to a limited supply source, so they build 3 × 10-8 US Inf XX as replacements in the reference city, even though they have incurred no losses in this sector. We are playing the ‘44 D-Day scenario.

Yes, this is legal. As long as the units from one theatre’s replacement pool are replaced somewhere in that theatre, where they were when they were lost is not an issue. In your example, the reference city is friendly owned and not isolated; thus the Allied units in the ETO may be replaced there.

While this can cause the occasional odd situation as you note, this is not a big deal. And any rules to prevent these occasional anomalies would be so complicated and tedious as to be unplayable. Just having to record the area where the unit was lost, and how one would define “area”, is too much trouble. [TEM 59/60]

40B2 & 40B3

All mentions of “airborne RE” should be “air-droppable RE.” [Errata3]

See the discussion on air-droppable units for a comprehensive discussion on the replacement of these units.

If a specialized armor unit is replaced, does its replacement also count against the combat/assault engineer replacement limit?

No, specialized armor unit types (flamethrower tank, engineer tank, assault engineer tank, and sturmpanzer) are different unit types than combat and assault engineers. Consult the unit identification chart. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

40D1

(Correction) Replace the phrase “source of replacements” with “friendly-owned, unisolated regular source of supply”. [TEM 38/39, TEM 59/60, Errata1, Errata2, Errata4]

(Rules 40D1, 42, and 43F2) Is it really true that disbanded units don’t count for losses — if so, it seems to make it almost impossible for the Axis to inflict “excessive losses” on Allied ground units: the Allied player can simply disband a few units in play to generate sufficient accumulated infantry RPs to offset his losses?

Disbanded units do not count towards losses. Yes, it is difficult for the Axis to inflict excessive losses on the Allies in most situations (although it is possible in MTO-only scenarios, as happened historically). Think of the excessive losses rule less as a reward the Axis can achieve, but more as a penalty the Allies can incur: if the Allied player burns out his forces trying to knock out the Axis quickly, he incurs the wrath of the citizens back home. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

40D3

(Correction) Replace the word “city” with the phrase “regular supply source”; replace the word “nation” with the word “force”.

The corrected rule should read: [a player may give foreign aid] “as long as he can trace a supply line from any friendly-owned, unisolated regular supply source of the donating force to any friendly-owned, unisolated regular supply source of the force receiving the foreign aid.” [TEM 37, TEM 59/60, Errata1, Errata2, Errata4]

Rule 41

41A

In the beginning setup can RR units start in a non-rail hex?

Per RAW, I think the answer is Yes. Rule 41A (Initial Deployment) describes how forces are deployed initially, and there’s no special deployment case for rail-only units. Placing a rail-only unit in a non-rail hex effectively turns it into a 0-movement rating unit. Per 14F I, the rail-only unit would have to use rail movement to move and there’s no rail line in the hex, and even waiting for the enemy to inflict a retreat result on the unit is no help. So, placing a rail-only unit on a non-rail hex seems to be a really bad idea most of the time.

The only case I can think of for doing such off-hand is for the Axis to boost the coast defense value of a non-rail hex by putting a rail-only long range siege artillery unit there. Now, are there any non-rail hexes so valuable and so in need of a CD boost that it’s worth sacrificing forever the mobility of your rail artillery? [TEM 59/60]

In the initial deployment of the game the Allied player has a special naval sub phase. Does Allied naval units have only 150 naval points or do they have 300 naval points?

The Allies have (per Rule 41A) “a naval-movement subphase” and Rule 27C.2 defines a naval movement sub-phase as consisting of five (5) identical naval movement steps. Since each naval unit has 30 MPs per movement step, five times 30 equals 150 MPs spread equally between those five movement steps. [TEM 59/60]

Can the Allied player use his airforce before the naval sub phase or must he wait until the ground phase?

A movement phase consists of a naval sub-Phase followed by a ground sub-Phase; air operations occur during the movement phase, which means they can occur at any time during that phase, regardless of which sub-phase is in progress. Note that per Rule 4 1 A only air operations allowed for an Allied movement phase are allowed during this special pre-game movement phase. [TEM 59/60]

Is there a -1 die roll modifier for AA in the Allied pre-game movement phase? Is this phase of the game April I or March II?

Assuming you are talking about the “Victory in Europe” and/or “The ETO” scenarios, those scenarios, per Rule 4 1 B.2 & 41B.3 begin on the April I 44 turn. Since the AA die roll modifier applies from April I 44 on, yes, it is in force for those scenarios staring in April I 44. [TEM 59/60]

If I understand Rule 41.A correctly, during the “Allied naval movement sub-phase” of the “special, pre-game Allied movement phase,” only Axis air units may fly naval patrol mission and no Allied air operations may take place. Allied air operations during this “special .. phase” may only occur in the “Allied ground movement sub-phase. "

Correct. The Rules-As-Written note that while Axis air units may fly interception and patrol attack missions during the special ground movement sub-phase, no such notation appears regarding Allied air units being able to interfere with Axis air units flying naval patrol missions during the special naval movement sub-phase. I’m not sure if this is the way it was intended, but that is the rule as written. [TEM 50]

When redeploying the 7 units per theatre after Allied setup are there any restrictions on which units can do so, and are units redeploying still subject to geographic limits listed in the Axis OB (e.g., can an Axis unit which has to deploy in Northern Italy redeploy to the Anzio Front)?

There is no restriction on which 7 units may be chosen to redeploy. A unit may redeploy anywhere its initial deployment instructions allow it. Thus, an Axis unit deployed in the Northern Italy area may redeploy anywhere within that area, but nowhere else (such as to the Anzio Front). [TEM 37, Errata1]

Port Fortifications may not redeploy, nor would any other 0-movement units, should any be set-up in the starting forces of a scenario. [Guru ruling]

Why do the Germans move first? What’s the use of the 7 unit redeployment (other than saving some rail cap)?

The redeployment is partly a leftover rule from when the first German player turn was skipped. However, even with the Germans getting the first move, the redeployment works well for building in some uncertainty for Allied invasions. For example, suppose the Allies plan to invade the island of Elba off the Italian coast, and intend to move their naval forces in the pre-game move so as to discourage Axis transports from reinforcing Elba with ground units. Well, the 7-unit redeployment lets the Axis reinforce Elba without worry. [TEM 59/60]

Can Allied units be deployed pre-embarked on NTs and LCs during the initial deployment?

Yes. [TEM 37, Errata1]

In the Crusade in Europe and Victory in Europe scenarios, can air units be deployed in either theater?

Yes, use the combined air orders of battle. [TEM 37, Errata1]

May Allied LCs and NTs in the MTO initially deploy at Gibraltar? Oran?

Gibraltar: No, as it is not part of the MTO. Oran: Yes, as it is a North African port and North Africa is part of the MTO. [TEM 37, Errata1]

What is the reason that the Allies have to plan amphibious and air landings for the first and second game turn in the beginning of the game?

This is just so the Allies can invade on the first turn of scenarios! It also allows them to have plans in hand for the first two game turns. And please note, the Allies do not have to plan any special operations, planning and carrying out special ops are always at the discretion of the Allied player. [TEM 59/60]

Can the Allies make plans for April II turn in the initial phase of April I turn?

Certainly, they may always plan operations for eligible units in any Allied initial phase. [TEM 59/60]

41B2 & 41B3

(Addition) For scenarios starting in Apr I 44, the Allied player determines weather and sea conditions prior to his pre-game movement phase. The weather in Zone D on Mar II 44 was Mud. [TEM 53, TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

41B3

Rule 41B3 has been entirely rewritten.

Two partially contradictory errata have been made on the Anzio beachhead:

Rule 41B3 & 4: 1944 - 1945 scenarios: The Allied player may place supply points, sufficient for all units in the Anzio beachhead, during his initial setup. [Errata2]

and

The units in the Anzio Beachhead are considered to be in supply on the Allied Apr I 44 turn. [TEM 37, Errata1]

Rule 42

(Change) Replace “Jul I 43” with the phrase: “at the beginning of the scenario”. The intent is that only those losses incurred through play, and not those present at the start of a scenario, should count for VP calculations. [TEM 59/60, Errata2, Errata4]

(Correction) The listing of turns which complete a quarter, and are thus turns in which VPs are calculated, is in error. Replace the listing of “Oct II” with “Sep II”. [TEM 59/60]

Net Naval Losses: Does this include landing craft and/or naval transport losses, or just TF and CG losses?

Rule 42 says “all naval strength points currently sunk or having a hit of damage” and “all” does mean “all.” You count the sunk/damaged strength of all naval units: TFs, CGs, NTs, and LCs (including LCs damaged per Rule 34G). [TEM 43/44]

A non-Europa friend, when shown the victory conditions, developed a very strange look on his face. He told me he could win the game in an afternoon. Being somewhat irritated, I asked him how. He said the Axis should surrender at the beginning of their turn one; the Allies would only get 60 VPs since they can only claim cities actually in their possession at game’s end.

Amusing perhaps, but absolutely not Rules As Written - it’s a sick trick, not a slick one. You may notice the only rules on Axis surrender (38A2) don’t allow the Axis player to surrender voluntarily the German government may have put you in command of the military effort in the west, but you are not in charge of the economy, foreign relations, or the government in general (good thing too, you surrendering traitor!). If this bothers you, perhaps you can console yourself with Field Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt’s words when the German high command asked his advice on what to do when the Allies broke out of Normandy: “Make peace, you fools!” Alas, Rundstedt was not in charge of the government and millions more had to die before the German government finally gave up.

Now, just possibly the Axis player could try to play the game to get an Axis surrender via 38A2 as soon as possible, but it is extremely unlikely he can manage it and win any level of victory. (This strategy involves giving the Allies an undefended invasion route right into Germany while trying to hold onto all other VP areas as much as possible.) If the Allied player doesn’t suspect something is wrong (“Look, general, the Germans have not built any fortifications in the Netherlands and have withdrawn all forces from the Netherlands and the Ruhr.” “Ignore it, it must be a trap. Those Jerries are damn clever, y’know.”), maybe he’ll only blunder into a marginal victory, but if he catches on, he can then manipulate the favorable map situation into a decisive victory. (“Look, general, we’re ashore in the Netherlands and the Germans aren’t defending their cities in Germany.” “Good, let’s put Monty in charge of taking them; by the time he’s ready to move we’ll have the rest of Europe liberated.”)

I actually worked through this possibility when I did the victory rules. The fact that an Axis player playing to get an early Axis surrender will put the Allies in a position to win a decisive victory easily and cheaply should discourage the vast majority of Axis players from ever trying this. [TEM 53]

If amphibious tanks are eliminated during landing by the success table they are not isolated losses (no immediate -1 VP/attack factor). Correct?

Correct; the amphibious tanks roll during the movement phase when they probably are not isolated. If lost in combat, then they probably would be isolated and would count for VP losses at that time. [TEM 59/60]

The Allies start the 1944 scenario with several divisions at cadre strength (all in the MTO). These cadres do not count for excess Allied losses (VPs) each quarter. If they are rebuilt do they count as credit toward other losses? Example: The Allies have rebuilt one cadre from 4-8 to 9-8 strength, have lost 10 other attack strength points that were not replaced, and have 0 replacement points. They have -5 VP, not -10. Correct?

No, they are simply riot counted for excessive losses themselves; having rebuilt them does not affect any subsequent calculations. In your example above, there are 10 points of attack strength lost and therefore 10 VPs lost. [TEM 59/60]

If an Allied unit that starts the game as a cadre is rebuilt and then cadred again how is it counted for VPs under the excess losses section?

It is counted as being the difference between the full strength division and the strength of the cadre. Any losses present at the beginning of the scenario are ignored for VP calculations; losses taken once the scenario has begun are counted. Obviously, if the unit is rebuilt and then takes losses again, they occurred after the beginning of the scenario, and thus count towards VP calculations.

This is the same in any scenario; say you rebuild the 5-3-10 Arm X present in the ETO replacement pool at some point in a game, and then lose it. Well, the fact that it began in the replacement pool doesn’t change the fact that it was replaced and lost; if still in the replacement pool (after having been rebuilt) during a VP check it would count as losses if there was insufficient saved replacements to cover its strength. Just ignore losses at the start of a scenario and base your calculations upon what has happened while you were playing. If I understand what you are trying to get at, then; no, having cadred or eliminated units at the beginning of a scenario doesn’t grant you some kind of “losses cushion” for the rest of the game. [TEM 59/60]

After the Allies do an amphibious invasion, and they are still supplied off the beaches (i.e. no port has been repaired yet), they are attacked by the Axis. Are any losses they take counted as “excessive losses” for the victory conditions (since they would be isolated due to being unable to trace a regular supply line)?

I think you mean “Disastrous Losses” here. Excessive losses are losses in the replacement pools and in play (meaning cadres) that a player does not have enough replacement points to replace, calculated during quarterly VP checks. Disastrous Operations are losses of isolated units, incurred by the Allied player. These VPs are awarded upon occurrence. With that in mind, yes, all losses to isolated Allies units are Disastrous Operations and cause immediate VP awards (negative values, in this case). Note that Disastrous Operations, per rule 42, depend upon (only) the isolation status, and not supply status, of the units in question. So, for example, an invading unit eliminated in the combat phase immediately following the movement phase in which it invaded, would be in supply as an amphibiously invading unit but would (most likely) be isolated, therefore its loss would be considered a Disastrous Operation. If the unit was isolated at the beginning of the combat phase in which it was lost/took losses, then those REs of losses count towards Disastrous Operations. [TEM 66]

Rule 43

43C2

Under certain conditions, the only units in a hex may be overstacked. If an enemy unit enters the hex, are the overstacked units automatically eliminated, or must they be overrun at 0-strength?

If an overstack is alone in a hex, treat it as a zero-strength unit if attacked or overrun. [TEM 37, Errata1]

Does the cost to leave an overstack conflict with the ability to move a minimum of 1 hex?

A unit in an overstack must first leave the overstack before it can do anything else (such as to enter an adjacent hex). It must spend 2 MPs to leave the overstack. Once it is out of the overstack it could possibly move. But it could not then move to an adjacent hex using the exception in Rule 6, since the exception says for a unit to move a single hex it must spend all the MPs it has available that phase (and it would have already spent 2 of its MPs to leave the overstack). There is no conflict between rules if you do things one step at a time.

Is there a limit to the number of ground units that can be put in an overstack?

There’s some theoretically maximum limit of “packing them in” and there’s some practical limit if you leave enough space for them to move around and whatnot. However, the practical limit is high enough that we can ignore it. If you put your entire ground forces in an overstack, you’d be stretching things, but in practical play things like that rarely happen (and rarely matter if they do — ok, the entire US Army is now in overstack; now what are you going to do?). Adding a rule to catch the extremely occasional rules abuse is hardly worth forcing players to count overstack REs all the time to make sure things are legal.

The overstacking rule states a retreating unit must stop and establish an overstack if retreating into a hex already stacked to the limit. Does this apply to German c/m units when using their special retreat ability (9F1), or units that retreat through ZOCs and have cadres-i.e., does this rule limit all retreats to one hex; no exceptions?

Yes. [TEM 43/44]

43D

Code Z air units may begin making V-1 attacks as soon as they are available (May I ‘44). They does not have to wait until Jun I 44. [Errata2, Errata4]

The Allies devoted a lot of bombing missions to V-1 sites. Any idea why this isn’t a mission type, or is it covered by Strat Air Forces?

This is handled abstractly by the Strat Air system, with no player involvement needed! (One less thing to worry about!) [TEM 53]

I assume ANY allied fighters can fly patrol and intercept against V-1 attacks under rule 43D. A slick trick would be to use the Italians. But, what is the air defense strength of a V-1? I assume it has an air attack strength of 0 and no DRMs. This means the V-1 cannot fire in air combat. However, a patrolling Allied fighter might have a chance of being aborted

You may be misunderstanding 43D here. Note that the rules say that “air combat is not resolved” and “actual Patrol attacks are not resolved”, so it doesn’t matter what the strength of the patrolling/intercepting fighter is, nor is there a need for V1 air attack or defense strengths. The V-1 simply receives an adverse die roll modifier on the success table if patrolled or intercepted.

There is no chance for the Allied fighter to be affected by either a patrol attack or interception, since they are not resolved. [TEM 53]

What is the air defense strength of a V-1? I assume it has an air attack strength of 0 and no DRMs. This means the V-1 cannot fire in air combat. However, a patrolling Allied fighter might have a chance of being aborted.

You may be misunderstanding Rule 43D here. Note that the rules say that “air combat is not resolved” and “actual patrol attacks are not resolved”, so it doesn’t matter what the strength of the patrolling/intercepting fighter is, nor is there a need for V- 1 air attack or defense strengths. The V-1 simply receives an adverse die roll modifier on the success table if patrolled or intercepted.

There is no chance for the Allied fighter to be affected by either a patrol attack or interception, since they are not resolved.

The rules state that for every 4 hits inflicted on London it costs the Allies 1 British inf RP. What does this constitute in reality - is it troops being diverted to fire fighting duties and other similarities? Or is it something else?

It’s not a direct simulation of manpower being diverted or anything like that - some resources were perhaps diverted due to V-weapons, but this wasn’t significant. Instead, the V-weapon attacks greatly bothered the British high command, all out of proportion to the minimal damage they did to the British economy in general or war effort in specific. Instead, the high command believed the British public was becoming weary of the war, and the V-weapon attacks would further decrease public morale. Accordingly, the British high command put extensive pressure on the air and ground forces to do something about the V-weapons.

Simulating these political factors directly was outside the scope of SF. However, there was a currency available that could be used to put pressure on the Allied player and thus indirectly simulate the British V-weapons pressure: British inf RPs. Since British inf RPs are in short supply, anything that threatens to take them away from the Allied player should get his attention. [TEM 53]

43E

Is the -1 modifier for Allied units strictly for the attack, or does this apply to the defense as well? Is the modifier only for mixed ground units, or would the penalty occur if US air units supported an all-British ground attack?

The rules [43E] clearly specify attacks, and nothing else. The rule only refers to attacks because the rule only affects attacks; if the rule had effects when Allied units were defending, it would say so. The rules does not apply to air units since they are not “units”, they are air units [per Rule 3A]. The rule specifically talks about “attacks” with “units” from two or more contingents. Therefore the only situations wherein one is affected by the rule is where units [not air units, not naval units but units] from two or more contingents attack [not defend, not overrun but attack] a hex.

Repeatedly, a lot of people seem to not read or remember the basic rules concerning “units”. This is a simple, basic definition and appears early in the rules, 3A, and since it affects everything, it is well worth paying attention to. Also, the Allied co-operation rule is very simple and stated quite plainly, the meat of it is only one sentence, after all. Please remember that rules which specify effects in one situation (like this rule) should not be assumed to affect anything else, or any other situations. The rules attempt to be as inclusive and concise as possible. Don’t assume anything that isn’t there should be there. [TEM 53]

Allied Cooperation. “Other Allied units” are part of a national contingent, but “may be included with any contingents and switched between contingents freely.” Does this occur for all units of a national group at a particular time or for individual units? For example, can one French unit (before the return of the French government from exile) attack with a British stack, and another French unit attack with an American stack in the same combat phase with no penalty?

Yes, the determination is made for individual units. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Is the -1 modifier for Allied units strictly for the attack, or does this apply to the defense as well? Is the modifier only for mixed ground units, or would the penalty occur if US air units supported an all-British ground attack?

Rule 43E clearly specifies “attacks” with “units” from two or more contingents, and nothing else. If the rule had effects when Allied units were defending, it would say so. The rule also does not apply to air units since they are not “units” (per Rule 3A) they are air units. Therefore the only situation wherein one is affected by the rule is where units [not air units, not naval units but units] from two or more contingents attack [not defend, not overrun, but attack] a hex.

Some players seem to not read or remember the basic rules concerning “units”. This is a simple, basic definition and appears early in the rules (3A), and, since it affects everything, it is well worth paying attention to.

43F1

Are Reserve, Replacement and Training units functionally identical?

Yes. (In reality, reserve, replacement, and training units could have different functions, depending upon nation, time period, and circumstances, but these are not significant enough to worry about at the level we show things in the game.) [TEM 41, Errata1]

43F2

In different places in the rules and charts, the definition of “force” seems to be different. For the purposes of this rule I assume that the Allies have five forces (American, British, French, Italian, and Other Allied) and the Axis have three forces (German, (RSI) Italian, and Other Axis). Is this correct?

Yes. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Rule 44

44A1

When using optional rule 44 (Bridges) if at a destroyed bridge there was not an enemy unit or ZOC across the river from a construction engineer, with a division to throw a friendly ZOC across the river, that engineer could spend the 4 MPs and repair the bridge. For the rest of that movement phase all friendly units could use the bridge to cross the river without penalty.

Correct. [TEM 59/60]

When a commando unit captures a bridge, does it remain captured in future turns as long as they can hold onto the hexside? Can a further attempt be made to attack with one unit unhampered across the bridge, or is the first turn of capture the only time this can be done?

The special ability of commandos to capture a bridge is covered in Rule 44A1. When a commando captures a bridge, it becomes friendly-owned from the phase following the phase it was captured. Anyone unit can attack across the river without combat modifications, due to the river hexside, in that combat phase following capture, only. The special combat ability only applies to the combat phase immediately following the movement phase in which the bridge was captured. The bridge remains captured, which affects demolition and repair, as long as the enemy player does not regain ownership of the two hexes that the bridge hexside is adjacent to. And of course, one cannot attempt to capture a friendly-owned bridge, in order to get the one unaffected unit combat effect again.

44C3

Rule 44C3 states that a heavy AA unit does not have its attack strength halved when attacking a fortification if a field artillery unit would not be halved attacking the same fortification (per the fortifications effects chart). Since heavy AA is not halved attacking a swamp hex, it is therefore twice as effective as field artillery when attacking a fortification in a swamp (or partially-flooded) hex. Is this as intended?

That’s how it works. Both field artillery and heavy AA are not halved against certain types of fortifications, due to the blast and/or penetrative effects their fire can have on the fortifications. For non-fortification terrain, however, field artillery and heavy AA work differently and thus can have different effects. Field artillery is (mainly) an indirect fire weapon, with its effectiveness coming from catching the enemy in its blast. In soggy ground conditions, such as in flooded canal intensive hexes, the blast effects are reduced and thus the artillery is less effective. Heavy AA is (mainly) a direct fire weapon, even when firing HE against unarmored targets. Direct fire usually can hit its target more precisely and with quicker response to changing conditions; hence it is not as affected by soggy ground conditions as is indirect fire. Thus, for an attack on a port fortification in a partially flooded canal intensive hex, the field artillery is effective against the part of the enemy in the fortifications but is less effective against enemy troops holding positions elsewhere in the hex, while heavy AA is effective against both.

Examples: In an attack on a partially flooded canal intensive hex that has a port fortification, such as in the historical battle of Walcheren Island, various attacking units would be affected as follows:

  • An attacking armor unit would be halved twice: once for the flooded canal intensive hex and once for the port fortification.
  • An attacking infantry unit would be halved once: for the port fortification but not for the flooded canal intensive hex.
  • An attacking engineer unit would not be halved: neither for the port fortification nor for the flooded canal intensive hex.
  • An attacking field artillery unit would be halved once: for the flooded canal intensive hex but not for the port fortification.
  • An attacking heavy AA unit would not be halved: neither for the port fortification nor for the flooded canal intensive hex

[Errata1]

44F

On the optional AA table it seems that no kill result is possible using this table even if the AA strength is 10 or more, while the kill result is possible in the standard AA fire table; right?

Correct; there is no “K” result on the optional AA Fire Table, regardless of the AA strength being fired. [TEM 50]

44G2

When using Rule 44G2, Naval Transport Costs, do unitsmaking amphibious landings still use all their MPs to land on an enemy beach, or might they have MPs remaining?

Per Rule 32A, “An amphibious ground unit must spend all of its remaining MPs to make an amphibious landing.” [TEM 66]

44G3

Since CD Combat Strength (Rule 44G3) is trated as one RE of artillery, CD can not receive DAS?

Correct, since DAS is based upon the number of non-artillery REs involved, and CD strength is treated as artillery. [TEM 66]

Do CDs produce intrinsic garrisons? Can I count units in, say, Le Havre which are intrinsic garrison units toward the overall garrison requirements for France? Here’s an example: Le Havre is a major port with a 0-5-0 port fortification and a LR siege artillery. Le Havre has a CD value of 6, and thus an intrinsic garrison of 3 points. I believe they have the equivalent of ½ RE of artillery per point. Correct? If so, I would have 1.5 REs of intrinsic garrison in Le Havre that could be used for the overall garrison requirement in France. Is this right?

No. You can’t use CD to count as intrinsic garrison.

Port fortifications and RR artillery are not “Coastal defenses of a port in a hex…” [hereafter referred to as “intrinsic” CD for brevity], just as that from fort counters and It CCNN heavy AA is not intrinsic CD. None of these things can be used to figure the artillery strength of a hex, since none of them are intrinsic.

Le Havre, for example, has 3 levels of intrinsic CD since it is an Atlantic non-inland major/great port. No matter what else you might stuff into Le Havre, it will never havemore than 3 intrinsic levels of CD, although it may well have more levels of CD present.

It is only intrinsic CD levels that can be counted for computing the artillery strength from CD in any hex. Therefore no matter what you might add to Le Havre, it will always have 3 intrinsic CD levels, divided by 2 and rounded down to arrive at the [optional~artillery strength; 3/2 is 1.5, rounded down to 1.

Intrinsic CD is only treated as artillery for the purposes of ground combat. Garrison fulfillment is not ground combat so the CD strength and its attendatd ability to act as artillery is ignored for these non-ground combat purposes.

The fact that Axis move before the Allies in the game takes away a bit from the perfect plan set-up, since you have reinforcements and movement to figure into the pot before the Allies can react. To say nothing Axis movement on the first turn. But it is a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavor none the less.

To round off the CD business, let me make it clear that the only levels of CD that are counted for purposes of Optional Rule 44G3 are those that are intrinsic to the hex, that is, from being a port or an improved coastal fortress. So in the Med, each Axis-owned major/great port with 2 levels of CD would get one artillery strength point for purposes of ground combat, while minor and standard ports would have one level of intrinsic CD, meaning they get no art strength. [In all cases, we are discussing only coastal ports — inland ports have no CD at all]

In the Atlantic, all coastal ports will have a point of artillery defense strength for purposes of ground combat, since major/great ports have 3 levels of intrinsic CD while minor/standard ports have 2 levels of intrinsic CD.

Borkum and Wangerooge would have 2 artillery strength points since as improved coastal fortresses they have 4 levels of intrinsic CD. The other fortress ports — Westerland, Brunsbuttel, Helgoland and Wilhelmshaven — would have 3 points of artillery defense strength, since they have 4 intrinsic levels of CD for being improved coastal fortresses and either 2 or 3 levels of intrinsic CD by virtue of also being Atlantic ports of either minor/standard or major/great capacity.

The intrinsic items — port capacity and fortress status — are cumulative, but non-intrinsic CD levels never count. So, no, you do not get any increased ground combat strength from placing, say, a fort counter in a hex with other units/cases that produce levels of CD. It is only the “Coast defenses of ports in a hex…” that contribute to the optional art strength, amended by official errata that this also applies to Improved coastal fortresses. [TEM 73]

Intrinsic ground combat strength of CD is based on Cd level and not CD gunnery strength, the big CD installations you mention above do not project intrinsic ground combat strength into adjacent hexes like CD gunnery strength does. True?

Correct. [TEM 73]

A standard port in the Mediterranean (CD level 1) would have no ground strength?

Correct, half of 1, rounded down is zero. [TEM 76]

The rule states that only when the ground strength of the CD of a port is at least 1, it qualifies as an artillery unit. In the case above there would be no such unit, not even at 0 strength?

Correct, if it has no artillery strength, then it also does not have any attributes of a unit. Coastal defense strength with a ground combat strength of zero is not considered to be an artillery unit for any game purposes.

And a fort counter in that hex would make no difference, since the rule speaks of CD levels of ports in a hex, not the CD level of the hex?

Correct; the only thing that is factored into the CD calculation for the artillery unit strength is intrinsic strength in the hex, that is, values for the port and, if applicable, fortress status. [TEM 76]

The same question goes for RR artillery or Italian heavy AA units. Would placing them on a minor port in the Mediterranean increase the CD level of the hex?

It would increase the CD strength for naval combat purposes, but have no impact on the intrinsic CD strength in the hex, for artillery unit qualification purposes. [TEM 76]

Odds and Ends

These are articles and e-mail messages by John Astell or Rich Velay, which go a little beyond mere changes and interpretations of the rules, and so deserve to be quoted in full.

DAS/GS air missions

While one may fly any number of DAS/GS missions, of course [there being no limitation on their number], all that are flown to the same hex will be resolved as one mission, in effect.

The important thing to remember here is that for ALL games using the “on demand” air system, you suspend the DAS/GS air operation once you have completed air to air combat for that air operation - this is a change from what may appear in some game’s rules. Previously, DAS/GS air ops were suspended following AA fire, now they are suspended PRIOR to the AA fire step. The AA fire step occurs during ground combat resolution, and thus occurs AFTER the opportunity to initiate new DAS/GS air ops has ended.

Thus, no matter how many air ops you fly to a particular target hex for DAS/GS, for the purposes of AA fire and ground combat resolution, they will all be resolved as a single air op.

Minesweeping

For an advanced or optional rule, try:

  1. First, a little terminology: in TW and subsequent Europa games, the names of danger zones will change for ease of comprehension. Instead of, say, an “Axis danger zone” which is dangerous to the Axis, we will have an “Allied-exerted danger zone” (Soviet-exerted in TW of course), which is dangerous to the Axis. I’ll now use the new terms here.

  2. When a player sweeps mines in a turn, he can also sweep enemy mines that are in danger zones his naval forces exert. (DZs are a good indication of naval superiority in an area.) For each such mine point being swept, the player consults the Success Table, using the following modifiers:

+3 if the mine point is in calm seas.

+2 if the mine point is in rough seas.

+1 if the mine point is in stormy seas.

A Success result means the mine point is swept with no losses to the sweeping forces.

Any Failure result means the mine point is swept, but with losses to the sweeping forces. The sweeping player must spend one naval repair point. If the player does not have a NRP available to spend, he maintains a NRP deficit until he receives NRPs again. In addition, he cannot use this minesweeping ability again until he no longer has a NRP deficit due to minesweeping.

OK, that seems to cover the situation better, albeit at yet more complexity (hence why it won’t be a basic rule). I’m interested in feedback on how it works from players: 1) who use it when they play SF, or 2) who are veteran SF players. Also, let me know if you think it should be an advanced rule or optional (if you like playing the Allies, try not to let this influence you unduly.)

ETO 1944 Scenario and the invasion of Southern France [Errata2, Errata5]

I’ve looked over SF’s treatment of the August 1944 invasion of southern France. Naval and air forces do not work correctly for the invasion when playing The ETO scenario (41B3), as the invasion requires such forces from the MTO but the OBs do not specify such transfers. (The grand campaign scenarios, 41B1 & 2, work fine for southern France. In working through this situation, it strikes me that the Axis player should not be certain that Aug II 44 is the most likely date of the invasion, so I have taken the opportunity to improve this area too.

It seems simplest just to rewrite 41B3 in its entirety rather than just post modifications to it, so here goes:

  1. The ETO (1944-45 Theater Scenario). This scenario starts on the Apr I 44 turn and ends either upon the conclusion of the May I 45 turn or upon an Axis surrender (per Rule 38A2).

Use the Apr I 44 initial forces and the reinforcements starting from Apr I 44.

The Allied player controls the ETO theater. At the start of the game, he owns all hexes in Great Britain. For this scenario, the ETO includes the Mediterranean Sea and the island of Corsica. Treat Corsica as part of the ETO theater, and at the start of the game the Allied player owns all hexes in Corsica. Due to defensive forces not included in the scenario, Axis forces may not enter any hexes on Corsica (this include Axis naval forces entering any coastal hexes of Corsica.

** RCV: Note the above means that the Allied player may place airbases on Corsica as part of his initial set up….*

In addition to the above, Allied forces may use airbases, ports, and naval bases in North Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia, as well as the port of Napoli (26:2422).

** RCV: As above, the Allied player may also place airbases in the above listed locations.*

The Axis player controls the West and Greater Germany theaters. At the start of the game, he owns all non-neutral hexes except those owned by the Allies. The Allied player may invade (southern) France using forces drawn from the MTO. Starting on Jul I 44, the Allied player may plan amphibious landings and airborne operations for MTO forces for the turns Jul II 44 through Aug II 44. On the first turn that an amphibious landing or airborne operation is planned to occur, if the Allied player does not cancel it, he announces during his initial phase that he is invading southern France and receives: Ground Forces: All units sequestered for the invasion of southern France (see the American, British, and French sections of the Jul I 44 MTO order of battle). These MTO units are sequestered on Jul I 44, and the Allied player may plan amphibious landings and airborne operations for them from that turn. Note that these units in any event transfer to the ETO on Aug II 44.

Air Forces:

When the Allied player announces the invasion, he receives the air units listed below as reinforcements in any airbases in Corsica, North Africa, Sicily, or Sardinia. These air units remain in play from the announcement of the invasion until the Allied initial phase of the Sep I 44 turn, upon which they are withdrawn. American: from MTO Tac: 2× B-26G, 8× C-47, 2× CG-4A, 3× P-47D25

British: from MTO Tac: 1× C-47 (RAF), 1× CG-4A (RAF)

French: from MTO Tac: 1× B-26B, 1× B-26G, 1× C-47, 1× P-39Q, 2× P-40N, 2× P-47D25, 1× Spit 8

Naval Forces:

When the Allied player announces the invasion, he receives the naval units listed below as reinforcements in any ports or naval bases in Corsica, North Africa, Sicily, or Sardinia. These naval units remain in play from the announcement of the invasion until the Allied initial phase of the Sep I 44 turn, upon which they are withdrawn. Note that the Allied player may count towards his RE limit when planning amphibious landings. Also note that American and French TFs are not available on Jul II 44. Allied: 12× landing craft, 20 pts naval transport

American (from Aug I 44 only): 1× 12 pt TF, 1× 8 pt TF (both USN)

British: 1× 16 pt TF (RN)

French (from Aug I 44 only): 1× 4 pt TF

Italian: 5 pts naval transport

See Rule 42 for the victory conditions.

The MTO scenario (41B4) needs to account for Allied air and naval forces allocated to the invasion of southern France. Accordingly, the above listed air and naval forces are sequestered on Aug I 44 (not Jul I 44) and return as reinforcements on Sep I 44. (Note that upon their return some of these forces may be involved in other reinforcement activities, such as various naval units being transferred to the ETO.)

“Airborne” vs. “Air-Droppable” [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

Certain rules confuse the terms “airborne units” (per the unit identification chart, this is a specific unit type: the airborne/parachute-infantry symbol) and “air-droppable units” (per Rule 24, these are all parachute, air landing/glider, and parachute commando units). “Air-droppable is the correct term for the following rules:

Rule 24B1 (Hex Ownership): All mentions of “airborne unit” should be “air-droppable unit.”

Rule 40B2/B3 (Axis/Allied Replacements): All mentions of “airborne RE” should be “air-droppable RE.”

(The rules here limit the number of air-droppable REs that may be replaced). Ignore the note referring to an Allied airborne division requiring 9 months to be replaced. Note that a precise reading of the uncorrected rules would allow, for example, parachute or glider units to be replaced without limit, with only airborne/parachute-infantry units being limited. The corrected rule fixes this, although for simplicity it allows an anomaly that is addressed in an optional rule below.

Airborne/Air-Droppable Replacements (Optional)

The correction of the “airborne” vs. “air-droppable” confusion creates an anomaly in the replacement system: divisions with the airborne/parachute-infantry symbol are not affected by the limits on replacing “air-droppable” REs, even though many of these divisions break down into air-droppable components. This optional rule addresses this: The divisions listed below are affected by Rule 40B2/B3’s limits on replacing air-droppable REs:

American 14-8 Abn XX:

  • 4 air-droppable REs are required to replace division at full strength
  • 3 air-droppable REs are required to rebuild cadre to full strength
  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to replace division at cadre strength

American and British 11-8, 10-8, 10-6, 9-6 Abn XX:

  • 3 air-droppable REs are required to replace division at full strength
  • 2 air-droppable REs are required to rebuild cadre to full strength
  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to replace division at cadre strength

German 11-9-8, 9-8* Para-Inf XX:

  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to replace division at full strength
  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to rebuild cadre to full strength
  • 0 air-droppable REs are required to replace division at cadre strength

Italian 5-8 Para-Inf XX (184 Nm only):

  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to replace division at full strength
  • 1 air-droppable RE is required to rebuild cadre to full strength
  • 0 air-droppable REs are required to replace division at cadre strength

For any unit that requires more than one air-droppable RE to replace/rebuild, the player must replace/rebuild the unit incrementally. Each 3-month period, he may spend his air-droppable RE replacement limit for the unit, marking the unit with a convenient marker. Once the unit has sufficient air-droppable REs for replacement/rebuilding, the player may spend the appropriate replacement points and actually replace/rebuild the unit.

The Straits of Messina

The standard rules do not cover the Axis use of the Straits of Messina (26:3822, 3823, 3923, where the rail ferries are) adequately. In particular, Rule 34J, Landing Craft as Ferries, is a simplification of the actual situation and allows the Allies to interdict the straits far better in the game than they did historically. The simplest solution is to allow the Axis player (only) to treat the Straits of Messina as narrow straits hexsides: The Axis player may treat any rail ferry in these hexes as a narrow straits hexside, provided he owns both hexes of the rail ferry. For example, the Axis player may treat the rail ferry on the 26:3822/3823 hexside as a narrow straits hexside if he owns both 26:3822 and 26:3823. [TEM 48, Errata2, Errata3]

Note that the Allied player derives no benefit from this change, i.e. he may not treat these hexsides as narrow straits and must use the LC as Ferry rules as written. [Errata2, Errata4]

The rail ferries are the only means of tracing a rail element supply line to Sicily - note also that a ferry does not function at all, if either of the ports it is connected to is nonfunctioning. The Axis may trace road and overland supply lines across the straits of Messina at any hexside that they can treat as a narrow strits, ie a rail ferry hexside connected to friendly owned ports on either side of the hexside (Rich Velay on ConsimWorld).

The new rule for Messina states that it should be treated as a narrow straits for the Axis and a rail ferry for the Allies. My understanding of this rule would mean that the Germans can walk across this strait as soon as the Allies make contact, but the Allies would not be able to move across since they would not have a functioning rail net in Sicily or Italy. Also they would not be able to attack across the straits as the straits don’t exist for the Allies.

Correct, the same situation as before the rule change was suggested. [TEM 53]

Would this mean that the Germans can attack the Allies because the straits exist for them?

It can’t work out that way! The Axis can only treat the Straits of Messina as a narrow straits as long as the own all three port hexes of the straits; Messina, Reggio, and Villa san Giovani, and the Allies would have to gain ownership of one of these hexes to get to the Straits. [TEM 53]

Danger Zones in the Mediterranean [Errata2, Errata4]

Following Italian Surrender, the following apply to Danger Zones (DZ) that exist in the Mediterranean Sea (hereafter Med.).

  • a note on terminology; remember that an Axis DZ is one that affects Axis naval units and is exerted by Allied owned ports, and an Allied DZ is one that affects Allied naval units and is one exerted by Axis owned ports.

Axis DZ are present in any sea or partial sea hex within 9 (not 5) hexes of an Allied owned port.

Allied DZs are present in any sea or partial sea hex within 3 (not 5) hexes of an Axis owned port which is north of the 2000 hex row (of maps 26 and 27).

  • Note: To state the obvious, Axis owned ports in the Med on maps 16A and 17A are “north of the 2000 hex row on maps 26 and 27.

Enemy DZs can NOT co-exist, a hex is either in an Axis DZ or it is an Allied DZ. Note that Axis DZs always negate Allied DZs.

DZs must be traced along a natural sea route, eg a DZ can not be traced over a land hexside or through a hex with two unconnected bodies of water within it.

The Adriatic sea, per the rules, is a part of the Med and is affected by all rules which affect the Med, unless specifically exempted by special rules. Prior to Italian surrender, the Adriatic has special rules concerning Allied DZ therein, following It surrender, the Adriatic has no special DZ rules applicable to it and is simply treated as all other parts of the Med are treated.

Mediterranean Danger Zones

Why is it so hard to do an Anvil-Dragoon in Second Front? You sure risk a lot from danger zones on this operation!

I had thought the previous correction that let danger zones originating from Allied ports suppress those from Axis ports fixed all that. No, a piece still needs to be added. The following is an unofficial change. When Italy surrenders:

    • Allied danger zones (zones dangerous to the Allies) shrink to the area within 3 hexes of Axis owned ports in the Mediterranean on or north of the 2000 hexrow on maps 26 and 27.
    • The Axis danger zones (zones dangerous to the Axis) expand to all areas within 9 hexes of Allied owned ports in the Mediterranean. Allied danger zones suppress Axis danger zones.

These conditions reflect the significant realignment of the naval situation in the Mediterranean once Italy leaves the war — the Allies go from naval superiority to virtual naval supremacy. Note that Allied control of Corsica, especially the port of Bastia, wipes out any Allied DZ in southeast France (and in many parts of Italy, too) — and in fact the Anvil-Dragoon landings all occur within 7 hexes of Bastia.

For simplicity, I think we can leave out condition #1 above, if we want. (Dropping the DZs from 5 to 3 hexes probably doesn’t affect much, although it does make the Axis coastal defense system slightly more fragile.) #2 is the biggie. If you see any game problems in implementing either #2 alone or #1 and #2 together drop a line to EXchange. If not, Rich Velay and I will issue a official erratum in the future. [TEM 53]

An Amphibious Recap [Errata1, Errata2]

For “beach operations,” the rules distinguish between regular naval transport (Rule 30B), which is transport to/from a friendly-owned beach, and amphibious landings (Rule 32), which is transport to an enemy-owned beach.

As corrected above, Rules 14J2, 27B6, 30B, and 31B completely define beach operations for naval transport, while Rules 14J2, 27B6, 30B, 32 intro, and 32A completely define beach operations for amphibious landings.

Intrinsically amphibious units such as marine commandos or amphibious armor can land without using LCs, they can “go ashore” directly from NTs. (These intrinsically amphibious units either are amphibious by their very natures, such as DD tanks, or have factored into them the small landing craft capable of taking them from ship to shore, such as for marine commandos.) The game was designed this way: if the intrinsically amphibious units that landed on D-Day required LCs in the game, then the amphibious armor alone would soak up so many LCs that not all the forces which historically landed could land in the game.

LVT counters are also intrinsically amphibious. They are not, however, landing craft, and must be transported to their landing sites by naval transport. (LVTs were not capable of long distance sea voyages and historically were not classified or used the same as real landing craft, despite the similarity of names and abbreviations between LVTs and landing craft.) Note that any unit carried by an LVT is also amphibious, per Rule 14J2.

LCs bestow amphibious capability to non-motorized units without heavy equipment (Rule 27B6), allowing them to make amphibious landings (see the second bullet of 32B for more detail on how this works).

If you like, you can also allow special c/m units (the British 1× 3-2-10 Aslt Gun X RMAS, and the 1× 5-3-6 Aslt Eng Tank X 1 RE) to make amphibious landings using LCs. This was only excluded from the game for simplicity (to avoid a special rule for a few units). However, these units didn’t fare very well when making amphibious landings, so if you adopt this rule, halve the combat strengths of these units when they make an amphibious landing, in addition to any other modifications. (Actually, only two of the three AVRE battalions of 1× 5-3-6 Aslt Eng Tank X 1 RE landed in the assault forces, but a battalion of Crabs from 30th Armoured Brigade also landed. Since we don’t have battalion breakdowns, using the ‘1 RE’ for these forces is convenient.)

LCs in the game include LSTs, LSMs, LCIs, etc., and can carry any type of equipment. Assuming that the Allied player makes amphibious landings at enemy-owned beach hexes and gains control of some of these hexes during his movement and combat phases, he can use naval transport to land other units at those now-friendly beach hexes during the exploitation phase. Generally, any units (including those with heavy equipment, such as HQs, armor and artillery units, and even full divisions) can land at a friendly beach, however, unless they are intrinsically amphibious, they must use only LCs to do so (per Rule 31B).

Note that the vast majority of divisions cannot directly make amphibious landings, since they run afoul of Rule 27B6. By breaking a non-motorized division down into a divisional headquarters and unsupported components that do not have heavy equipment (such as infantry regiments), the unsupported components can make amphibious landings using LCs, and the division HQ can use LCs to land in the exploitation phase in a beach hex captured by its side. Note that Rule 15 allows you to assemble divisions in the exploitation phase, even non-motorized divisions. Of course, everything has to work right to do this (all unsupported components land in the same beach hex, they capture the hex without taking losses, the division HQ lands there in the exploitation phase, and you remember to assemble the division), but if all goes well you’ve increased your beachhead’s ability to resist Axis counterattacks. Note: The only division that can make an amphibious landing without breaking down is the USMC 1 Exp Marine Division, since it is intrinsically amphibious.

As mentioned earlier, NTs may carry intrinsically amphibious units to beaches. NTs can also transfer cargo (such as armor units) to LCs for transport to a beach per Rule 31D. NTs may carry resource points or supplies to a friendly beach, but not to an enemy-owned beach. [TEM 40]

If LCs can transport units with heavy equipment to friendly beaches, for purposes of invasions this implies that the heavy equipment is being landed in the second wave. However, a lot of heavy equipment did land as part of the first wave. Why doesn’t Second Front allow units with heavy equipment to make amphibious landings?

The fact that various landing craft could unload heavy equipment on beaches does not mean that units with heavy equipment can make assault landings on enemy-held shores. There are several reasons for this. One is time versus capacity. Time is a critical factor: infantry and the like takes a very few minutes or even just seconds to disembark on a beach and go into combat. Heavy equipment is more difficult to unload. Small landing craft designed for heavy equipment (such as an LCM, Landing Craft Mechanized) could land and unload fairly quickly, but they couldn’t carry that much — you needed huge numbers of them (impractical) or many round trips (takes time) to land a large volume of heavy equipment. Larger landing craft (such as an LST, Landing Ship Tank) solved the capacity problem but took a longer time to disembark its cargo, which rendered its landing operations more vulnerable when the enemy was capable of direct fire on the beaches.

Another reason is that it is difficult to unload heavy equipment in bulk without assistance. Sure, the landing craft can get it to the beaches, but help is needed in getting the equipment out of the landing craft. Beach obstacles and mines must be removed, exit routes must be delineated and in some cases built up so that you don’t get stuck in the sand. Having labor on hand to unload the landing craft is extremely helpful, having people in place simply to direct traffic and make sure everything doesn’t grind to a confused, milling halt is important. All this means that if you are going to unload lots of heavy equipment, you had better have some control over the beach before the equipment lands.

A third reason is that the landing craft with high capacities for heavy equipment are restricted in their operations. An LST, for example, could land in 3.5 feet of water — you could not unload it directly on very flat beaches unless you were willing to beach it (which opens up another can of worms). Similarly, the LCT (Landing Craft Tank) Mark 3 could carry significantly more than the earlier marks, but its deep draft precluded it from being used in Normandy.

Sure, some heavy equipment landed early on in amphibious operations. At Europa scale, however, the net effect of all this is that the critical, early stages of the battle for the beach would be decided before enough heavy equipment could land and effectively join the action. The game builds these overall considerations into the amphibious landing system. [TEM 40, Errata1]

Can intrinsically amphibious units transport themselves from port to a beach, or must they use NTs?

They must use naval transport, either NTs or LCs (although in most cases you probably would want to use LCs to carry non-intrinsically amphibious units instead). [TEM 40, Errata1]

Can an LVT carry a marine commando?

Sure, but this seems a very inefficient use of assets. Since an LVT automatically makes the unit it carries amphibious, you seem to gain little by carrying a unit that is already amphibious. [TEM 40, Errata1]

Can LCs carry LVTs (and their passengers)?

Sure, but using NTs instead frees up LCs to carry other cargo. [TEM 40, Errata1]

Under the original SF rules, Rule 30.B, cargo could be disembarked from NTs without the need to transfer to LCs beforehand onto a friendly owned beach if it did not have heavy equipment. If I understand the original rules correctly, this would allow follow-up landings of unsupported infantry brigades and other non-combat/motorized units without heavy equipment (and supply points) on beaches without LCs in the exploitation phase following an amphibious landings during the movement phase. Here’s my question: under the “new, improved and revised” amphibious rules for SF, is this still allowed?

Per the Official Amphibious Re-cap, no. Only amphibious units may embark/disembark in a beach hex without LCs. The re-write of Rule 31B states, “Any amphibious unit (as defined in Rule 27B6) may land at a beach. A non-amphibious unit may also land at a beach, if it is solely on board LCs at the time of landing. (Note: A non-amphibious unit on board NTs or NTs in combination with LCs may not land at a beach.) [To make the above even clearer, read “embark/disembark” for “land” when it appears above.]

Here comes yet another naval transport example. For the purposes of naval transport and amphibious invasions, there are really only three classes of units in SF:

First, there are the intrinsically amphibious types, such as Marines, Marine Commando, Ranger, Amphibious Assault Engineers, Amphibious Tanks, and any non-HE, non-c/m units being carried by LVTs. The above units may embark or disembark at friendly owned beaches when using solely NTs; the NTs spend 60 MPs to embark/disembark amphibious units at a friendly beach. These units may also invade enemy owned beaches when using solely NTs; the NTs spend 90 MPs to disembark amphibious units at an enemy owned beach; this is an amphibious invasion.

Second, there are non-amphibious units which do not posses heavy equipment (and, obviously, are also non-c/m). These units may embark/disembark at friendly owned beaches but only if they use LCs solely. Since non-HE, non-c/m units are considered to be amphibious when loading or unloading from LCs, the LCs will pay 60 MPs to embark/ disembark such units at a friendly owned beach. These units may also invade enemy owned beach hexes as long as they use only LCs solely to do so; the LCs would pay 90 MPs to disembark such units in an enemy owned beach hex.

Third, there are those units which posses HE (and, obviously, all c/m units possess HE). But note well that intrinsic amphibious ability overrules any question of HE possession, in effect, if a unit is intrinsically amphibious, its HE status is ignored for purposes of naval transport and amphibious assault. For example, even though amphibious tank units have HE, this alone does not interfere with their ability to invade/transport to beaches. Basically, if a unit is intrinsically amphibious, this supersedes any other considerations, like HE.

For brevity, assume any reference to a unit with HE below means a non-intrinsically amphibious unit with HE. Units that possess HE may be embarked/disembarked at friendly owned beach hexes as long as they are transported solely aboard LCs; the LCs in this case spend 90 MPs to embark/disembark units with HE at a friendly owned beach. Units with HE may not disembark at enemy owned beaches.

Notes: In all cases, units which require LCs to embark/disembark at a beach only require them to embark/disembark; this means that the units may arrive at the beach hex using NTs, as long as they transfer from the NTs to LCs before they begin to disembark. This transfer costs an additional 30 MPs for both the NTs the unit transfers from and the LCs that the unit transfers to.

Example: A US Inf XX embarks upon NTs in Tunis (30 MPs) and moves to a friendly beach hex in Sicily (15 MPs).

In the beach hex, the NTs spend 30 MPs to transfer the cargo to waiting LCs (30 MPs for the NTs and the LCs; 15 MPs in the second half of Naval Movement Step II and 15 MPs in the first half of Naval Movement Step III).

During Naval Movement Step III, the LC begins spending the 90 MPs required to disembark the division; 15 MPs in NMstep III, 30 MPs in NMstep IV and 30 MPs in NMstep V. This ends the naval movement Phase; the Inf XX is still aboard the LCs, the LCs were short 15 MPs.

During the first NMstep of the exploitation phase, the LCs will spend 15 MPs, which completes the disembarkation process and the Inf XX is ashore (being non-c/m, it may not move, of course, but it may disembark, per 31A.) It may be useful to record such partial MP expenditures during the turn, using status markers or scrap paper.

Note that one cannot expend MPs to disembark a unit into an enemy-owned beach when using naval transport as distinct from amphibious landings. So, for example, units that are part of the follow up wave of an amphibious landing, that is, they are not invading, may not be even partially unloaded while the beach is still enemy owned.

Example: In an enemy owned beach hex are a number of NTs and LCs disembarking amphibious units to make the invasion. Also in that hex are a number of LCs carrying non-invading units. The LCs carrying the non-invading units may not expend MPs to disembark those units during the movement phase, since the beach is currently enemy owned. The beach will become friendly owned during the combat phase (assuming successful combat…) and the LCs carrying the non-invading units will be able to disembark those units during the exploitation phase. The LCs must spend the full number of MPs required, either 60 or 90, solely in the exploitation phase. Note that it may be possible to sequence things so that the LCs carrying invading units can receive the non-invading units, using transfer at sea, during the movement phase, as long as the LCs have MPs remaining after disembarking all invading units.

Put simply, you can not expend even one MP for naval transport disembarkation in a currently enemy owned hex.

Note also that ownership of beach hexes, for the purposes of naval transport, is gained/lost during friendly phases. This means that you may not disembark units in a beach hex that you did not own at the start of a particular phase.

Example: Friendly airborne units make an airdrop into, and gain ownership of, an enemy owned beach during the current friendly movement phase; no friendly units may be transported to that beach during the movement phase, since it was not friendly owned at the start of the movement phase. During the subsequent combat phase, the undisrupted airborne units gain control of the beach. Now friendly units may use naval transport to disembark in the hex during the subsequent exploitation phase. And per the above note, no MPs for disembarkation could have been spent during the movement phase, since the beach was still enemy owned at that time.

Note well that you may not use a port that was not friendly owned at the beginning of the initial phase of the current player turn. So one may not use ports captured in the current player turn for any naval transport. One can, of course use the beach in the port hex, as long as it was friendly owned per the paragraph above.

C/m Beach Landings [TEM 49]

Does a c/m unit that lands on a beach in the exploitation phase have any Mps left to move? How about if it lands during normal movement phase? If using the optional rule on MPs being used depending on how many steps in transit and only paying to disembark. What about disembarking in a port ?

Whether or not a unit will have any MPs left or not after naval movement depends on a number of factors. Perhaps some examples will help:

Let’s assume basic game rules, and a c/m unit with 10 printed mps.

If the unit embarked at a port in the exploitation phase, it will pay 2 MPs to do so (1 MP to embark, x2 for c/m unit), will pay 4 MPs to disembark (1 MP to disembark, x2 for c/m unit, x2 for non-amphibious unit to a beach) and will thus have 4 MPs remaining to expend during the exploitation phase. If embarked at a beach, the unit will pay 4 MPs to embark (1 MP, x2 for c/m, x2 for non-amphibious unit from a beach) and the same 4 MPs to disembark, leaving it with 2 MPs to expend. If the unit embarked during any previous movement or exploitation phase, then it would only pay to disembark during this phase, paying 4 MPs to do so, and would thus have 6 MPs to expend.

Having moved by naval transport during a movement phase does not affect movement capabilities during the following exploitation phase; thus the unit would have 10 MPs to spend in the exploitation phase following a movement phase in which it used naval transport.

If using Optional Rule 44G2… Regardless of when the unit embarked, it will pay 2 MPs (being c/m) for each naval movement step at sea during the exploitation phase. Let us suppose that the unit begins the exploitation phase loaded upon an LC in a friendly beach hex. It will cost the LC 90 MPs to disembark the unit so our unit will have been at sea for a minimum of three naval movement steps; thus it will pay 6 MPs for the time spent on the LC, and will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark, for a total of 10 MPs. Thus it will have no MPs to expend during this exploitation phase for ground movement. Since this example is the most favorable possible situation for a c/m unit disembarking on a beach during the exploitation phase, it may be useful to simply understand the optional rule as requiring a c/m unit to pay ALL of its MPs to disembark on a beach in an exploitation phase; this is the effect of the rule in practice.

When using the basic rules, and disembarking at a friendly owned port with sufficient capacity: the unit, if embarking at a port during the exploitation phase, will pay 2 MPs to embark and 2 MPs to disembark (I MP, x2 for c/m unit) for a total of 4 MPs, and will thus have 6 MPs to expend during exploitation ground movement.

If using Optional Rule 44G when embarking at a port: the unit will pay nothing to embark, 2 MPs per naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs (1MP, x2 for c/m unit) to disembark. If it began the exploitation phase loaded on a NT in a friendly port, then the NT would spend a minimum of 30 MPs to disembark the unit, or one naval movement step. Thus the ground unit will pay 2 MPs for the one naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs to disembark; leaving it with 6 MPs to expend for ground movement.

Naval Patrol [TEM 49]

If a TF is sitting in a coastal hex while a landing is continuing then how is an anti-naval patrol air unit supposed to make contact with it? The TF can start each naval step as night - when anti naval patrol attacks can’t he made, and they may only attempt contact when a TF enters or starts a step in a hex. Logically, of course, they should be able to delay attempting contact until the night movement points are used and day arrives, but we can’t see anything in the rules or errata or mags about this.

Your question covers quite a few concepts of the naval rules and a situation that everyone has to face, so I thought I would go into this in much more detail than I normally would when answering such a question.

First of all, presumably the TF is there to help protect the LC making the landing, as well as possibly providing NGS. To do the former, it must be part of a Naval Group that includes the LC/NTs. (Naval groups are defined in Rule 27132 and their impact on movement is covered in Rule 28.) Simply being in the same hex is not enough. So I will assume first that the naval TF is part of a naval group which contains the LCs.

Refer to Rule 34A4, “Movement at Night.” Amphibious landings may not be made at night, so no naval group which contains LC/NTs making an amphibious landing can be moving” at night.

Therefore, the naval group containing the TF is a legitimate target for the Naval Patrol air mission (Rule 20G2h). It not only will begin the naval movement step in the landing hex, but will also have to expend 30 MPs each naval movement step until the LCs have unloaded their cargo. And since the NG can’t be 11 moving” at night, it cannot begin a friendly naval movement step “at night” while conducting an amphibious invasion.

By being part of the naval group with the LC/NTs, the TF will be able to provide AA strength, if it is either the unit with the largest AA strength, or, of course, if it is the only TF in the NG. Also, as naval bombing hits are applied randomly and in a descending order of precedence, beginning with TFs, the TF will also “absorb” some of the bombing hits achieved. And of course, by being part of the LCNT naval group, the TF protects the naval group should enemy TF/s initiate naval combat against the naval group.

But say you don’t want the TF to be part of the naval group containing the LC/NTs. This is fine as well; Any number of naval groups can be in the same hex during a turn (they all automatically become one single naval group at the end of each player turn). Just keep in mind that the TF, if not in the same naval group as the LCNTs, cannot protect them from enemy TFs or be included in any naval patrol mission declared against the naval group containing the LCNTs. This may or not be a good idea.

So what if our TF is in the hex, but not part of the LC/NT naval group? Let’s say it is preparing to fire NGS during the combat phase following the amphibious landing. First of all, it could not have entered the hex using night movement and begin the next naval movement step also considered to be “moving” at night; it must expend 20 MPs during the daytime before it can use night movement at night. This means the enemy can run a naval bombing mission when it entered the hex or that they will be able to run naval bombing missions in the next naval movement step, if it arrived in the hex at night.

Also note well what Rule 28 says about naval units expending MPs; they can be expended to enter adjacent hexes and to perform other activities. There is no provision for “burning” MPs, that is, remaining in a hex, expending MPs by choice without doing anything. To expend one or more MPs the naval unit must either move, or perform one of the activities referred to in Rule 28.

This means that if the TF declares itself to be protected by the night movement rule at the beginning of a naval movement step in which it does not expend any MPs, then it can not be considered to be moving at night in the immediately following naval movement step, since it did not expend the 20 MPs required to do so, by Rule 34A4.

But our naval commander is tricky and willing to do whatever it takes to protect this TF! The TF will handle things so that it expends its 60th MP to enter the hex in question. At the beginning of the next naval movement step, it declares itself ,‘moving at night” while expending the first 10 MPs of 30 MPs this step to prepare for NGS. This way, it will always have expended 20 MPs prior to beginning the next naval movement step. Crafty bugger.

But note that the TF still had to arrive in the hex using day movement, giving the enemy at least one crack at running naval bombing missions against our perfidious TF.

Much of the difficulty with this kind of situation is contained in the rules regarding naval bombing missions; if the rules said that one could fly such a mission when an enemy naval group “expended any MPs in a hex”, instead of the perhaps too vague .,enters”, all of this would be simple. I would recommend such a change be used as a “House Rule”; that’s how I play it, anyway.

I don’t believe the intent of the rules is to provide some kind of mystical protection against air attack for naval units sitting in a hex, as opposed to entering it. What would prevent the bombers from choosing to not fly at night against a naval unit sitting in a hex? Surely, if the naval unit can only spend one third of its MPs at night in a hex, it follows that it must be spending two thirds of its MPs during the day, when air units can attack it.

Assuming that a naval unit cannot spend delay MPs (see Naval Patrol above): Assuming that a naval unit does not have to spend any/all of its 30 MPs per naval movement step: Rule 20G2h says that “When an enemy naval group begins a movement step in, or enters, any hex within an air unit’s naval patrol zone, the owning player may announce an air mission against the enemy naval group”. Rule 34F says that a naval group in an enemy danger zone must be checked for contact “if it starts a friendly naval movement step at sea in a danger zone”. The answer above does seem to indicate, however, that a contact attempt requires the expenditure of movement points by the naval group.

That answer was written before a very important clarification by John Astell, that is, that the time period represented by the words “the start of a friendly movement naval movement step” and “begins a movement step in” are always daylight. A naval group (NG) may not choose to be moving at night until it moves and the NG is not moving at the beginning of a naval movement step. Note that naval patrol missions and DZ contacts may occur at the beginning of the naval movement step, that is, before the NGs begin moving, and thus before they can claim night movement status. Once all DZ contact rolls and naval patrol air missions that the non-phasing player wishes to make are resolved, then (and only then) may phasing NGs be considered to be moving and therefore claim to be moving at night. Note also the exception in the first paragraph of rule 34A4 states that “during a naval movement sub-phase, once a naval group uses night movement, it may not do so again (in a subsequent step) until it has spent at least 20 MPs.” Thus you can not “carry over” night movement status from naval movement step to naval movement step. Even if you expend your last MP in a naval movement step at night, that NG still begins the next naval movement step in daylight and must spend 20 MPs before it can claim night status again. Bottom line: night movement can not affect DZ contact attempts, nor naval patrol missions, that the non-phasing player wishes to conduct at the beginning of a naval movement step. [TEM 73]

Harassment

The current method of resolving harassment in SF doesn’t work correctly. The primary issues are when hit markers are placed, and the effects of multiple missions to the same hex.

The correct procedure is as follows:

At the completion of each individual harassment air operation, mark the number of TBFs delivered to the hex by that air operation. Use status markers to mark the number of TBFs delivered, or any other agreed upon method.

In any subsequent harassment air ops to the same hex, add any additional TBFs delivered to the total marked in the hex.

At the end of the initial phase in which these harassment air ops occurred, total up the number of TBFs in each target hex for harassment air ops and place a harassment hit level marker in each hex, which corresponds to the number of TBFs delivered to that hex, as spelt out in the bullet points of SF 20.G.2.d.

As per 20.G.2.d and the bullet points therein, note that any individual hex can have no more than 2 harassment hits affecting it. Furthermore, this limit also applies to all units and supply items - no unit or supply item can be affected by more than two harassment hits in any single hex.

Note that in the cases of level-3 or level-4 harassment hit markers, adjacent hexes can be affected by the harassment levels in those adjacent hexes. [note also that level-3 harassment hit markers do NOT indicate 3 hits in one hex, they represent 2 hits in the hex with the marker, and 1 hit in all adjacent land hexes, similarly, a level-4 harassment hit marker does not represent 4 hits in a hex, it represents 2 hits in the hex with the marker and 2 hits in each adjacent land hex. ] In the case of hexes adjacent to hexes containing level-3 harassment hit markers, note that the effects are cumulative to a maximum of two hits, ie if a hex was adjacent to two or more level-3 harassment hit markers, then it would be treated as if two harassment hits were present in the hex. Since all hexes adjacent to a level-4 harassment hit marker are already considered to have two harassment hits, and two hits is the maximum that can affect any single hex, no question of accumulation arises in the case of level-4 harassment hit markers.

Note therefore that one does NOT mark hits as they are accumulated, as currently stated in the rules, but rather you record and mark TBFs delivered to hexes as they are delivered, and only place the correct harassment hit level marker at the END of the initial phase in which those TBFs are delivered.

Second Front Off-Map Distance Chart

Note: this chart was published in TEM 59/60 (p. 7) with errors. This version is hopefully correct.

Second Front corrected off-map display
LEGEND:

+ ---------- +     ~~~~~~~~~~     -----  = Naval Routes between boxes

! Holding    !    / Sea      \\      50   = Naval MP cost

! Box Name:  !   /  Box       \\

! Port Name  !   \\  (no ports)/   # = SF map entry/exit hexes.

! Size/Aircap!    \\          /

+ ---------- +     ~~~~~~~~~~     ====== = Air Transfer Route

Port Box            Sea Box

Size: Port Size Aircap: airbase Capacity

Grt: Great #: capacity

Mjr: Major U: unlimited capacity

This is the optional Off-Map Distances Chart, which players may use in place of Second Front’s Off-Map Port Summary. It expands on the Off-Map Port Summary, offering additional choices such as 1) off-map naval movement between Britain and Gibraltar, 2) off-map naval movement between eastern and western Britain, and 3) off-map naval movement around Africa. Air options are also added, including crating of air units, off-map air transfer, and the Takoradi air route.

Allied Off-Map Ports

The Allied player has off-map ports for various of his holding boxes, as listed on the off-map distance chart.

Each off-map port is displayed on the chart as a port box, which list the port’s holding box, port name, and port size. An off-map port is always functioning and cannot be damaged. The chart also contains sea boxes, which contain no ports, map entry/exit hexes, and naval routes between the boxes. Each route shows the number of naval movement points between points on the chart. For example, the great port of Liverpool in the Britain holding box is 12 naval MPs from Belfast in the Northern Ireland holding box, and is 18 naval MPs from the ENE Atlantic sea box. The ENE Atlantic sea box is 8 hexes from the map entry/exit hexes of 17A:0122-0116.

The Allied player may move his naval groups (and any cargo) on the chart from box to box and between the map and the boxes. A naval group may exit or enter the map at the indicated map entry hexes. Naval groups may not use the Takoradi Air Route.

It may take more than one movement step for a naval group to move between the map and an off-map port. Use status markers or make a note to keep track of the progress of the moving naval group.

Allied Off-Map Air Movement

Each port box is also an airbase, with an airbase capacity. Sea boxes have no airbases. Air units can fly air transfer missions from box to box on the chart and can fly any allowed missions between a box on the chart and the map. Since the distances shown on the chart are calculated for naval movement purposes, use only 75% of the distance for air movement. For example, a distance of 12 on the chart would cost a naval unit 12 MPs but an air unit only 9 MPs. (This of course is not completely accurate in all cases but works acceptably.)

Air units may use the Takoradi Air Route to transfer between Dakar, West Africa, and Alexandria, North Africa. (The air route was a series of transfer airfields across central Africa that could be used even by shorter-ranged aircraft). An air unit may fly from one box to the other by flying an air transfer mission; when arriving at its destination box it immediately becomes inoperative.

Air Unit Crating Summary

Air Unit Type         Crating Time      Uncrating Time        Cargo Size

Fighter                 0 turns           1 turn                2 REs

All others*             1 turn            1 turn                4 REs

* except types HB, HT, and GHT.

Crating Air Units

The Allied player may crate certain air units and move them using naval transport. All air units except types HB, HT, and GHT may be crated. To be crated, the air unit must at an airbase which is in a hex containing a port, and the crating time cost must be accounted for (see the Air Unit Crating Summary). For example, a fighter being crated in the Allied initial phase of Sep I 43 is immediately crated (0 turns crating time), while a type B (1 turn crating time) being crated at the same time would be crated in the Allied initial phase of Sep II 43. (All crating and uncrating times are given in game turns.) Use any convenient marker to denote a crated air unit; an air unit may not fly any air mission until it is uncrated.

A crated air unit may be transported by naval transport. Its cargo size is given on the Air Unit Crating Summary. It may be disembarked at any port that contains a friendly-owned airbase. The air unit is not uncrated upon disembarkation. Instead, the Allied player may uncrate during Allied initial phases, and the uncrating time cost must be accounted for. For example, a fighter being uncrated in the Allied initial phase of Sep II 43 would finish uncrating in the Allied initial phase of Oct I 43. Once an air unit is finished uncrating, it may become operational that same phase if airbase capacity allows.

Caveat: The crating rule is not fully researched, particularly in the area of crating/uncrating times. However, conservative estimates for crating/uncrating times were used, so it is unlikely the Allied player gains any significant ahistorical capability using this rule.

Work in Progress

Below are some e-mail messages that will probably be consolidated in the sections above. I’m also collecting all SF material in TEM, but this is an uphill battle (it includes articles, editorials, EXchange letters and answers, Rules Court decisions, etc. ad nauseam). Suggestions are welcome.

To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:46:51 -0700

Subject: [EuropaAssociation] Guru: SF 31 and 32

>

> Although this is to the Guru and he has the real authority we are trying =

to=20

> move along with our SF PBEM.=A0 Other knowledgeable people are welcome to=

=20

> provide insight.

>

> Rule 32D:

>

> Enemy reaction.

> A reacting unit moves as follows:

> -it may spend up to 1 MP (if non-c/m) or 3 MPs (if c/m) to move.

> -A unit may always move a single hex (except into or across prohibited=20

> terrain), by spending all of its reaction MPs.

> -it may enter a hex occupied by both friendly and enemy units. If it does=

=20

> so, it must stop its movement in that hex.

> -if in a hex containing enemy units (such as due to an enemy airborne or=

=20

> amphibious landing), it may leave the hex. Alternately, it may overrun (i=

f=20

> possible) the enemy units in the hex. Follow the rules of overrun (Rule=20

> 13), including spending MPs for the overrun.

> -it may not end its movement in violation of the stacking limits.

> -it may not break down or assemble during reaction movement.

>

>



>

> Rule 31D:

> Transfer of Cargo at Sea.

> "Naval transports may transfer cargo to landing craft rather than=20

> disembarking the cargo at a beach or a port. The NT carrying the cargo, a=

nd=20

> the LC to receive the cargo, must be at sea in the same naval group and i=

n=20

> a beach or port hex. Both the NT transferring the cargo, and the LC=20

> receiving the cargo must spend 30 MPs. Once transferred, the cargo is=20

> embarked aboard the LC. The LC may subsequently land the cargo at a beach=

=20

> or port, or transport it elsewhere."

>

>

> Never took note of the words "cargo is embarked aboard the LC" until Paul=

=20

> Mills pointed it out.=A0 Not sure if this means the same thing as embarki=

ng=20

> thru a port or across a beach though.=A0 My question is:=A0 Can a non-c/m=

unit=20

> use rule 31D during the exploitation phase, or does it run afoul of 31A=20

> "During the exploitation phase, a non-c/m unit may disembark; it may not,=

=20

> however, embark during this phase"?

RCV: Note how the paragraph above carefully uses the term "transfer/s" to

describe an action normally referred to as "embarking". The reason a

different

term IS used is because a different process is at work here.=20=20

A non-c/m unit is not affected by 31.A because it is not embarking, it is

transferring. If Transferring was exactly the same as Embarking, then ther=

e

would be no need for the two separate terms, and "transferring" would not b=

e

employed.

The fact that cargo is embarked upon the LC after it is transferred does n=

ot

change the fact that it was never, per the rules, "embarking" at all, it wa=

s

transferring. Two different concepts, two different terms.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

www.go.to/europa

[email protected]







To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:30:10 -0700

Subject: [EuropaAssociation] Guru: SF isolation and rebuilding

> Playing SF at the moment (only the Italian Campaign)

> and have three

> questions.

>

> Can a unit that is isolated when it is destroyed

> still be rebulit later?

RCV: Yes. Isolation status has no impact upon replacing a unit.

> When rebuilding a unit, if the Unit has a cadre must

> it be rebuilt to its

> cadre first turn and then the second turn rebuilt to

> full strength, or can

> it be rebuilt from nothing to full strength in one

> turn?

RCV: It may be rebuilt as either a cadre or a full strength division, at

the owning player's choice. Note well the 3d para of SF 40.B.1.a - which

outlines that an eliminated unit with a cadre can be replaced at its cadre

strength or at its full strength - and that no special restrictions apply.

> Is there any limit on the total number of units that

> can be rebuilt, in

> general, I know you can rebuild only one engineer

> and one para regiment at

> times but can you rebuild for example 3 infantry

> divisions in the one turn?

RCV: Limitations only apply to those unit types which are specifically

enumerated in the rules, under 40.B.2 and 3. All other unit types have no

limitations on their replacement.

Yes, you could replace 3 Inf XXs in one turn - you could replace 100 of

them for that matter, as long as you have sufficient replacement points to

cover the required expenditures.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

www.go.to/europa

[email protected]







Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 14:13:32 -0700

From: Rich Velay

To: Luiz Claudio Duarte

Subject: Re: GURU: SF air rules

At 02:03 AM 09/01/2000 , Luiz Claudio Duarte wrote:

>We have decided to start a SF/MTO game to replace our defunct WitD one.

>Some questions popped out while reading the rules:

>

>2. (18) During an air mission, must a movement group use only the

>shortest path to the target hex, or can it take a circuitous route to

>avoid interception?

RCV: As with the movement of any unit, air unit or naval unit, it is under

the complete control of the player, consistent with all other rules of

course. You can move ANY of your forces in any legal manner you wish, so

yes, you can fly missions in such a way as to avoid possible patrol

attacks. They may in fact take any route you choose, again, within the

bounds of the rules.

>3. (20C) Are fighter interception ranges also limited by the 8-hex rule,

> like patrol zones (19)?

RCV: No. Since patrol attacks and interceptions are completely different

missions, if there WERE such a limitation, it would have to be listed in

the interception mission specific rules - it isn't, so therefore it doesn't

apply.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 14:45:29 -0700

From: Rich Velay

To: Courtenay Footman

Subject: Re: GURU: SF questions

At 12:15 PM 09/01/2000 , Courtenay Footman wrote:

>Some SF questions:

>

>1) 20E: If a fighter flies in a CAP mission to a hex, and then subsequently

>changes to some other mission (for example, it intercepts an enemy mission

>to the hex), at the end of that other mission, does it return to base, or

>does it go back to CAP? (I thought I knew this, but was told that there was

>a ruling opposite to what I thought was the case.)

RCV: Once an air unit on CAP has changed its mission to something else, it

is no longer flying CAP and is thus bound by the rules for the air mission

it switched to. That being the case, what happens to all missions when

finished is that the air units participating return to base. So... if the

air unit has returned to base, it could not "go back to CAP".....

>2) 21B1e: Suppose multiple bombers are flying a mission, unescorted, and a

>single enemy fighter intercepts the bombers. Does the enemy fighter engage

>each of them in turn, assuming a bomber does not achieve a combat result

>against it, or does it engage just one bomber, and then go home? I am a

>little puzzled by the reference to step 'a', which seems to imply that the

>fighter has a chance to engage all the bombers, and the next sentence in

>the rule, which states "Mission force air units not attacked by interceptors

>are ignored."

RCV: The interceptor fights one [and only one] of the missions force air

units, chosen at random. Not sure where the confusion arises, since the

previous sentence you cite simply means you randomly allocate one

interceptor versus one mission force air unit, until you run out of

interceptors or mission force air units. With only one interceptor in your

example, the intercepting player "runs out" of air units after randomly

allocating one air unit. Now the allocation step is completed and you move

on to combat resolution. Since the combat consists of one interceptor vs

one mission force air unit, the resolution will be completed after that

single exchange of fire.



>Example: An Me 109G6 attacks 2 B-26Bs on a mission, and the first B-26 rolls

>a ten for its air to air combat, missing. Does the Me 109 get to attack the

>second B-26, as well as the first?

RCV: No. Each interceptor may attack one, and ONLY one, mission force air

unit.

>3) 21B1c: Suppose intercepting fighters bypass an escort screen, and one

>fighter is unengaged and available to intercept them. May that fighter

>attack each of the bypassing fighters? Again, there is a reference to "step

>a". This fighter doesn't have to worry about return fire.

RCV: Step a simply describes how you allocate planes, ie randomly allocate

one air unit vs one other air unit. When you bypass the screen, each air

unit in the escort screen will attack one of the by passers. If you mean

that there are more escorts than bypassers, then follow 21.B.c, ie the

"extra" air unit in the screen will be randomly allocated against one of

the bypassers, based on the second para of 21.B.a

So, assuming say, 6 bypassers and 7 interceptors in the escort screen,

five of the bypassers will have one escort randomly allocated against them

ad one bypasser will have two escorts randomly allocated against it.

Then you proceed to air combat resolution.

>4) If a ground unit is aboard a transport that is sunk in the naval movement

>sub-phase of the movement phase, is it isolated? Assume that the unit

>started the phase ashore in a non-isolated port.

RCV: With that assumption, then no, it is not isolated. Isolation was

last checked for this unit during the initial phase, when it was not

isolated. It thus maintains that unisolated status until the next

isolation check, ie, at the beginning of the combat phase.

>5) If a commando battalion gets an F* result attempting a surprise attack

>on coast defenses during the naval movement sub-phase of the movement phase,

>is it isolated? Again, assume that the unit started the phase ashore in a

>non-isolated port.

RCV: As above, no, it is not isolated since it was not isolated the last

time isolation was checked.

>6) In the above questions, is the unit isolated if it starts the turn aboard

>ship which is in port? (Assume the port is not isolated.)

RCV: If the naval unit is IN the port [not simply in the port hex] then

the unit is also considered in the port, and therefore able to trace

regular overland supply lines. Were the NT/LC at sea in the port hex, then

the unit would be isolated and out of supply.

>7) I think I know this, but want to ask anyway: if a unit starts the turn

>aboard a ship that is in port in a supplied port, is the unit supplied?

RCV: Again it depends upon the location within the hex of the naval unit -

if they are in the port, then any cargo they are carrying is both

non-isolated and in supply - if the naval unit is at sea in the hex, then

the cargo is at sea as well and would be unable to trace any sort of an

overland supply line/LOC.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]



Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:40:57 -0700

From: Rich Velay

To: Courtenay Footman

Subject: Re: GURU: SF night movement

At 07:58 AM 09/11/2000 , Courtenay Footman wrote:

>Rich, here are some questions about your favorites:=A0 Naval rules!=A0 :-)

RCV: Ohhh nooo... lafffs. Well, thanks for the warning at least. :)

>These questions concern night movement.

>

>All night movement is in a single step.=A0 One can not split night movement=

=20

>over two steps.=A0 Thus, the start of each step will always be day.

>Are these statements correct?

RCV: Correct. The key here is the exception included above the bullet

points,

to wit that a naval unit may NOT expend any MPs as night movement "(in a

subsequent step) until it has spent at least 20 MPs." So even if you could

end

[which you can NOT] NMStep #1 having only expended your last, single MP as

night movement, the exception prevents you from claiming that you begin the

following NMStep at night, since you have not yet spent 20 or more MPs NOT=

at

night, as required by the exception.

>May a phasing naval group spend less than 10 MPs as night movement in the

>middle of its move?=A0=20

RCV: No, the rules require that you spend "any 10 continuous MPs" when=

using

night movement, they do not say "10 or less" or "up to 10", they say 10

continuous MPs. The word "continuous" is significant and means exactly

what it

sounds like, ie that to move at night one must expend 10 continuous MPs at

night, no more and no less.

After all, the naval commander can not control the passage of the sun=

through

the heavens! :)

>Example:=A0 For whatever reason, a unit wants to spend 30 MPs, with MPs=

1-20

>spent during the day, 21-25 at night, and 26-30 during the day.=A0 Is this

>legal?

RCV: No, that NG has not spent "10 continuous MPs" at night, so it has not

abided by the rules. =20

You see, if you could spend less than 10 MPs, then you are, in effect,

controlling the amount of daylight present in a NMStep, and even Europa

players

can not control that! :) Also, you then get into odd situation where an=

NG,

for example, could be argued as being able to split 5 MPs at night over one

NMStep and then begin the next NMStep still at night, these being after

all, 10

"continuous" MPs. The exception cited above serves to prevent that, and it

also removes any question about there being some advantage TO spending less

than 10 MPs at night in any NMStep.

So bottom line is that if you DO expend any MPs at night in a NMStep, then

they must be 10, and only 10, continuous MPs expended for night movement.

That

would also mean that one can not decide to begin night movement in a NMStep=

if

an NG has already expended 21 or more MPs, since it would then be impossible

for it TO expend the "10 continuous MPs" required by the rules.

Since it would have been so simple to say "up to 10" or "10 or less", in=

lieu

of "10 continuous MPs", I have to assume that the terminology used was

deliberate and desired.

>If the answer to the previous question is "no", what happens when two naval

>groups combine, but one them is moving at night, and the other can't?=A0=

(If

>the answer is "yes", this question's answer is clear.)

>

>Example:=A0 Two naval groups combine.=A0 One has spent 25 MPs, the other=

28.

>The two units declared night on impulses 16 (16-25) and 21 (21-30),

>respectively.=A0 How many MPs has the combined group spent?=20

>

>Possible answers:

>a)=A0 28, and MP 29 will be day;

>b)=A0 30, and they can't move any farther this step;

>c)=A0 Something else?

RCV: A. The new NG takes on the MPs expended of the original NG that had

expended the most MPs. In your example, that is the second NG, which has

expended 28 MPs and thus has only 2 remaining, so the combined NG can not

possibly have more than 2 MPs remaining.

The new combined NG can not possibly be moving at night for the 29th or=

30th

MPs, since one of the component NGs had already exhausted its ability TO=

move

at night [it did so when it expended the 26th MP of its allotment]. If we

allow the combined NG to move at night, then we are breaking both the spirit

and the letter of the rules, in that some of its components are actually

spending more than 10 MPs at night in this NMStep, and that is expressly

forbidden by the night movement rules.

Since the rules already spell out the idea of the new combined NG taking on

the limitations imposed by the NG with the fewest remaining MPs, I think it=

is

safe to assume that the rules are NOT intended to allow the forming of a new

combined NG to result in any of its components getting a movement advantage

vis

a vis night movement. With that consideration in mind, it seems clear=

that

any NG with remaining night movement capability has to give that capability

up,

IF it wishes to form a new NG with any NG/s who are unable to expend any=

more

night MPs.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]



Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:16:25 -0700

From: Rich Velay

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: GURU: SF: various rules due to an air drop (long post)

At 03:30 PM 09/16/2000 , Dean Moon wrote:

>

>Belle (17A:1322) is Axis-owned (has never been Allied-owned during the

game) and

>therefore has a CD ground defense strength of 1 (level 2 CD due to minor

>Atlantic port.) The island and all the units and facilities there are at U-2

>supply status. An Axis 3-2-8 Artillery regiment is stationed at Belle.

There

>is also a permanent airfield and an operational fighter air unit based at

that

>airfield.

>

>During the Allied player turn, specifically in the movement phase, the Allied

>player flies a heavily escorted Air Drop Transport air operation to Belle,

>dropping two parachute units. The Axis fighter gambles and decides to

neither

>patrol attack nor intercept the Allied air operation, and furthermore does

not

>scramble. (The idea being that interception of Allied GS or escort of

Axis DAS

>air ops in the combat phase would be more effective.) A 3-5 parachute

regiment

>(American) lands undisrupted, and a 2-5 parachute brigade (British) lands

badly

>disrupted.

>

>[An aside. There is a dead horse I want to beat, and its name is 44.G.3.

Let's

>consider for a moment if in the above situation, the Axis artillery

regiment was

>not present on Belle. For the Allies, we have a 3-5 unit and a badly

disrupted

>2-5 unit (attack strength zero.) It is obvious that at the very least there

>will be combat resolved in this hex during the combat phase. However, we

should

>first consider if overrun conditions have been achieved. The odds now are at

>3:1, so no overrun is possible. According to the recent GURU ruling, the 1

>point of CD ground defense strength is only present in the hex for the

purposes

>of rules 9, 11, 13 and 14B. So I think we are all in agreement to this

point.

>However, the first sentence of 24.B.1. Hex Ownership during Airborne Landing

>Ground Operations reads: "An undisrupted air-droppable [Official Errata

3-96]

>unit gains immediate ownership of the hex it dropped in, if the hex is not

>occupied by enemy units." So, since 44.G.3. does not say anything about

>intrinsic CD strength being a unit for the purposes of 24.B.1., my snap

reaction

>is that this "unit" does not exist at this point, the hex is therefore not

>occupied by enemy units, and the undisrupted American 3-5 parachute regiment

>immediately gains ownership of the hex, the airfield (Axis fighter must now

>attempt to escape) and the port (although it may not be used for naval

transport

>until next turn.) But I would like to get an official ruling to confirm my

>understanding of the recent ruling on 44.G.3. Back to the unmodified

>example....]

RCV: The airborne [and by extension amphibious] overrun rules reference

rule 13 for deciding if the conditions for the overrun are met; since rule

13 is indeed one in which CD defense strength exists, then the CD has a

defense strength for the purposes of any overrun, including an airborne

overrun.

The strength comes into existence as soon as the question of potential

combat/overrun comes in to play here. The fact that air dropped units must

engage in combat/overrun with any enemy units that occupy the hex means

that the status of the CD defense strength "as unit" must be decided

before the air drop can progress to the point where combat is mandated; in

that you must know the situation before you can resolve the situation.

Since 44.G3 includes overruns, and the airborne overrun rules reference

rule 13 for deciding if an overrun is possible or not, it follows then that

the defense strength exists since rule 13 is operative for the purposes of

resolving the airborne overrun.



>There is not enough Allied strength for an Airborne Overrun (24.B.2.) so we

>proceed to the combat phase. Unfortunately, the Axis do not have air units

>within DAS range (save the Axis fighter based at Belle), and so the Axis

player

>decides to hold off and hope to intercept an Allied GS air operation.

But, the

>Allied player flies no GS air operation at Belle. (Let's sat the Allied

player

>forgot to factor his lack of support into the odds.) So to summarize the

>situation, on the attack we have an unsupported, undisrupted 3-5 American

unit

>(contributes 1.5 to the attack strength) and an unsupported, badly

disrupted 2-5

>British unit (contributes nothing to the attack strength.) On the defense we

>have an unsupplied (U-2) German 3-2-8 artillery unit and the equivalent of a

>0-1-0 artillery unit (i.e. the CD ground defense strength) for the

purposes of

>combat.

>

>>>>>REQUEST FOR RULING: Although not relevant to the resolution of the above

>combat, I would like to confirm my understanding of prior rulings on CD. CD

>strength is never subject to supply considerations, and it therefore follows

>that CD ground defense strength is likewise never subject to out-of-supply

>effects. This is supported by recent rulings and the fact that rule 12 is

not

>mentioned in 44.G.3.

RCV: Correct; supply or lack thereof does not affect CD, nor the strength

CD can act as in certain situations.

>CD ground defense strength is subject to the limitations of 14.B., and

therefore

>the German 3-2-8 artillery unit and the 0-1-0 artillery CD ground defense

>strength total strength of 1. 1.5:1

RCV: Correct. [note that subsequent games have dealt with potential

anomalies in 14.B, but the above is correct per the SF RAW.]

>>>>>REQUEST FOR RULING: The badly disrupted 2-5 British unit does not

>contribute strength to the attack, but must still attack due to the first

>sentence of 24.B.3 Combat during Airborne Landing Ground Operations. But

is the

>last paragraph of 43.E. Allied Co-Operation ("If units from two or more

>contingents *participate in an attack*, subtract 1 from the....die roll."

>[empahsis mine]) invoked due to the presence of the badly disrupted

British unit

>(despite the fact it does not contribute to the attack) along side the

>undisrupted American unit?

RCV: Yes, since the badly disrupted unit must participate in the attack,

even though it contributes nothing to the attack.

>Pending the above ruling, let's assume the affirmative and apply the DRM

of -1.

>Finally, the die is rolled. 1.5:1 (-1) Providence, Hollywood, the "Luck

of the

>Irish", (and anything else they can think of) are all on the side of the

Allies,

>who roll a "6". Modified to a "5" gives the mixed-bag EX combat result. Now

>the fun starts.

>

>EX results are implemented based upon printed combat strength. By prior

ruling,

>the CD ground defense strength is counted for exchange purposes (it's in

Rule 9)

>and so the printed strength for the Axis defense is 3. Allied printed

strength

>for the Allied attack is 5. The defender's printed strength is lower, so the

>Axis units are eliminated. Unfortunately for the Americans, they bite it

>because they have the printed strength which equates to the defender's.

>(Where's the Hollywood ending?)

RCV: This is correct.

>So we have an Axis-owned hex, Axis-owned port, Axis-owned airbase (with an

>operational fighter based there.) And we have an Allied 2-5 Parachute

Brigade

>which is badly disrupted, but apparently still has some fight in it (half

>defense strength.)

>

>The above situation w.r.t. the "regeneration" of the Axis CD ground defense

>strength has already been questioned in another query, so I won't repeat it

>here.

>

>>>>>REQUEST FOR RULING: May the Axis player continue to use the airfield for

>any allowed purposes for the remainder of the Allied turn, and the

entirety of

>the following Axis turn?

RCV: Yes, he owns the airfield in the hex.

> Does this include Regular Transport air operations to the Belle airfield?

RCV: Yes, since he owns the airfield in the hex.

> If so, how is the situation resolved once there are Axis

>units in the same hex with the Allied badly disrupted unit? Conventional

>overrun seems to be out of the question as (by prior ruling) units may not

spend

>MPs for any purpose after they are air transported. Airborne Overrun also

seems

>to be disallowed as that can only be conducted from an Air Drop Transport air

>operation.

RCV: The Axis player would have to have a combat vs the badly disrupted

airborne units if he occupied the same hex as them.

>>>>>REQUEST FOR RULING: May the Axis player continue to use the port and the

>beach for any allowed purposes?

RCV: Yes.

> Does this include disembarking Axis unitsthere?

RCV: Yes.

> Is is required that the disembarking troops have enough MPs remaining to

overrun the >badly disrupted British Para X in addition to paying

disembarktion costs?

RCV: No.

> If the overrun cost cannot be paid, is the disembarkation not allowed?

RCV: see above. No overrun is mandated. And the badly disrupted unit can

not prevent Axis use of the airbase or port there.

To sum up and answer the unstated question I assume is in the back of your

mind, the Axis player can use the port and airbase there as he sees fit,

and no he doesn't have to overrun. The only restriction the Axis player IS

under is that he must conduct a ground combat against the badly disrupted

Allied airborne brigade [since it occupies the same hex as Axis units] and

no, the CD will contribute nothing to this, since CD never has an attack

strength, regardless of 44.G.3 or not.

The airborne [and by extension, the amphibious] rules require combat

between units of opposing sides that occupy the same hex during a combat

phase - I think this can be taken as a general case situation, ie that if

units occupy the same hex then combat must occur, must include all of the

enemy defending units in the hex and must include all of the friendly units

in the hex as participants in the attack. So, that is what the situation

would be - the Axis player would be forced to attack the badly disrupted

airborne unit if it is in a hex which is occupied by both Allied and Axis

units, which could easily occur through air and/or naval transport.

These sorts of situation are handled in more detail in SoS, and will be

addressed in detail in TW.

>Thanks for your time. Even if I didn't ask for a ruling, feel free to

comment

>on and correct any other misunderstandings I appear to have based on the

above

>detailed example.

RCV: No problem, and you're welcome.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]







Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 03:58:17 -0700

From: Rich Velay

To: Damien Fox

Subject: Re: Fw: GURU: SF: various rules due to an air drop (long post)

At 02:33 AM 09/17/2000 , Damien Fox wrote:

>An observation: Rule 6: "In general, a unit may not enter a hex occupied by

>an enemy unit. Exceptions to this are covered int he appropriate rules."

>I was unable to find any refernce under 20F (Air Missions: Transprt) or 31

>(Naval Transport) that allow entering an enemy-occupied hex under any

>circumstances other than an AIRDROP (Not using the airfield) or AMPHIBIOUS

>LANDING (using the beach, not port). Is there another section of the rules

>that I am missing?

RCV: The player who owns the port in the hex may use the port in the hex;

the player that owns the airbase in the hex may use the airbase in the hex.

Since there are no prohibitions the rules against using a facility that

one owns that apply in this case, I have to conclude that one can use a

facility that one owns.

Since one can use the facility when friendly owned, one is thus left with

potential situations wherein players can both have units in the same hex.

In that case, use the rules that address the situation specifically, ie the

in hex combat rules for airdrops.

To rule otherwise, I have to make up a restriction that does not exist in

the RAW, ie that the owning player can not use a facility he owns if the

hex is enemy occupied. No such restriction exists in the rules and for me

to impose such a restriction would be a case where I was making up a rule

out of whole cloth. This is not only wrong, but unnecessary, since there is

an adequate mechanism within the RAW to deal with this situation.

Note that SoS addresses this situation in more detail and specifically -

since no changes to the substance OR intent of the rules on this issue have

occurred between the publication of SF and SoS, I think it best to handle

the situation as it is specifically dealt with in SoS, and as it is implied

and intended in SF [even if not spelt out as plainly in SF].

There seems little point in having this situation handled radically

differently in two games that share the same unit scale, time scale and

even historical time frame, unless there is some good reason to do so. I

can't see a good reason to do so, so I won't. Bottom line here is that the

ownership of the facility, and thus the ability of the owning player to use

it, should, and does, take precedence over any other restriction.

In SF this is handled by not listing any restrictions upon the use of a

friendly owned facility that apply to this case, while SoS handles it by

the above and a specific reminder that friendly units may use friendly

owned facilities regardless of the presence in the hex of enemy units.

The two games say the same thing, only in slightly different ways, and

SoS, being the later designed game, deals with the situation more clearly.

But the intent of the rules is the same in either case, and it is the

intent of the rules that is the most important thing to consider in these

cases. Since there is no prohibition on using an airbase or port, when

friendly owned, that applies here, the no such a restriction can apply.

The implicit exception to the prohibition in Rule 6 is needed, since under

the rules for ownership, air transport and naval transport, it is quite

clear that one can use a facility when it is friendly owned - this leads to

a seeming conflict, if one can use the facility [you can] and "in general,

a unit may not enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit."

Well, this is an exception to that general case [it must be, or else the

rules for naval transport and air transport are wrong] and the exception,

and how to deal with it, has now been explained.



> Also, as a sidelight, the CD would apparently NOT have

>to attack the paras, I find no general ruling regarding "contested" hexes

>like this. Once again, I may have missed some erratum regarding this.

RCV: "Would [...] not have to" is misleading, in that the defensive

strength the CD can be treated as, can not participate in an attack under

any circumstances, it having no attack strength. Since it has no attack

strength, it does not exist as a 1 RE art unit for the purposes of attacks,

and thus can have no effect/impact on an attack at all.

The general case for handling in hex combat is the Airborne Landings rule

[Rule 24], which is used for amphibious landings as well, with regards to

in hex combat and hexes occupied by units of both sides.

Since we need a general case for handling these situations, and the

Airborne landings rule serves for both those situations and for amphibious

landings, it seems to me to make the best sense to use that rule for other

cases as well, as opposed to making up some new rule to cover a situation

already addressed by an existing rule.

>I have always felt that CD counters, while annoying to set up, and perhaps

>expensive/difficult to produce, would DEFINITLY reduce the rules problems

>encountered over such a trivial aspect of the Second World War...considering

>that a grand total of one (1) contested landing was ever turned back by CD.

>Just my .02$ worth.

RCV: Well, one could certainly make up some counters for that purpose.

One could even use the CD hit markers for that purpose [the ones from SoS

do nicely since they inadvertently lack the asterisk, "hit" symbol.

By using these, or a home made counter, and employing them ONLY when

44.G.3 explicitly specifies, it might be more obvious to some just when CD

defense strength exists and doesn't exist. For example, in a situation

where combat is required, one could more plainly see that the 1 RE art unit

"counter" exists for the purposes of combat, but that it is not placed in

the replacement pool [since it does not exist for the purposes of

reinforcement/replacements, rule 40, and can thus not be replaced as a 1 RE

art unit]. One could also more plainly see that it doesn't count for

Italian surrender, since it will not exist anywhere ["in play", "out of

play", on map, off map, in a replacement pool, etc] for the purposes of

rule 38, since rule 38 is neither rule 9 or 13.

I will remind everyone that, as with any optional rule, one is also, of

course, free to simply not employ the rule, if it is not to one's liking

and for some, that may well be the best solution. I can't imagine the

number of games wherein victory or defeat will be influenced by the use of

44.G.3, but if players think it seriously unbalances the game, or is more

trouble than it is worth, then I would suggest that those players choose to

not employ it.

For those players who simply want to see it changed, I will point out that

it appears in SoS as a direct quotation of the SF rule, and in TW the only

change is that the errata concerning fortresses having a potential defense

strength is included in the rule; otherwise it too is identical to the SF

rule.

So no one should hold their breath with regards to seeing the rule changed

from the way to is presented now. That may be a disappointment to some

people, but such is life, in this case. The designers obviously feel the

rule is adequate as presented, and I am in no position to argue with the

designers over how they design their games.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:24:51 -0800

To: Don & Vicki Timian

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: SF Guru - - TEM #75; Page 40/Ruling #396 "SF: C/M Disembarkation"

At 04:01 PM 02/10/2001 , Don & Vicki Timian wrote:

>Rich,

>

>Looking over TEM #75 and ruling #396, I disagree.

>

>As I read SF Rule 44G.2 "Naval Transport Costs" I agree, with your example,

>that because the c/m unit (with 10 movement points) will spend 6 of its 10

>movement points unloading - 90 Naval Movement Points to Offload (3 Naval

>Movement Sub-Phases × 2 Movement Points per Sub-Phase "at sea" = 6), but I

>disagree that landing in a friendly beach hex the c/m, once landed,

>automatically *burns* its remaining 4 movement points. I contend that the

>c/m unit can use its 4 remaining movement points for movement.

>

>I just don't see why the c/m unit "will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark . .

>. "; could you please explain why the unit *burns* its 4 remaining movement

>points?

RCV: coff coff Ahh, another mea culpa.....

When Frank sent me a big batch of Rules Court Q&a that he was planning to

publish, one stuck out as something I had to change. I meant to address

the issue before publication, but alas what with all that has been going

on, I never got to it at all.

The entire answer in the mag should be scrapped, since it is wrong. It

reflects my confusion regarding how the optional rule integrated with the

basic rule.

The optional rule replaces the basic rule completely, with regards to MP

expenditures. So for a c/m unit which has spent three NMSteps at

sea/disembarking, it pays 6 MPs, eg 1 MP per NMStep, doubled for the unit

being c/m.

My error was in trying to incorporate cases from the basic rule into

adjudicating the optional rule, when all such cases are already covered by

the optional rule, since it deals with time explicitly [ie the NMSteps

spent at sea] which replaces the basic rule's need to deal with beach

landings as distinct from port landings. In the optional rule, you don't

need to double the costs again for a beach landing, since that increase in

cost is reflected in the optional rule by the time it takes to disembark.

So, by adding in the "extra" doubling of costs for c/m units [simply for

them being c/m], I made nonsense of the optional rule and how it is meant

to be used.

Anyway, all of the gobbledygook in the published answer is simply me

trying to make sense of a misunderstanding of my own - delete the entire

answer. Indeed, that would be a good place for post-it-note covering the

entire thing.....

Rich

Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]









Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:25:15 -0800

To: "Gary Shell"

From: Rich Velay

Subject: RE: Axis Naval Element of Supply in the Med

At 06:38 AM 02/23/2001 , Gary Shell wrote:=20

>

> Rule 12.B.3 states .=A0 The railroad element of a supply line may be trace=

d

to a

> port or supply source.=A0 Not from a port to a supply source.=A0 So the=

major

> supply sources must be a major city that is also a port.=A0 Which leaves

Genova

> and Naples.=A0 But Naples is in a danger zone.=A0 So 2 connected major=

cities

> cannot be accomplished.

RCV: Any two connected cities in Germany are also a supply source, as is=

the

east edge of the map in Germany.... so, the supply line runs from unit, to

min/std port, to a major/great port, to two connected cities or the east=

edge.

There seems to be some confusion that the port which is a link in the=

supply

line has to be itself a source of supply - such is not the case. The supply

line simply has to be traced to a full supply source - ANY full supply=

source.

12.C.2 says "[...] a naval-element supply line must be traced from the

port to

a full supply source."

It doesn't say , imply, or mean, that the naval-element supply line must=

end

at the port the naval element is traced to, which would be kind of silly,

since

then the Axis could never trace to a limited supply source! If that was the

intent, then limited supply sources would be listed as a sub-section of=

Allied

supply sources, if it only applied to Allied units.

12.B is explicit concerning the ability of rail and naval elements to be

traced in any order between rail and naval elements, and that they can be

traced in any combination as well.

!2.B also obviously differentiates naval and rail elements when it details

the

order of tracing, "overland, road, railroad/naval." Note how that slash=

ONLY

occurs for railroad and naval elements, indicating their unique status as=

the

only two elements that can be traced concurrently, in any order between

themselves and interchangeably.

12.B.4 also makes it quite clear that the terminus of a naval element=

supply

line is a "functioning, friendly-owned major or great port." Not a source of

supply per se [although it may be] but simply a port - 12.C.2 works EXACTLY

the

same way.

No doubt for brevity, JMA chose NOT to repeat that "slashed" terminology

throughout the rules, however, that doesn't change the fact that "naval"=

means

"naval/railroad" as the term is used in 12.C.2

For those who desire/require the reminder, feel free to pencil in=

"railroad/"

before the phrase "naval-element supply line..." in 12.C.2. =20

Regardless, for anyone who was confused by this situation, it has now been

explained and it won't trouble anyone any further I am sure. =20

I think I have explained the meaning and intent of the rule sufficiently=

now,

and any further posts on this topic will simply be expressions of

dissatisfaction with how the rule is worded, or disagreements with my=

ruling.=20

I am sure no one would expect me to reply, in any official capacity, to such

expresses of opinion - after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion and=

no

purpose would be served by my participating in a debate revolving around

opinion. However, what matters from a Rules Court stand point is not=

opinion,

no matter how strongly held, but simply what the rule means - I have=

explained

what the rule means. How people choose to react to that fact is up to them.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:24:41 -0800

To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Guru: rules court errata

RCV: Answer # 396, SF: C/M Disembarkation contains an error which should

be corrected.

In the 3d sentence of para 5 [that beginning "If using Optional Rule

44.G.2 [...]" remove the phrase "and will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark,

for a total of 10 MPs."

In addition, delete all of the remainder of the paragraph following the

above phrase.

In para 7, that beginning "If using Optional Rule 44.G.2 when embarking in

a port [...]" delete the following phrase from the 1st sentence; ", and 2

MPs {1 mp, x2 for c/m unit] to disembark"

Delete the last sentence of para 7 and replace it with the following,

"Thus the ground unit will expend 2 MPs for the one NMStep spent at sea,

leaving it with 8 MPs to expend for ground movement."

The gist of this is that when using Optional Rule 44.G.2 you do NOT pay

any of the costs associated with Rule 31. I erroneously included the cost

for disembarkation, from Rule 31, in my examples explaining Rule 44.G.2,

and thus artificially and incorrectly inflated the costs incurred when

using Rule 44.G.2

When using Rule 44.G.2, you simply pay the costs as described in Rule

44.G.2 - the "disembarkation" costs are subsumed into the MP cost for

NMSteps spent at sea.

My apologies for the error and for the fact that it appeared in print.

That it did so is my responsibility and not that of the editorial staff of

TEM.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:54:42 -0800

To: "James A. Broshot"

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: GURU: SF Rule 25.C Air reinforcements

At 09:16 AM 03/11/2001 , James A. Broshot wrote:

>For purposes of Rule 25.C, "If a player has both reinforcements and

>withdrawals of the same air unit type in the same turn, follow this

>procedure: For each air unit in play that is withdrawn, place one

>reinforcement of the same type (if any is available)...."

>

>Is a NF the same TYPE as a F?

RCV: Yes it is, per 16.A.2, prefixes modify but do not change the basic

type of the air unit.

>On the Unit Identification Chart:

>Air unit types include "Fighters - F Fighter, HF Heavy Fighter" AND N is

>listed as a "Type Prefix"

>

>Example: Allied Nov I 43 player turn, can/must the RAF Hurri 2C (5F5) be

>replaced by the RAF Msqto 6-2 (6NF7).

RCV: Yes. Note that you could NOT replace a type F with a NHF for

example, since heavy fighters are not the same type as a fighter, the H in

HF is part of the type, it is not a prefix. The three type prefixes [which

are ignored for the purposes of your question] are N for night capable, J

for jet and R for Rocket.

In the same way that a type A bomber is not the same as a type B bomber

[or a HB for that matter], a type HF fighter is not the same as a type F

fighter - even though a NF is still a Type F for replacement purposes.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:17:04 -0700

To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: GURU: SF isolation/supply (12D)

At 07:19 AM 04/05/2001 , Luiz Claudio Duarte wrote:

>The wording of 12D got me a bit confused. Suppose a German c/m unit is

unisolated and in regular supply at the start of the

>Allied turn. During this turn, Allied moves isolate it; therefore, at the

Axis initial phase, it is isolated and out of

>regular supply. Does it suffer any out-of-supply effects on the Axis turn,

or will they be effective only on the next Allied

>turn (provided its status is unchanged, of course)?

RCV: Supply and isolation effects are based upon the supply condition of

the unit at the moment the effect is required. If a unit begins an initial

phase out of supply, it remains out of supply until supply is next checked,

ie the next initial phase.

Isolation is slightly different, since isolation is checked twice in a

player turn - once in the initial phase and once at the beginning of the

combat phase.

The effects of being out of supply, isolated or both, come in to play as

soon as a unit is so judged. So, using your example, wherein the Axis unit

begins an Axis initial phase both isolated and out of supply, it will be

considered out of supply throughout that entire player turn, and will be

isolated from that initial phase until the Axis combat phase of that player

turn. At that time, isolation is checked again, and the unit may or may

not still be isolated.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:24:52 -0700

To: "Alan B. Conrad"

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: FW: SF game report

At 07:08 AM 04/09/2001 , Alan B. Conrad wrote:

>

>

>On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, O'Connell, Brian, Maj, SAF/FMBP wrote:

>

>> of NGS (I seem to recall 72 pts mentioned, but perhaps that is a result of

>

>> Regardless, my question is, is not the theoretical maximum amount of

>> NGS that may be applied to a single attack 48+1... I say this because every

>

>

> As I understand the rules: If one is able to get a three hex attack

>on a defender (one direct assault, one from each side if those hexes were

>left empty) 72 pts is correct.

> When making a amphibious assault, divisions must break down into

>regiments. So a maximum stack is 6 REs. So a maximum NGS "from each hex"

>so to speak, is 24 pts or 72 pts for the entire attack.

RCV: 72 +1 [for any extra NGS, that total rounded down to one...] Of

course, with airborne forces, it could theoretically be even more, up to

the absolute maximum of 4× 16 [64] + 2× 12 [24] 88!

> What Rich has pointed out often is that to defend a port one must

>defend adjacent hexes so the attacker can not amass such support.

RCV: Absolutely - and be sure to have anti-airborne screens, for the same

reason. Basically, given the normal port defense strengths one will

encounter, any Allied amphib/airborne attack that can get a two hex

frontage, is almost guaranteed to succeed, because of the prevalence of EX,

HX and DRs at the moderate odds levels. 49 points of NGS plus 36 [or 18

halved for Port Fort] points of GS will take out the average port defense

with only a small risk of loss for the Allies.

A three hex frontage invasion can not be defeated without Pz XXs and a

commitment of force that is unacceptable for the Axis...

Rich

Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:49:53 -0700

To: "O'Connell, Brian, Maj, SAF/FMBP"

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: FW: SF game report

At 04:47 AM 04/09/2001 , O'Connell, Brian, Maj, SAF/FMBP wrote:

>All,

> A quick question regarding this replay. I seem to recall that it

>was said somewhere that the attacking forces included a substantial amount

>of NGS (I seem to recall 72 pts mentioned, but perhaps that is a result of

>faulty memory, since I cannot seem to find that post...)

> Regardless, my question is, is not the theoretical maximum amount of

>NGS that may be applied to a single attack 48+1... I say this because every

>4 pts of NGS is treated as one RE artillery. With a maximum of 3 divs + 3

>RE's of non-divs, for a total of 12 RE's non artillery, it would appear to

>me that 48 pts of supported NGS can be applied, with all other NGS rating

>out at 1 pt.

RCV: All depends on how many invasion beaches, airborne drop hexes there

were. In an invasion/air drop, one will be limited to 6 REs per hex [since

no divisions beside the optional and ludicrous Marine XX]. 6 REs can

support ^REs worth of artillery, and ever four points of NGS is one art RE,

so .... each 6 RE invasion/airborne hex of attack frontage can support

6× 4

or 24 points of NGS.

So a one hex invasion can support 24 +1 pts, a two hex invasion 48 +1 pts,

a three hex invasion 72 +1 and a four hex invasion all 88 pts available in

the game.

> I bring this up only because the report didn't mention any air, and

>with all the modifiers applied to units assaulting over a beach, they would

>appear to rarely add much to an attack in and of themselves, more often

>simply allowing supported NGS & GS to be applied. Comments? Especially

>from the participants on how 86 attack factors was reached?

RCV: Well, to reach 86 pts of NGS, referring to the above, they would have

had to have had a four hex frontage for the combat.

Rich

Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:12:07 -0700

To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: GURU: NGS in SF

At 01:21 PM 04/18/2001 , you wrote:

>Rich, during the past few weeks discussing SF here on the list sometimes

there is mention of NGS to support airborne-invaded

>hexes near the beaches. Reading TEM 59/60, in the AAR of your game against

Peter Robbins ("Second Front, British Columbian

>Style"), in the German counterattack on D+1 you point out that the

paratroopers were supported by NGS and adds "remember

>that NGS can fire into adjacent hexes".

>

>BUT... rule 27B5 (second paragraph) states "For naval purposes, a hex or

naval group is adjacent to another hex if there is

>an all-sea route directly between in the two hexes." The airborne hexes in

your game were all-land, so how could the TFs in

>non-adjacent hexes (according to rule 27B5) NGS the units there? I haven't

found any errata addressing this problem; maybe I

>didn't read something on the rulebook?

RCV: Originally, the understanding was that NGS could fire into any

adjacent hex, including inland ones, because the NGS represented artillery

firepower, and not the ships "moving" into the hexes in question. And

nothing in the rules says firepower from a ship can not be projected inland.

However, I didn't like that interpretation and the rules have been changed

to include the proviso that NGS may only be fired into coastal, ie part

land/part sea hexes.

So while your interpretation of the rules ends up being correct [smiles]

it was not the way the rule was originally written or intended. But it is

the way the rule is now - restricting NGS to coastal hexes alleviates a lot

of problems and goofiness associated with NGS and support, etc.

>By the way, does NGS affect overrun odds? That is, can the units be

counted as supported rather than unsupported during an

>enemy overrun if they are stacked/adjacent to a friendly TF?

RCV: No it doesn;t, since NGS only fires during combat phases, and

overruns can not occur during combat phases. Overruns occur during

movement and exploitation phases, when NGS can not fire, so NGS can never

affect an overrun.

Rich

Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]









Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:03:00 -0700

To: [email protected]

From: Rich Velay

Subject: Re: SF: loss of ground units at sea

At 03:02 PM 05/20/2001 , [email protected] wrote:

>

>Folks,

>

>Can anyone advise on loss of ground units at sea in SF? I believe

>they are isolated (although in supply, generally) and therefore you

>get zapped for Allied Disastrous Operations VP's. Am I correct?

>

>I'm sure we've been here before, but I can't remember what the

>ruling was.

RCV: Being at sea is nothing special, regarding Isolation, really. The

owning player gets to check Isolation twice per turn, during the initial

phase and at the beginning of the combat phase.

If the units were Isolated during the initial phase, and lost at sea prior

to the combat phase, then they will be isolated at the moment of loss.

For example, a unit loaded on a NT/LC in a friendly port is not isolated,

since it can trace a supply line - while a unit aboard an NT/LC AT SEA

would be isolated, since it can not trace a supply line.

The status of the unit will not change from when it was last checked until

the rules mandate a new check of its status, ie the combat phase. Even if

the naval unit puts to sea during a player a turn and is subsequently sunk,

that in itself will not change the status of the unit aboard the T/LC with

regards to isolation.

For example, the Allies have a 2-8 Inf III loaded aboard an LC in the

Allied off map England holding box. During the Jun I 44 Allied initial

phase, isolation is checked - the unit is in supply and not isolated while

aboard the LC in the holding box.

Scenario 1. The LC moves out of the box and moves towards France during

the Allied movement phase - it is discovered by Axis anti-shipping air

units and sunk. The ground unit, the 2-8 Inf III is eliminated and NOT

Isolated, since it was not isolated the last time isolation was checked.

Scenario 2. The LC in this case is not found by anti shipping assets and

arrives in a coastal hex of France. It does not have enough remaining MPs

to disembark the 2-8 Inf III so it spends what it can and waits for the

exploitation phase to finish unloading the 2-8 Inf III.

During the combat phase, isolation is checked again, and NOW the 2-8 Inf

III is found to be isolated, in that it can not trace an overland supply

line to a friendly source of supply while at sea. During the subsequent

exploitation phase, the LC [before it has completed unloading the 2-8 Inf

III] is located by Axis anti shipping assets and sunk. The 2-8 Inf III is

eliminated and ISOLATED, since it was isolated the last time its status was

checked.

So you can see that being at sea or aboard NT/LCs doesn't really impact

the unit as far as isolation goes, ie there are no special rules for

isolation "at sea". Simply check isolation status as normal for all units,

including those aboard NT/LCs, and treat the unit accordingly.



Rich C. Velay

The EuropaGuru

http://go.to/europa

[email protected]





From: "John M. Astell"

To:

Subject: RE: SF Supply

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:47:13 -0400

Hi, Cory,

I thought I did answer the question. Rich Velay also has answered it several

times when you have asked it in the past. I will try again:

Rule 12C2 states that to use a minor or standard port as a limited supply

source, a naval-element supply line must be traced from the port to a full

supply source. Rule 12B says a naval-element supply line may be traced in

any combination with a railroad-element supply line. In its essence, the

question at issue is:

* Does Rule 12B apply to Rule 12C2?

And the answer is:

* Yes. Rule 12B's "A naval element may be traced in any combination with a

railroad element" does apply to Rule 12C2. Example: A German unit on Corsica

may use Bastia (a minor port) as a limited supply source, by tracing a naval

element to Livorno (a major port) and then by tracing a rail element to a

full supply source in Greater Germany. (This assumes that the game situation

does allows the Axis to trace a naval element from Bastia to Livorno; Rule

34K remains in force.)

A reasonable person can read 12C2 and misinterpret the intent of the rules,

so I comprehend how the misunderstanding can arise. Rich Velay as rules guru

has several times issued a clarification for this rule, and I as designer

have for the second time clarified how the rule works. I hope that we've

given a consistent answer each time ;-) and I hope that this lays the

question to rest.

Sincerely,

John M. Astell

 —  — Original Message —  —

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: SF Supply

John,

I received TEM 78 today. I noted with some surprise an article

titled

"An Appeal on Second Front Supply" with a Counterpoint by John Astell.

So I have ignored Rule 12B. Funny, I quoted verbatim the relavent

portion in the first paragraph under of the Discussion. I also quote 12B4

which governs the tracing of a naval supply element. Yes in deed, I

ignored

rule 12B.

The question is not the tracing of a rail element of supply in any

combination with a naval element of supply, but the tracing of a naval

element of supply alone as called for in rule 12C2. Please answer the

question.

...

However, your paragraph indicates to me that you believe the rules

as written require no correction or clarification. If that is true...





From: "John M. Astell"

To:

Subject: RE: SF Supply

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:21:02 -0400

Cory,

Rich Velay as rules guru and I as designer have issued a clarification that

Rule 12B does indeed apply to Rule 12C2. I find absolutely amazing your

counter-factual persistance in claiming that I do not see that any

clarification is needed. To quote from my last posting "A reasonable person

can read 12C2 and misinterpret the intent of the rules, so I comprehend how

the misunderstanding can arise. Rich Velay as rules guru has several times

issued a clarification for this rule, and I as designer have for the second

time clarified how the rule works..."

You write "Until we have errata, I intend to maintain my position." Oh, so

your concern is that you're afraid the clarification is not official? Please

rest assured that it is indeed an official clarification. I'll slightly

rephrase yesterday's posting:

Clarification: Rule 12C2 states that to use a minor or standard port as a

limited supply source, a naval-element supply line must be traced from the

port to a full supply source. Rule 12B says a naval-element supply line may

be traced in any combination with a railroad-element supply line. Rule 12B

does apply to Rule 12C2. Example: A German unit on Corsica may use Bastia (a

minor port) as a limited supply source, by tracing a naval element to

Livorno (a major port) and then by tracing a rail element to a full supply

source in Greater Germany. (This assumes that the game situation does allows

the Axis to trace a naval element from Bastia to Livorno; Rule 34K remains

in force.)

Once again, I hope this lays this rules dispute to rest.

Sincerely,

John

 —  — Original Message —  —

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

... You agree

the rule can be misinterpreted. I also take it that you do not see that

any

change or clarification to the rule is required...

... And in neither your words, nor those written by Rich Velay, do

I see

anything other then "the rules are Ok as is"...

Until we have errata, I intend to maintain my position ...





Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:47:32 -0600

From: Winston Hamilton

To: "Boston, Jimmie J" , [email protected]

Subject: Re: GURU: SF - Italian Surrrender

"Boston, Jimmie J" wrote:

> Italy just surrendered and we have a few questions. Can the GURU and/or

> anyone else help?

AEG: I'll take a stab at this. (I wrote a lot of the Italian surrender rule in

SF, so any remaining problems with rule are undoubtably my fault.)

> 1. Loyal fascist Italian units in garrison - are they checked for

> loyalty, disarmed, eliminated, or just removed from play?

> 2. All other Italian units in garrison - are they disarmed, eliminated,

> or just removed from play?

> 3. Loyal fascist Italian units forming - are they checked for loyalty,

> disarmed, eliminated, or just removed from play?

> 4. All other Italian units forming - are the disarmed, eliminated, or

> just removed from play?

AEG: Italian units following Italian surrender either remain loyal Axis units,

are disarmed by Germany, or become Allied Italian units using the process

described in SF Rule 38B2 (Italian Surrender). Note that no Italian units are

eliminated due to Italian surrender, ever.

1st bullet after Italy Surrenders, says "Check for loyal fascist units." This

does not say only check for loyal fascist on-map units, it merely says check

for such units. Thus, you check for such units (parachute, parachute-infantry,

and CCNN 1-2-6 inf Xs, only) wherever they are: on-map, forming, in garrison,

etc. If they remain loyal, they remain Axis forces and normal rules still apply

to them. (If in garrison and they remain loyal they remain in garrison; if

forming and they remain loyal they remain forming until OB says they go full,

etc.). At end of this check, potentially loyal Italian units which fail their

loyalty check, and all other Italian units, are no longer considered to be Axis

forces (they are now non-Axis forces).

2nd bullet after Italy Surrenders, covers disarming Italian units. Basically,

all non-Axis Italian units stacked with Axis units are disarmed, as are all

non-Axis Italian units more than 3 hexes from any Allied unit, as are all

non-Axis Italian units within 3 hexes of an Allied unit if there are more REs

of Axis units within 3 hexes than there are Allied units. Nothing in this

bullet specifically covers non-Axis Italian units still in garrison or forming,

however. What probably should happen (this is what I rember doing in the

playtest and is what I thought the rule allowed for until I reread it here to

answer your question) is that non-Axis Italian units still in garrison or

forming should be released from garrison or called up early, placed on map in

the appropriate cities/districts, and then disarmed or not disarmed using the

criteria listed in the rule.

4th bullet then specifies that all non-Axis Italian forces still in play become

Allied forces.

> 5. If any answer to questions 1 - 4 is disarmed - does this mean that

> the Germans get infantry replacement points for them (½ of special

> replacement rate)?

AEG: Yes, Germany receives RPs for disarmed Italian units (per SF Rule 40D2,

disarming).

> 6. If any answer to questions 1 - 4 is eliminated - does Allied Italy,

> RSI Italy, or neither side receives special replacement points for the

> eliminated units?

AEG: As stated above, no Italian units are ever eliminated due to Italian

surrender, so no special replacements are ever generated (for either side).

> 7. If the answer to question 1 or 3 is check for loyalty - when do they

> leave garrison (question 1) or finish forming (question 3)?

AEG: As stated above, if unit remains loyal, nothing changes. A unit that

remains loyal leaves garrison per normal garrison activation rules and finishes

forming as normal per OB.

> 8. Allied Garrison Chart - the garrison for Sardinia - when is the

> initial garrison required, when the last German unit has left Sardinia (does

> Sardinia have an adjacent district?), one turn after the last German unit

> has left, or on the turn or one turn after Italy surrenders?

> 9. Allied Garrison Chart - the garrison for Sicily - when is the

> initial garrison required, when the last German unit has left Sicily and the

> district on the toe of Italy (or one turn after) or when Italy surrenders

> (or one turn after)?

AEG: First, there is no requirement per say in SF rules to EVER assign anything

to the garrison of Sardinia or Siciliy. There is only a penalty for failing to

have a minimum garrison present during an initial phase in which the presence

of such a garrison must be checked. The "initial" garrisons of Sardinia and

Sicily must be checked each Allied Initial Phase (as part of step 5 of that

phase - per the SF Master Sequence of Play Summary chart) unless SF Rule 37E1

(Allied Garrisons) mandates otherwise. As that rule states: "There is no

garrison requirement for a district if the Axis player owns any city in the

district or has a unit in the district itself or in an adjacent district." the

presence of required garrison in Sardinia or Sicily is not checked during any

Allied initial phase in which Axis owns any city in the district or in which

Axis has at least one unit in the district or any adjacent district.

As you can only assign units to a garrison if they are present at a city in the

district, the Allied player cannot assign units to the garrison of

Sardinia/Sicily unless he owns at least one city in the proper district.

As to when you assign units to a garrison, SF rules are not clear. Based on

rules in later games (and common sense) this should occur as part of step 6 of

the initial phase, after the presence of required garrisons is checked.

As the definition of "adjacent district" is not spelled out anywhere in SF, you

can argue whether or not Corsica is adjacent to Sardinia. It is common sense

that two districts are adjacent if they share a common land border or if a

ground unit could 'walk' from one district directly to the other (such as via a

narrow straits). However, neither of these apply to Sardinia/Corsica (unless

one side or the other was using a LC as a ferry to bridge gap between two

islands).

Best Regards,

AE Goodwin

GRD





To: [email protected]

From: "johnmastell"

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:27:03 -0000

Subject: [EuropaAssociation] Re: Allied Invasions

Todd E Jahnke:

> I don't suppose that the LC as ferry idea is written to only allow

> its use between friendly owned hexes?  That would be too easy a

> fix, I suppose.

Actually, that MIGHT work OK. Operations against enemy owned hexes

would have to be conducted as amphibious landings, with preplanning

and all the rest. LC as ferries would then be restricted to friendly

owned hexes.

Will this cause problems in SF? How does this affect the Walcheren

Island operation? (Frank?) Or Baytown (8th Army crossing from Sicily

to mainland Italy)?

> The idea of using an LC to ferry into restricted waters that they

> can't enter passes all my understanding...

Sorry to hear that. At a minimum, consider the rule a simplification:

why add extra rules for things that rarely occur the game and even

when they do occur they have minuscule impact on play for things? SF

probably has too many of these rules as it is. Still, it you feel

otherwise, feel free to develop one of the following into rulese:

1) LC cannot operate as ferries if restricted waters are involved.

2) LC can enter restricted waters (being shallow draft, they can

operate in most restricted water shown on the maps at least some of

the time, depending on factors like tides). However, any amphib

landing in a hex with restricted waters should be subject to a

significant chance of disruption.

Or, you can decide that current depict is a fair compromise allowing

LCs limited ability in restricted waters without having to add any

adiditional rule.

jma

O Quartel-Mestre
O Quartel-Mestre
polímata
filomático
pesquisador
escritor

LUIZ CLÁUDIO, o Quartel-Mestre, the Rules Lawyer, conversa e escreve sobre jogadores e jogos de todos os tipos, sobre ludologia, narrativas, poesia, e mais.

Próximo
Anterior