headers
David Reenstra | 7 Apr 2002 19:46
Picon

Re: Re: Rules questions - SW use

Scott wrote:

>At 05:51 PM 10/7/02 -0700, Fred Timm wrote:

>>Scott Greenman wrote:
>> >
>> > SITUATION #1: this came up in our Red Barricades CG-I...
>> >
>> > German movement phase. A German tank (PzIII) is stopped in the street,
>> > having not yet moved. On one side of the street is stone rubble and the
>> > other a wooden building.  In the building is a russian squad toting an ATR.
>> >
>> > The tank declares 1MP to start in reverse.
>> >
>> > The squad declares a CCRF/Street Fighting attack, passes its PAATC, but
>> > fails to affect the tank.
>> >
>> > QUESTION #1: Can the squad now (on the same MP) fire its ATR at the tank?
>>
>>No, it must wait for the tank to spend a second MP.

>     I'm afraid I must disagree.  If it had two PSK, for instance, it could
>fire both at the 1st MP.  The one attack per MF/MP is once something
>attacks it can't attack again until ... .  In this case the ATR has not
>attacked on that MP.

Well, I think I have to disagree with *both* of you.  D7.21 "After completing
its attack (CCRF), that DEFENDER and all of its possessed SW (including those
Inherent) and Guns are marked with a CC counter . . . and also with a First or
Final Fire counter as appropriate for that attack."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Reenstra | 11 Apr 2002 19:50
Picon

Test message, please delete

Sorry for the bandwidth waste.

David L. Reenstra
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 12 Apr 2002 16:28
Picon

Test message 2, please delete

Sorry for the wasted bandwidth

Dave
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 19 Apr 2002 18:08
Picon

Re: Re: Your favorite Board

Hello all,

Chas writes:

>All right-thinking people agree: Board 25.

>Chas "Right-thinker" Argent

And the coolest scenarios for Board 25 have got to be "No Respite" and "First
Clash in Tunisia" from the Bunker boys.  Both are a ton of fun and, best of all
for the Board 25 fanatics, they require two copies of said board to play (unless
you're a sadist and you cut one copy in half) using the opposite ends of the
board butted together lengthwise to form a valley.  They take place four days
apart and represent two attempts (one by a company of German Fallschirmpionier
(para-engineers) reinforced by a platoon of PzIV's, one by a heavy company of
Italian Paracadutisti with supporting Italian armor) to wrest control of an
important crossroads from the Brits.

Here's hoping these see official publication in a future Journal.

Dave Reenstra
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 6 Apr 2002 20:38
Picon

Re: OVHS Qs

Hello all,

Perry replies to Oliver's original query:

>Oliver asks:

>> 1) Carrier HS: are they 247s or 248s?
>>
>> We assumed non-elite, because the rules do not specify that the
>> Canadians are elite.

>Good assumption.

Well, how about A25.4? "Guardsmen, Gurkha, ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand),
and Free French/Polish forces should generally be regarded as elite troops, as
should Canadian units - all of which were composed of volunteers rather than
draftees."

Based on the above, we decided to play the Carrier HS as 248's for the Canadians
in OVHS.

Dave Reenstra
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 22 Apr 2002 00:48
Picon

Q on Rout Phase timing

Hello all,

Had a question come up today during a playing of "The Marnach Strongpoint" from
the SoCal Melee Pack I (fine job on this btw, if you haven't seen it yet, pick
up a copy.  Gotta love the variable OB concept, adds a lot to the
replayability).   Situation is as follows: a broken American HS, under DM,
occupies a stone building (hex 17P9).  Two hexes away is a broken German squad,
also under DM and a Good Order 8-0 leader in a woods hex (hex 17N8).  Between
these two hexes is another woods hex (17O9), so no LOS exists between them.  It
is the American player turn, so that side routs first in the RtPh.  The broken
American HS declines to rout, despite the DM.  During the German portion of the
RtPh, the German squad and 8-0 leader rout ADJACENT to the American HS, legal
since the Americans were not Known when the Germans started to rout.  Since the
Americans are broken, the Germans are not forced to rout away, so the German
squad ends its RtPh.  The German player then claims that the American HS dies
for Failure to Rout, since it ended the RtPh ADJACENT to an unbroken Known,
Armed, Enemy Unit (the 8-0), citing A10.5 which specifies (twice no less) that
any unit ending *the* RtPh in such a situation dies for FTR.  The American
player points to the ASOP, which specifies that elimination for FTR is checked
*during* the RtPh and since the RtPh was already over for the American HS, the
actions of the German squad and 8-0 can't then force FTR.

Who's right and why the f$&k don't the rules and the damn ASOP agree with each
other?!?

Thanks for any help,

Dave Reenstra
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 22 Apr 2002 22:43
Picon

RE: Q on Rout Phase timing

Hi Steve, thanks for the reply.

While I agree with you, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

You're correct, the ASOP does take precedence over the rules.  Problem is, the
ASOP itself (by necessity of its brevity) references the rule section in
question (A10.5), which contradicts the ASOP.  So you can easily imagine the
confusion caused when two players read the ASOP which says that *during* the
RtPh, units check for Failure to Rout elimination (A10.5, A20.21).  What does
that mean?  They look to the referenced rule section and A10.5 says (twice, at
the beginning of the paragraph and again at the end) that a unit may not end
*the* RtPh ADJACENT to an unbroken, armed KEU or it will be eliminated for
Failure to Rout.

I guess that what I'm trying to get at is that I really don't like having the
charts (like the ASOP or Concealment Loss Table) take precedence over the rule
text when they are so intricately tied together.  I would think that the rule
text should take precedence, since this is where the rules are more fully
explained and it is typically the rule text that players read to learn the game.
At the very least, if the charts are going to take precedence, they need to be
checked very carefully for agreement with the rule text.  Obviously, they still
have not been, even in ASLRBv2.

Dave

>
>
>Since the American player moves first in the RPh, his turn to
>rout is over
>before the German player moves.  Therefore, unless a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Reenstra | 23 Apr 2002 04:16
Picon

RE: Q on Rout Phase timing

Hi Jim, thanks for the reply.

>
>
>Listerz;
>
>David Reenstra wrote;
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Had a question come up today during a playing of "The
>Marnach Strongpoint" from
>> the SoCal Melee Pack I (fine job on this btw, if you haven't
>seen it yet, pick
>> up a copy.  Gotta love the variable OB concept, adds a lot to the
>> replayability).
>
>Does the vari-OB impact play balance a great deal or is the playability
>trade-off worth any huge swings in that regard?

I can't say that I've played enough of these scenarios enough times to make a
judgement call with regard to overall balance.  From the two scenarios from this
pack that I have played, I'd say that the choices for each side are crafted
carefully so that no one choice or group of choices seems to give an
overwhelming advantage.  Let me take "Marnach Strongpoint" as an example.  The
German player can choose from three infantry groups, basically trading quality
for quantity.  The first group consists of 548 x 9, 9-2, 8-0, HMG, LMG, PSK.
The second group is 467 x 12, 9-1, 8-0, HMG, MMG, LMG.  The third group is 447 x
14, 9-1, 8-0, 7-0, MMG, LMG x 2.  The Germans also choose between 2 Panthers or
3 StuG IIIG.  Finally, they receive a "Force Bonus", choosing between replacing
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 9 Apr 2002 03:27
Picon

Test - please delete

Sorry again for the wasted bandwidth.

David L. Reenstra
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Reenstra | 14 Apr 2002 04:05
Picon

FW: Q on Prisoners maintaining Melee - Perry Sez

Thought this might be of interest to the ASLML in general and the collector of
Perry Sez in particular.

Dave Reenstra

-----Original Message-----
From: PerryCocke [mailto:perrycocke@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 11:19 AM
To: vaslplayer@...
Subject: Re: Q on Prisoners maintaining Melee

,
>
> A location contains a 666 squad guarding a 106 prisoner squad, as well as a
237
> enemy halfsquad, all locked in Melee.  The Melee (which has been going on for
> several player turns) allows the prisoner to attack its guard without passing
an
> NTC.  During the CCPh, the 106 and 237 attack the 666 with no effect.  In
> return, the 666 attacks the 237 and eliminates it.  Does the Melee immediately
> end?  Or is the prisoner squad enough to hold their guards in Melee?
>

The Melee continues.

....Perry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane