Jump to content

player338749

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About player338749

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, Illinois, United States
  1. The Special scenario rules and Basic game rules involving engineers laying smoke are somewhat at odds. The Basic game rules only allow an engineer to lay smoke in its own hex, while the special rules involving the HIDE AND SEEK scenario allow for smoke to be placed in adjacent hexes. 1) Question: In any case, since the actual cost of an engineer to lay smoke remains the same at 2 MPs, then how many smoke markers can American engineer squads in this scenario actually create during a given action phase: 2 markers in two different hexes (including its own)? or a maximum of 1 marker in any one hex (including its own)? 2) Question: Does the "4" value neutral objective marker (i.e., the hidden gun emplacement) generate command points for the Germans while they control it? or not? (I can't determine in this scenario if this neutral objective marker functions BOTH as a regular neutral objective marker as well as a game piece that represents the gun emplacement? or whether its serves ONLY as a game piece representing the gun emplacement?)
  2. Question: Can the German side place one of their own charges in the "4" neutral objective marker hex first that they may later detonate it to cause casualties to any U.S. squad that enters the hex attempting to place their own charge in the same to destroy the gun emplacement there? or not? Also, the victory conditions mention: "The Americans win by eliminating the German units by the end of round 4". Question: Since there are 13 German squads, is it correct to assume this means eliminating ALL 13 squads (this seems very unlikely)? or, is it conceivable that this is a misprint and means some other "magic" number of squads (or, perhaps one or the other of all the squads of one or the other of the two german divisions)? or, that this is possibly completely incorrect and should otherwise be ignored?
  3. Absolutely! Agreed; updated official errata for TIDE OF IRON, including FURY OF THE BEAR, from FFG is long overdue...and for basic, authentic product/customer support.
  4. Two questions involving the "Special Rules" indicated in the "Crisis At Kasserine" scenario: 1) Do the U.S. half-track tank destoyers still retain their original inherent firepower against enemy infantry targets (range: 5; firepower: 4)? or not (i.e., that as a proper tank destroyer they conceivably lose the ability to attack enemy infantry)? (I'm assuming these half-track tank destoyers do retain the same firepower effects against enemy infantry as normal half-tracks) 2) Also, what does this special rule mean: "For attacking purposes only, units may use their longest range, regardless of target type."? First, does this special rule mean to say that the German "recon" units may be targeted at long range? or not? Second, is it saying that any given unit type now uses the longest range listed for it against BOTH infantry and vehicle targets (e.g., that an attacking infantry/elite infantry/leader unit now has a normal range of "4" against vehicles, scoring successes against vehicles, including tanks, at a range of "4" with "5's" and "6's")? If this is not what it means, then what is it saying?
  5. It seems entirely conceivable that equipment, i.e., AT guns, could be concealed, yet the rules haven't directly addressed one way or the other whether they can be or not. Accordingly, in the Fury of the Bear scenario entitled "Prelude To Breakout" could the Soviets presumably conceal the gun crew AND the AT gun (using two concealed markers, one for the crew and one for the AT gun) together in terrain with cover, like in woods or in entrenchments? or not?
  6. Follow-up question: If for whatever reason the Russians should draw the "Lack of Communication" Sabotage card themselves, and since they also have a potential to receive reinforcements by means of generating reinforcements from the Soviet Reinforcements I Strategy Deck, would they follow the same procedure involving placing a victory objective with a squad with a leader and then if that squad is destroyed possibly lose the ability to bring in any further reinforcements thereafter by means of the Soviet Reinforcements Strategy Deck?
  7. Re. "Lack Of Communication" Sabotage Card Can anyone answer better how this "neutral" Sabotage card works, in particular in connection with possible effects that would occur should the card be drawn at some point in the "Meat Grinder" scenario? It says: "Place a victory objective under a friendly squad with an officer. The objective moves with squad. If the squad is eliminated, place this card in your play area; you may no longer use scenario reinforcements." In "Meat Grinder" three victory objectives begin the game under German control (and, the Germans are the only side designated to receive reinforcements). The Soviets starting forces include a squad with the saboteur specialization token. So, first, should the Soviets decide to play the card and assuming the Germans draw the card, is a new 4th victory objective added and placed together with one of their squads with an officer? or, instead, is one of the original three victory objectives transferred from one of the original three set-up hexes and then displaced to stack somewhere else with a German squad with an officer which then moves together with it? Furthermore, if at some point the squad is eliminated, then what happens to the victory objective: does it remain in the hex where the infantry squad that carried it was eliminated? or, is the victory objective also eliminated together with the infantry squad? Otherwise, other general questions about this card that I have are: 1) Is it correct to assume that the side that draws this card must resolve it? 2) If the Soviets select it, then what happens? 3) Since I don't understand how the card works, I'm interested in establishing which side in the Meat Grinder scenario would conceivably "benefit" the most if it were drawn (since in this scenario only the Germans are scheduled to receive reinforcements, and thereby possibly lose them, I'm assuming they stand to lose the most).
  8. When any heavily damaged tank performs a regular concentrated fire attack by itself against a squad defending in a building is the concussive firepower bonus of the tank also halved? or not? Ex. If a heavily damaged Sherman fires against an infantry squad in a building would its final firepower value equal 5 (6+3=9, halved = "5")? or, would its final firepower value equal 6 (6 halved = 3, +3 = "6")?
  9. Is it permissible to leave/enter a bridge or wooden bridge across all the other available hexside(s) (terrain permitting) of the bridge hex otherwise adjacent to the hexside graphically depicting the "end/entrance" hexside of the bridge? In other words, can squads and vehicles always enter/leave a bridge across any hexside (terrain permitting) besides either of the two hexsides depicting the ends of the bridge? or, must squads and vehicles always enter/leave a bridge hex only across either one of the two hexsides at opposite ends of the bridge?
  10. TThe "Hiden Minefield" strategy card from the Desert Tactics deck in DAYS OF THE FOX provides for placement anywhere except in any hex containing an enemy unit. Is it therefore correct to understand that a minefield can otherwise be placed in ANY hex regardless of terrain, including bridges and buildings? If not not, then which terrain type(s) would prohibit the placement of a minefield in it? (Since it's not spelled out better anywhere in the rules, in the FAQs, or on the card itself, I'm assuming one can place the minefield anywhere.)
  11. One further question: If a squad occupies a level 2 hill hex summit which is surrounded on six sides by level 1 hills which in turn is surrounded by level 0 clear terrain hexes, does the unit on the level 2 hill have LOS to units occupying any of the level 0 clear terrain hexes (and vice versa)? or not? In other words if there is only one level 1 hill hex in between a unit on a level 2 hill and a unit on a level 0 clear terrain hex, is there a LOS between the unit on the level 2 hill and another unit occupying a level 0 clear terrain hex? or not?
  12. OK...then, please clarify better whether or not I'm, perhaps, still misunderstanding about the rquirements indicated in the TIDE OF IRON Rules under the heading The Action Phase, 1st paragraph, page 10, concerning how a given number of actions by both players must be taken as otherwise indicated in the scenario; for example, if ALL the units of one player (Player A) were placed into Op Fire ahead of time, either at the start of a scenario or during the Status Phase of a preceding game round, would you say that Player A is somehow not required to conduct the number of actions required in the scenario (i.e., in this instance, it would necessarily have to be performing "fatigue" actions) and that all the units of Player A that are already placed in Op Fire mode cannot perform any other possible actions except to respond to moving enemy units during the action turns of his opponent (Player B) by firing at them? Also, at the same time, would you further answer or confirm that the end of that Action Phase could only be considered over at the point when the opponent (Player B) has necessarily finished activating all of his own units (even if Player A should not make any Op Fire attacks)? Thanks.
  13. OK...then, for example, if ALL the units of one player (Player A) were placed into Op Fire ahead of time, either at the start of a scenario or during the Status Phase of a preceding game round, then that player doesn't really have any real action turn of his own except to respond to attack moving enemy units during the action turn of his opponent (Player B)? At the same time, it sounds like the end of that Action Phase would then be considered over at the point whenever the opponent (Player B) necessarily has completed finishing activating all of his own units? I think I was getting confused in misunderstanding that EVERY unit must at some point literally end up fatigued during the Action Phase including units set up in Op Fire in order to satisfy that the number of actions required to be made duing a given action turn (see TIDE OF IRON Rules under ACTION PHASE, 1st paragraph, page 10) have been completed by both players.
  14. Is it conceivably permissible and legal for a fresh unit to possibly complete x2 actions: Op Fire & Fatigue, per Round during the same Action Phase of a given game round: i) first, for example, by placing an otherwise fresh unit into Op Fire mode (i.e., placing an activation token "Op Fire" side face up on a unit) during the Action Phase, and 2) then sometime later in that same Action Phase fatiguing the unit by flipping the same activation token on it over from "Op Fire" to the "Fatigued" side?
×
×
  • Create New...