Recent content by MichalS

You mean that my "or" is a logical systems language's XOR - and that for the rules text, we might need both. I have no quibble with that. (I think that "or" to mean inclusive* and "OR" to mean exclusive would have been more elegant, but that is not my main argument.) I am saying that in this...

That is indeed correct. To me the formulation with the conjunction is clear, but I understand how it might caused problems for some (I had to discuss this with my opponent who interpreted the VC incorrectly). And I think the cause of the problem - in this particular case - lies partly in the...

I don't think so. First of all, CC19 is a building. Second, if I control CC19 and 1 to 2 other buildings, I would still fulfil the first VC.

Had a problem recently with exactly this formulation of VC - The Red House (RB7) scenario: “The Russians win at game end by Controlling building CC19 and/or >= 4 buildings in the German setup area.” The funny thing is, CC19 is in the German setup area and the "and/or" formulation just adds...

I applaud the FW and BFP-tested approach of several boards together depicting one terrain feature. It leads towards terrain configurations which are not possible on a single map board. This particular one seems quite busy, but interesting. Can't wait to try it out. And none, as far as I can...

Neither bought, nor played. I was seriously considering the Grossdeutschland base game (v2.0 2016) and the XLVIII PzK Enhancements though. I would decide for this one for several reasons, one being that the Totenkopf base game was never updated to the newer rules - the designer started...

Or authoritarian countries, where the Olympics become a project of improving public image vis a vis the international community at huge costs to the home population (not to speak of additional opportunity to stomp down on civil activists).

I concur. Would be no-go for me too.

The snap shot across hedges TSR I think relates not to entering but leaving the hex. The problem is that if the ATTACKER moves from a hex with a hedge hexside turned toward an enemy unit across a distant hexside (towards the back and out of LOS), in principle the DEFENDER can still fire a snap...

Partisan snacks Wacht am Rheinischen Sauerbraten Marzipan-pan Original Tiger II Sauce Nahverteidigungswaffel Paschenschreck Purple Hull Down Peas Pork Underbelly Hit vegetable side hit dishes Korean Assault Fire Chicken Anti-Personnel Beef Mince Pasta with Air Burst Cherry Tomatoes Strawberry...

A recent play experience: I was just conducting an OVR in a tournament (ASO'21), my Pz38(t)A was trying to OVR Andreas Carlsson's unemplaced gun in OG in Failure to Communicate. Andreas kept getting rate even after I entered his hex. Just to confirm we asked the TD, Michael Hastrup-Leth, about...

Aha sorry, my mistake - and apologies to Ken as well. I should get off my high horse. Correct, that sentence is a bit problematic: "The Moving units [EXC: BU PRC] may attack first as part of an OVR or in turn during their AFPh with both Area and TPBF if they are able to." One could read it as...

Thank you Scott! Could Brian or Perry be persuaded to just add 6 white counters with the text "PRISONER" in the nearest upcoming module? There always seem to be a bit of space for extra counters in one of the countersheets. Placing a captured crew or a leader counter on the guard, turned your...

Also please note that the argument "who attacks first" in D7.211 is clearly in reference to Reaction Fire only (i.e. within the scope of the section D7.2, dealing with RF).

Hello Ken, it seems to me that your whole confusion stems out of missing a single sentence at the end of D7.2: "Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR." Any fire that occurs in response to the MP expenditure is treated as normal DFF/SFF/FPF...