Search results

Testing the language presented with "and" compared to the meaning of "or" leads to the correct result. Stating the VC in the positive as opposed to the negative is clearer/less debatable.

The existence of a strategy does not detract from the permissive use of "may." If he can pick 0 or 6, then he may give 1 to 5.

May pick 6 ... may but doesn't have to. If he can pick 0, then he can pick 5. May is a permissive word. Not sure why the Russians would pick less than 6 but I think he can because he may pick 6.

As John said, it is an A then D sequence. A completes then D completes the rout phase. 6. ROUT PHASE ATTACKER first, then DEFENDER (A3.6).

Nothing prepares us for the grief of loss. Foreknowledge is not an innoculation.

The only thing that is clear is that it ambiguous. A MG or any other SW could mean the MG is in the category of SW. I think the better reading is that "a" means "any." Any MG or Any SW that requires two men to fire. If MG just referred to SW, the more concise statement would be "a SW normally...

Here is the PS:

I understand what you are saying. The M3 Medium Tank in the Russian note 49 does not reference the Grant gun. The update references US note 7 and British note 11, but not Grant gun. US note 7 - does not mention the grant gun. British note 11 - describes the Grant and the Lee. The question...

The BFP version of the Lee has several differences, no S, no C, and does not list red TH #'s. I think all of those were intentional. The question that isn't in the notes, largely irrelevant now, does the Lee have a Grant Gun. Damn lawyers.

and he didn't hit the stug anyway

Is a grant gun on a vehicle other than a grant? It is not defined.

Because it not Grant ....

The Lee operates the AAMG without going CE. That was the comment that Perry made. In other vehicles with an AAMG, then the hero does provide extra firepower by operating the AAMG. The comment is particular to the Lee and vehicles like it.

The PS: These vehicles can fire the AAMG remotely, while not CE. Note 11 third dagger: The only reason for the comment on the that there doesn't seem to be any point in doing so is that there is a +1 and a -1, just let the vehicle fire the AAMG without the hero's help.

If you fortify both ground and first level, perfectly legal.

The BFP counter matches the vehicle notes in Crucible of Steel. Appears intentional.

must be the BFP version. I will let Sam know.

The VASL counter is missing the C4 37 and the s8 75 notes on the information tag.

Index: Known Enemy Unit (any unconcealed, non-prisoner enemy unit Unarmed units without a guard are not prisoners. So, yes.

D6.1 permits broken units to rout beneath a vehicle or remain in a vehicle. I don't see a rule that permits routing into a vehicle. COWTRA.