Search results

The squad in 3D9 below wants to bypass the Woods in 3C9. Deep Snow is in effect. Q. What is the total additional MF cost attributable to the Deep Snow if it bypasses the Woods in 3C9 only as necessary to enter -- 3B9? 3B8? 3C8? A. ½ MF, 1 MF, and 1½ MF, respectively. ....Perry MMP

So, could you get them working on the modifier for a large Gun? I kinda fouled up on that part of the question.

Here we are (copy already in the Perry Sez Collection): A1.6, O5.331, R5.331 Q. A Breach exists in an Interior Factory Wall in a game or scenario to which the above Red Barricades and Red Factories rules apply. What is the US# of the unit currently wishing to cross the breached hexside in the...

A1.6, O5.331, R5.331 Q. A Breach exists in an Interior Factory Wall in a game or scenario to which the above Red Barricades and Red Factories rules apply. What is the US# of the unit currently wishing to cross the breached hexside in the case of a crew attempting to push a Gun which is not a...

Likewise, for what it is worth, I doubt the intent was to address Guns at all -- just "how many Infantry can I shove through a Breach in a Factory Interior Wall in one phase?" The prohibition against shoving through Guns (if that is there) is likely an unanticipated and possibly unwanted...

A few points on Doug Leslie's arguments: 1. That A1.6 mentions specifically certain rules is hardly surprising, and not at all informative, when the (unmentioned) rule is in an HASL. 2. Concealment is not problematic how ever you interpret A1.6. The 12.122 DRM is explicit: "+X [where] X is the...

To me, "as do" does not mean the Riders or attendant crews have no unit size. It means the Riders or attendant crews have a US# of 4, "as do" whatever is transporting them or whatever Gun they serve as the crew for. If the rules included them at no extra cost to the US# then I would have...

"The US of a gun and its manning crew is 4 (5 if the gun is a large target)." Do you have cite for the notion that the crew unit size of 2 disappears when it is manning a Gun?

I wonder if B4.2 is the right rule, as B4.2 only mentions the dark brown outline of other Depression hexes between viewing and target Depression hexes. You get to the same result if you treat 41W7 as a Hill Depression, B19.5, however. There, from same or lower elevations one can't see INTO a...

Not extra words at all. In any rules writing, the technical translation of "regardless of" is as follows: "and in case I forgot some oddball case, the answer is still" no effect!

Great minds think alike! ;) Thanks to Doug Leslie's comment, I learned of E3.9 in time to incorporate it in the question I sent, as you'll see if and when there is a reply.

Question sent. I ended up asking about three objective hexes involving the unit bypassing the woods parallel to one, two, and three hexsides just to address the suggestion above that the additional cost would not vary for the first two vertices reached but would thereafter.

So in the example I proposed, under your interpretation what is the additional MF cost of the Deep Snow?

E3.724 is not a red herring: in an analogous situation (vehicular movement in Ground Snow) the additional cost of movement is per hexside crossed/bypassed. E3.7Q&A confirms the "crossed" part is also applicable to MF expenditure: the only open question is MF expenditure per hexside bypassed...

It would be strange for the penalty for Deep Snow to be calculated in a different manner than the penalty for Ground Snow. Deep Snow is, well, just deeper Ground Snow! But you are certainly correct that on general principles intent is no basis to resolve a RB question. I'll ask. Does this...

Curious and curiouser: E7.24 states that in Ground Snow non-tracked vehicles must expend one extra MP "per hexside crossed/bypassed." E7.33 and E7.331 then state that in Deep Snow, both infantry and vehicles must expend more MF/MP "per hexside." I wonder if the intention wasn't "per hexside...

It was in an RB SSR, and for unknown reasons disappeared when the same SSR was carried over to RF. Consensus when this was debated before here was it should be there. Klas even told me he reported as a candidate for errata. Edit: here is the prior thread I mentioned: Bypass of wire hexsides

I would have thought the point of dummies, concealed or cloaked, is to add a bit of fog of war to the game, not to lift it by scouting. As they cannot reveal fortifications by the rules (not GO), using them in that way is an abuse of the rules even if it can't be prevented under the rules. I...

I don't think you are giving adequate consideration to A12.16. The final sentence explicitly reminds that Dummies, not being Good order, "will not reveal hidden fortifications" and then advocates for an honor system House Rule to "balance the desire of the moving player to find hidden...

What you quote is preceded by "6. ROUT PHASE "ATTACKER first, then DEFENDER (A3.6)." So the only logical construction is that all of 6 must be completed by the ATTACKER before the DEFENDER does anything in 6. Edit: and let's not forget this tidbit from the preface to the ASOP: "Should the...