I’m not sure about that... A wounded hero that fails a MC is outright dead. And a heroic leader is a Hero... As I understand A15.21...”A hero is randomly created from other Personnel types (even if broken) during the course of play by a subsequent...”
I see Ramon point, but also understand Ferni question... And really don’t know what to think. I have always played it as if the Hero quality took precedence, but I doubt... any other point of view please?
Pd: maybe I didn’t understand the question in first place....
One of the useful factoids about HoB is that battle hardening can be refused [middle of A15.3], but heroism cannot. (You would most often refuse battle hardening with a Finnish CPVA or Japanese leader, where you might gain a ML but lose a DRM). Heroic leaders can be fragile, and with 9 and 10 ML leaders, there's no gain in ML.I understand now! And why Vinnie didn’t what a heroic 10-3!
Once again an EXCELLENT piece of ASL finery that JR points out here! I will note that down to my book of tricks for sure.One of the useful factoids about HoB is that battle hardening can be refused [middle of A15.3],
Reread it. Battle hardening may be refused, HoB may not. So you still have to go berserk, disrupt or create a hero.Once again an EXCELLENT piece of ASL finery that JR points out here! I will note that down to my book of tricks for sure.
You want to avoid those Italians to surrender or that crucial Japanese unit going Berserk to charge every enemy MG in creation? It can be avoided with this little overlooked rule. It would have benefitted my play on various occasions.
Damn! You are absolutely correct.Reread it. Battle hardening may be refused, HoB may not. So you still have to go berserk, disrupt or create a hero.
I can't think of many times I'd refuse battle hardening but maybe the VC require a certain type of squad.
Your continued confusion on this point is justified due to the existence of this Q&A. But it's been discussed before (see this thread). According to Klas, this is an old Q&A. Since its conclusion wasn't incorporated into the 2nd Edition RB, it should probably be ignored.From My point of view, the rules in 15.2 talks about a heroic leader already wounded that fails a MC , and in A17.11 about any SMC ( hero, heroic leader, o leader or whatever other class of SMC) that is wounded, so according INHM the rules are talking about 2 different situations, and are crystal clear (maybe not easy but clear).
But then, what is the meaning of this Q&A :
A7.302 & A15.2 Is a wounded hero that suffers Casualty Reduction wounded again or eliminated? One that suffers a Casualty MC?
A. The hero would be eliminated in either case (a wounded hero that wounds again is eliminated).
Even more, what is the meaning of the very few SSR that says something like "The 9-2 is Heroic (A15.2) but suffers wounds as a leader rather than a hero" (just a very few but it shows that there are TWO different ways of effects of wound, one if you are a leader only and another if you are a heroic leader)
As far as I understood this Q&A goes not only far more than the rules, it goes directly against the rules, but no changes in the 2nd edition of rules and the Q&A still is saying what is saying
so this is the reason for my question
I'd guess the only time across many scenarios is the "upgrade" of a Japanese, CPVA or Finnish leader where the leader would lose a leadership DRM, e.g. 9-1 -> 10-0. Other than that it would be something that was specific to a scenario, e.g. if the leader was about to be eliminated, and the battle harden would increase its CVP in a scenario where CVP mattered.I can't think of many times I'd refuse battle hardening but maybe the VC require a certain type of squad.