Thank you, sir, for the corrections. Everything has been incorporated into errata dated May 29, 2019.Possible errata tweaks (based on current Sticky errata):
Spent time this weekend catching up on posting errata. Always appreciative of the efforts to clarify/correct where needed.
- For the Section 2.1 errata at the end of the paragraph, the (B20.9) citation should be bolded.
- For the Section 8.10, first example, last sentence errata, font should be italics.
- On the second page of errata, "American Reinforcement Group Chart: Add note “j” to the Notes for RG O5." is listed twice. The second mention should probably indicate that it is errata for American RG Note a (that looks like what it matches).
Rick - not sure on the refresh rate for the page - awaiting the updated sticky version. Thanks.Section 12.522 and 12.5221: Section heading should say, “Wind, Night and Unit Setup”. Section 12.5221 should be labeled “Wind/Night” and the first 2 sentences should be deleted and replaced with, “See HBR 1c. After the Initial CG Scenario roll for Wind Change (B25.65, if required) and Weather, as per 12.517 chart. Then roll for EC conditions, as per 12.5171.”
Errata dated May 29, 2019 on the BFP Support page.
It's from RB and RF where it was allowed, I figured it would transfer over and was checking since so many RB rules show up in other HASL's. Can't do mines/entrenchments in Shellhole paved road hexes, but can in Debris/rubble road hexes.We missed this on CG Day 1. I thought you could do this but it is right there in B3.5. I've been playing this wrong a LONG time.
Figured that - did anyone say blanket the ground with corpses...eer I mean paratroopers.See this thread:
All drop points must be designated before you view enemy set up and they need to be 3 hexes away from each other.
I'll wait for BFP to chime in on the player aid question. We did not even look at it in our game. We referenced the BFP Paradrop rules and examples only.Btw the landings are a bloody and messy affair. So far I think the HQ could have saved the money for chutes and just dropped the paratroopers w/o them - the results would be the same more or less /S
The rules defined in section 8 of the Corr rules will take precedence to those in section E9. Given the very low altitude at which they dropped, there was very little drift for the paras on Corrs. When required to define alternate drop points, this is more indicative of the scattering of the airplanes dropping the paras than these guys getting blown around on the way down. They pretty much landed on what they jumped out over.Q on the Paradrop player aid
excerpt from E9.12: ..."Each parachute's drift is then adjusted for wind (if any) direction and strength by being moved two hexes directly downwind for a Mild Breeze, three hexes thusly during Gusts, or four hexes thusly during Heavy Winds."...
This seems to be contrary to the drift in the player aid and example (I may be confused though so pls double check) which seems to say that any error is increased in the direction of error and not drifting as per E9.12 in the wind.
Anyone care to explain?
That's probably about right. The paras on Corregidor suffered upwards of 70% casualties in their drop. Their only saving grace was the element of surprise in that the Japanese had no clue that the Americans would be dropping on them from above instead of their expected invasion via the sea.Btw the landings are a bloody and messy affair. So far I think the HQ could have saved the money for chutes and just dropped the paratroopers w/o them - the results would be the same more or less
No. The reference is in an obscure place.....gotta dig to find it.....but under the Fortification Purchasing Table (12.520) if you look under Caves you will see the note that Cave Complexes are NA. Thus applies to all CG scenarios and regular scenarios as well.In CTR-20 Prequel to Armageddon the Japanese have 5 caves.
Can they create a cave-complex?