Hatten - re fit

[Fiedler]

Can crew be shifted between AFVs during refit. I would prefer my armor leader in the 251/21 instead

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I don't recall any rule permitting a vehicle to be Abandoned during the RePh. So I think the answer is no.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I don't recall any rule permitting a vehicle to be Abandoned during the RePh. So I think the answer is no.

However, it is a separate counter and simply noted on a side record which vehicle it has been assigned to for that scenario. I think a case could certainly be made for a ruling that would allow for such a transfer because he is really not that crew counter [EXC: For the scenario being played in which he was assigned to that vehicle] and I do not believe the entire crew would have to abandon a vehicle to simply assign the Armor Leader to another vehicle during the RePh. Meh?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...I think a case could certainly be made for a ruling that would allow for such a transfer because he is really not that crew counter...

Certainly, but I think that would require some sort of errata, as there is nothing (that I can see) in the current rule that allows transfer of AL in the RePh.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Certainly, but I think that would require some sort of errata, as there is nothing (that I can see) in the current rule that allows transfer of AL in the RePh.

One thing that could lend some credence to the ability to re-assign (as it were) an armor leader to another vehicle is D3.41"An Armor Leader is considered inherently present in the particular AFV his owner assigns him to, ...". Now of course the rules are directed at playing a single scenario and do not necessarily translate well into CG with all the possible ramifications possible in such circumstances. Like yourself I would much prefer an SSR in a CG that would allow such an action, but I believe given the simple statement provided in D3.41 a case could be made that another CG Date is another "scenario" and thus allow the player to redistribute his assets accordingly if otherwise not prevented from doing so [EX: Placement of immobile vehicles in most instances or isolated units that begin the CG Date IN isolation]. If it were a game against me, I would probably resolve the matter with a die roll as there is certainly enough wiggle room for both views to have some validity.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I did find this Q&A for Red Barricades that lends credence to the ability to reassign armor leaders:

 

[Tater]

Certainly, but I think that would require some sort of errata, as there is nothing (that I can see) in the current rule that allows transfer of AL in the RePh.

Voluntary abandonment only occurs during the MPh. There is no RePh step for voluntary abandonment. However, the regular rules state that players may assign Armor leaders and there is no restriction for assigning other than it is an AFV. So unless there is a rule in the CG that takes exception to players being able to assign AL to their AFV of choice I don't see any restriction preventing a player from assigning AL to any AFV they want for each new scenario.

BTW, I looked and I didn't find any of the usual restrictions stating that leaders/SW purchased with a particular RG had to set-up with said RG. Is there any such restriction? If not, it would seem to me that the AL could be placed with any AFV from the start.

 

[Tater]

In reference to RG M3 & M4...would the "additional" roll on the Leader BH table apply on the initial CG date/scenario? The reason I ask is because the purchase of RG happens after the BH step. So in any case, the additional BH roll would have to be retro-active once a player has decided to buy M3/M4 RG.

In reference to RG purchase over-all...I didn't not find the usual rule(s) regarding leader and/or SW and/or equipment having to set up with MMC of their same purchased RG. Have I missed that restriction in the rules or can players set-up/enter leaders, SW's and/or equipment with any units from any RG?

 

[Fiedler]

sent a Q to Perry

 

[klasmalmstrom]

In reference to RG M3 & M4...would the "additional" roll on the Leader BH table apply on the initial CG date/scenario? The reason I ask is because the purchase of RG happens after the BH step. So in any case, the additional BH roll would have to be retro-active once a player has decided to buy M3/M4 RG.

Those RG are not available on the initial (i.e., the 9th) CG-Day/scenario - they all become available on the second (10th). But the footnote says:
"Purchase of this RG allows an additional roll on the Leadership Battle Hardening Table (3.6115) on CG Day of purchase; the only applicable DRM is -2."

So the DR would indeed be "retro-active" - vis-á-vis the RePh step/sub-step order.

 

[Tater]

Those RG are not available on the initial (i.e., the 9th) CG-Day/scenario - they all become available on the second (10th). But the footnote says:
"Purchase of this RG allows an additional roll on the Leadership Battle Hardening Table (3.6115) on CG Day of purchase; the only applicable DRM is -2."

So the DR would indeed be "retro-active" - vis-á-vis the RePh step/sub-step order.

Thanks...I missed the purchase limits.

 

[Tater]

What module did the SPW251/21 come in?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

What module did the SPW251/21 come in?

Besides Hatten - KGP I, Festung Budapest, & Hakkaa Päälle.