Chapter E - Q&A

E1.101 (v1 Q&A)

If two units are in adjacent hexes (e.g. two grain hexes) and only one of those hexes are Illuminated, are the units still considered to be ADJACENT (even though there is no LOS from the Illuminated hex to the non-Illuminated hex)?

Unit in Illuminated hex is Adjacent, unit out of NVR is ADJACENT.

E1.11

Question: In a Given scenario defined as being at Night (E1), and Cloud Cover  and Moon are not otherwise defined, but NVR is. Are they defined as None  cloud cover and No moon?

Essentially.

If not, Are the provisions of E1.11 used to define

 them?

No.

E1.3 (Dec 2003)

A previous Q&A from MMP asserts that A12.141 applies at Night just as it does during the day.

E1.3 doesn't refer to concealment loss at all. It then goes on to point out that E1.31 is one of the ways in which Night concealment differs from Day concealment. E1.31 is entitled "LOSS" and discusses how concealment can be lost (or not) at night through movement.

How should E1.31 be read -- is it modifying normal concealment loss rules for movement *only*, or is *only* movement the method by which concealment at night is lost? (In other words, is E1.31 talking about the *exceptions* to the normal concealment-loss rules, or is it *replacing* the normal concealment-loss rules? If the former, shouldn't it be entitled "MOVEMENT" rather than "LOSS"?)

The former. (The *exceptions*. Perhaps.)

I also note that the Night Summary Chart on the Chapter E/Chapter Q divider, under the section "CONCEALMENT LOSS", lists only three cases: Non-Assault Movement in Illuminated/enemy-occupied Location; Assault Movement in enemy-occupied Location; and Firing when in Illuminated Location or within NVR. Should this chart be read as listing the *exceptions* to normal concealment-loss rules? If so, why doesn't it say so?

Yes. It could be clearer.

E1.31 Cloaking Loss (May 2001)

A cloaking counter is using non-assault movement and causes a defender to fire a starshell which, subsequently, illuminates the Cloaking unit's Location.

Q: May the Cloaking unit continue moving and retain Cloaked status by expending its next MF to enter a non-Illuminated hex? Would Cloaking be retained if the hex was out of LOS of all defenders?

Yes to both.

Q: Following this illumination, if the Cloaked unit chose to "go to ground" (per E1.31) is it subject to Defensive First/Final fire (due to the MF expended to enter the hex prior to its illumination)?

Yes, based on the MF to enter the Location as usual.

Would such post-"going to ground" Defensive First/Final Fire benefit from any applicable FFNAM/FFMO modifiers?

Yes, per usual.

E1.53 Straying (Nov 2001)

Once it has been determined that a stack must stray and after the hexgrain it will stray along has been determined, does the stack stray as a stack or does each unit stray one at a time?

As a stack.

Assuming the stack strays as a stack, what hoppens if the individual units making up the stack have different MF allocation: does the entire stack stop straying as soon as one of its units runs out of MF

Yes.

or do units with MF left continue straying?

No.

E1.9

Can a mortar fire IR during the opponent's MPh, similar to
 a starshell placement? 
 
No.

Can it fire IR as Defensive First Fire during the opponent's MPh?  

No.

Is the ASOP correct in that it allows firing IR only at the beginning of the PFPh or DFPh,
similar to ordnance firing SMOKE?

Yes.

E1.91

I have a question regarding the firing of the initial starshell in a night scenario. E1.91 discusses the three circumstances in which the initial starshell can be placed, but who can place it is less clear.

If a DEFENDER fires at an enemy unit _during_ the enemy's MPh, then can a MMC place the first starshell or are leaders the only ones who can place a starshell after the MPh is underway?

During the first Player Turn in which starshells are placed, anyone can fire them anytime. After that turn, MMC must fire at start of PFPh/MPh and only leaders can fire outside that time period.

Hope that helps.

E1.31, E1.91, G2.3 (May 2001)

An ATTACKER Non-Assault Moves a Concealed unit within NVR of a DEFENDER (call the Location [or position] entered ``A''). DEFENDER successfully places a Starshell to Illuminate the ATTACKing unit at ``A''.
 

Suppose the ATTACKing unit can, on its next MF/MP, directly enter another, non-illuminated, Location or position (``B''), possibly out of LOS/NVR of all DEFENDERs.
 

   -  If it does =not= End ITs MPh at ``A'', but moves to ``B'', does it lose Concealment at ``A'' (for failure to End ITs MPh there, as per E1.31)?

No.

   -  If Yes, is it subject to D1F at ``A'', as an unconcealed target, before it can move to ``B''?

Cases
1. Concealed unit enters a dark OG hex. A starshell goes up, illuminating the unit. It then moves, on the next MF/MP expenditure, to an adjacent, non-illuminated hex.
 
Q. Does that unit lose concealment before entering the dark?

No.

2. Concealed Infantry bypass light jungle in the dark, along an OG hexside. A starshell goes up, illuminating the unit. It then spends MFs to move INTO the jungle, in that illuminated hex (where it is not illuminated: G2.3).

 
Q. Does that unit lose concealment before entering the dark?

No.

E1.92 Starshells

It is a Night scenario, and no Starshell/IR has been successfully fired in a previous Player Turn. May a unit that attempts (and fails) to fire a Starshell during the enemy MPh try again during the DFPh? Or is the MPh/DFPh considered one Phase for the purposes of attempting Starshell placement?

No. Yes.

E3.64 - Mud Costs... (From Ian Daglish)

We were playing in the Mud (as you do) and as always enjoying the elegant D8.23 Secret Bog Check DR mechanic, while suffering annoyance at the way the Mud rules are scattered so widely around E3. After a very close inspection of the rules, we agreed prior to play that E3.65 OPEN GROUND definition did not include buildings or paved roads, so that for example bypass of a building hex or entry of a paved road hex by a non-road hexside would still not be movement in mud. On reflection I am less sure, as E3.65 could be read as referring only to hexsides in these cases.
 

To quote Scott: E3.64 cancels the hexside cost if you ENTER non-OG terrain in that hex...which includes Paved Roads, but does NOT include bypass in OG; so, the bypassing unit would still have to pay hexside Mud costs since it didn't actually ENTER non-OG terrain in that hex--but the Paved Road unit would NOT have to pay hexside Mud costs.

Rule:A4.132, E3.6

Question:During Mud, is a dirt road still considered to exist for

purposes of LOS to a woods-road hex, Dash, Street Fighting, and

Movement/Straying at night? During Mud, if a unit enters a woods-road

hex along a depicted dirt road hexside per A4.132, can the moving unit

be considered entering the hex at the Open Ground Mud rate and subject

to FFMO if otherwise applicable?

Yes. Replace the third sentence of E3.6 with: "On _unpaved_ roads, the

road bonus in B3.4-.41 is NA and Open Ground

movement COT applies (as modified by 3.64) when using the road."

E3.73 - Deep Snow and Crest Status (Sep 2003)

E3.733 Snow (October 2001)

First Edition Rulebook:

E3.733 INFANTRY/CAVALRY MOVEMENT: In Deep Snow, Ground Snow Infantry/Cavalry movement penalties (3.723) still apply and, in addition, such units must pay an extra 1/2 MF per hexside...
 
Second Edition Rulebook:
E3.733 INFANTRY/CAVALRY MOVEMENT: In Ground/Deep Snow, Infantry/Cavalry movement penalties (3.723) still apply and, in addition, such units must pay an extra 1/2 MF per hexside...
 

Is this an error or an intentional change?

Neither.
 

In the first Edition, for Ground Snow infantry movement is only penalized when going up or down a level.

This is still the case. There has been no change in the rule.
 

The phrasing of the second edition shown above adds an extra 1/2 MF per hexside even during Ground Snow, which is a big deal as it really adds up.

Except that this is under the Deep Snow section, so it only applies to Deep Snow.

OK, so it probably should still read as it used to read.

....Perry "Error is such a harsh term"

E3.724, E3.7331 Plowed Roads (Nov 2001)
For non-tracked, non-sledge vehicles moving on a plowed road, the cost is [usually] 2 MP/MF (1 for the hex, plus one for the hexside crossed into the hex) as per E3.724 during Ground Snow.
 
Is that still the case when it is Deep Snow, or is E3.7331 to be read as reducing that cost to just one MP/MF per hex entered (and no hexside cost)?

That is still the case in Deep Snow.

Common sense, and the An96p4 Hundsdorfer article, suggest the former (2MP/MF) cost, but a strict reading of E3.7331 suggests a 1MP/MF cost.

An understandable, but unfortunate, reading.

E4.31 Ski Downhill (August 2003)

Is going down from 0 lvl INTO a gully considered crossing a Crest Line - thus giving a skiing unit a 2 MF bonus?
 

No

E6.5 Swimming Cavalry (August 2003)

Swimming cavalry (E6.5) presumably still suffer the -2 cavalry vulnerability DRM, correct?

Yes.

Swimming cavalry have their horses eliminated but the Rider passes the Bail Out MC. Presumably they instantly become normal MMC swimmers (and thus become unarmed), correct?

No, they would be immediately eliminated per 6.1 (and thus would not take a MC).

E7 and E1.53 (Feb 2003)

Is there a definition of a "Ground Unit" or "Ground Target"?

Not really.

Can Landing Craft stray (are they \"ground units\")?

No; G13.83 (mostly).

Can a Landing Craft be the target of a Mistaken Attack?

No during Seaborne Assault/Evacuation;14.34

Is \"Ground Unit\" simply any non-aerial unit?

Essentially.

E7.2 and E7.6

Air Support arrives onboard as per E7.2.
Per E7.6, an Observation Plane is ``technically offboard.''

Must a player roll for arrival of an Observation Plane as per
E7.2, or is such an OB-given asset available at once (absent
some SSR to the contrary)?

No. Yes.

E7.4 (May 2001)

Can an aircraft attack an occupied hex (either before or after any enemy units move) and leave residual FP in ermpty hexes along its strafting run?

While E7.4 does say "(but no Locations devoid of enemy units [EXC:Observation Planes ])", I believe (95% sure) this is only applicable to the *initial* target. Thus, you could still Strafe empty hexes to leave RF. That's how I would play it, until hearing from Perry.

Perry agrees w/you (per a chat I had w/him this evening). He regrets the poor wording of E7.4.

D7.42 Bombing (Jul 2002)

There is a concealed squad and an unconcealed squad in a building hex (or any other situation where the it would be possible to hit some targets and miss others in a building hex). A plane makes a Bomb attack using the ITT. You make one TH DR. How do you determine what is affected? Is it
 

1) Only the units hit are affected, as per the E7.421 EX, or
 

2) All units are affected if any are hit, as per the second sentence of E7.42 ("If attacking a building hex, the effect is resolved against all targets in LOS in the building hex with the same IFT Effects DR as a single attack vs that hex.", note the "all targets"), or
 

(3) If any are missed, none are attacked, as per the last sentence of E7.42
 

("A bomb To Hit attempt that results in a miss is not resolved vs any target.", it doesn't say "hits no targets", just an attempt has to result in a miss. Missing one and hitting another is an attempt that resulted in a miss, as well as an attempt that resulted in a hit.)

(1) is correct.

E7.421 (April 2002)

The Journal 3 article "Strafer Jones" seems to say that bombs use the Direct Hit / Near Miss mechanism (DR <= half Basic TH# means Direct Hit and full FP; otherwise DR <= TH# means Near Miss and half FP) for both Infantry and Vehicle target type.

However, E7.421 seems to say that this mechanism is used only against Vehicle target type, and an Infantry attack would follow E7.42 and result in either full FP of the bomb or a miss.

Is the article in error on this point?

Apparently.

Scott and Wayne are correct, the article is in error in indicating that the Direct Hit/Near Miss procedure applies to unarmored units.

I see a number of errors/problems in the article, including the one you cite.

Let me know what other problems you find and we can acknowledge them.

No golden pen awards for that one :(.

No editorial awards either. We edit the Journal articles carefully enough (some would say too much) that you should point the finger at us for any errors rather than at the authors.

Return to DiceTower.com