ScenarioQA

Glossary: (Aug 2003) Does an SSR declaring a side to be the Scenario Defender apply even if the ASLRB definition of Scenario Defender is violated in the particular scenario?

a. Any multi-level building hex, OR
b. Any hex containing a Level 2 building Location?

The latter.

The Americans are the Scenario Defender in this night scenario; however, part of their initial OoB is required to set up In Motion. May these units be considered to already have Freedom Of Movement at scenario start? 

No.

How many pillboxes do the Russians get: one, or ten?

One.

Regarding SSR#3, may Russians set up on board #43 in locations where entrenchments are NA (such as in buildings)?

No, they must set up entrenched.

Regarding SSR 4 "All German 4-4-7s/2-3-7s are considered to have Assault Fire 
capability..."

Wondering whether the "2-3-7" listing is a mistake - no other HS type in the game has Assault Fire capabilty, and A7.36 says  Assault Fire restricted to 'squads' (never mentions HS/MMC).

No Assault Fire for the 2-3-7 HS.

The SSR states that each player must place FIVE rubble counters.

Then it states that after the 8th rubble is placed, each player places 4 shellhole counters.

I checked the website and found no errata for "Kiwi".

Is this an error? Is it 10 or 8 rubble counters?

Do you place 8, then place 4 rubble (each) and then the last two rubble?

Or do you place all the rubble and then place all the shellholes?

I must have read this thing a dozen times and never noticed before that it says "5 rubble each" and then "8"....

The SSR is correct. Both players alternate placing 4 rubble counters each. The 4 shellholes each. Then 1 rubble each. This total does not include falling rubble. Check ASL Crossfire in General 30-4.

(Answer in this case from the ASL Mailing List, not Perry but I included it here because it was my question.)

Question:I presume that the British may deploy >= 3 squads, so as to have all his infantry loaded as passengers in the Ram Kangaroos (as the setup

The VC read "The British win at game end by Controlling/Destroying 5 of the 7 pillboxes/multi-hex buildings."

There are six multi-hex buildings, five on board 49 and one on board 4, for a total of eight pillboxes/multi-hex buildings. Should "Building 4O6 does not count for victory purposes." be added to the VC?

Is it the intent of "Destroying" in the VC to make Rubbling, or having a Blaze in, every Location of a building count for victory, or does the "Destroying" part only apply to the Pillboxes (B30.92)?

HS27: There was a question on the List the other day about HS27 Lawless Ways whether SSR RR5 applies. SSR RR5 states that "The Panzer Lehr Division is elite (C8.2)."

The German OB references Kampfgruppe von Hauser, but not Lehr, although the historical write-up mentions that KvH is part of Lehr.

After checking with the designers I am glad to state that the German forces in Lawless Ways should not be considered elite for the purposes of C8.2, which is what a strict reading of the OB would indicate. The AFV were predominately, or perhaps all, from the 116th Panzer Division.

For the purpose of the VICTORY CONDITIONS of J3, are 24Q5 and 24Q6

considered as one building or separated buildings? 

Neither. A Lumberyard is not a building for VC purposes.

Broadway to Prokhorovka - page 60, BPSSRs:

The HS passenger of any SPW 250/sMG and/or SPW 251/sMG is a 3-4-8;

page 61, table 2: chit #4 reinforcements enter on turn 1, not turn 2;

page 61, column 2, Example of CG Play, line 7: replace "2 fatigue chits" with "1 fatigue chit".

SSR 4 seems to present a difficulty. If the German player chooses chit # 3, he will NEVER play with the additional forces listes (Pz VIE or Squad + 9-2 ldr + MMG)! If the Russian chooses a lesser numbered chit, German wins the privilege of moving first, without recieving chit # 3 forces. If Russian chooses chit # 3 (i. e. a tie), the same result occurs...

Good thing, too. The Germans would kick butt with another Tiger. But at least they get to move first if they really want to.

Note that Perry's answer at my question about J54 "Showtime" scenario is not satisfying... The German will NEVER have the possibility of using the OB listed under "Chit # 3".

If there were no flaw in the scenario, why even give a CHOICE of OBs (infantry or armor)?

I believe the rule about chits in this scenario ought to be completely rewritten (or, at leat, just put the sentence "I go first" under the German "chit # 3", in place of such an attractive - but illusory - OB)...

In the Victory Conditions, replace the second
instance of "Germans" with "Americans". Also, scenario design should be
credited to Mike Licari.

The VC say "The Germans win at game end by Controlling all four board 38 buildings and...." What happens if one side or the other rubbles one or more of the four single-story wooden
buildings? Does it

If playing a single scenario, you do a random chit selection to determine what exact group you get from A,B, and C. Is this correct?

Yeah, that will give a little more fog-of-war. If both players agree to choose some or all of their table forces, that's OK with me too. Heck, have opponents choose each other's forces for a really challenging match!

If the above is correct, there are some choices to be made from options on the scenario card itself (e.g. 57L AT vs. 40L AA in Egypt's Last Hope).

Are these choice made before or after the random selection of the A, B, & C groups?

Make the A, B, and C table selections first. I was wondering about that myself after it was too late.

discard) the specific chits of their choosing (NOT random chit selection) for each scenario. Is this correct?

Yes, each chit may be chosen only once for the entire CG. Again, unless both players agree to do it differently. Having fun is the most important part. There are no heretics if heresy becomes the standard.

In the scenario J87 Flames of Unrest the partisans have modified Fire extinguishers that work like FT\'s. These FT\'s only have a 1 hex range and 12 FP which is half of a normal FT. When firing these FT\'s at AFV do they have the full 8 TK# or is that also halved to 4 since they really aren\'t true FT\'s?

The victory conditions state:

"The Americans win at game end if they Control at least 6 of the 10
multi-level (B23.22-.23) buildings on board 12."

There are 11 multi-level buildings on board 12, but there are
10 multi-story buildings. Should the VC's be revised to state

(a) "6 of the 11 multi-level buildings"
or
(b) "6 of the 10 multi-story buildings"
or
(c) something else?

a) 11 MULTI-LEVEL buildings is correct.

SSR 7 seems to imply that only units begining in Melee lose concealement thus other units, even in LOS and Open Ground of enemies, begin Turn 1 concealed.

Correct.

This reply came from Perry in response to a thread on the ASL mailing list that discussed placement of Trenches instead of Foxholes when a scenario said that a side could setup "Entrenched" or in "Entrenchments" in suitable terrain. Another suggestion was that a single squad could setup in a 3 squad foxhole in such a scenario.

Off the top of my head I don't know of any scenario where the phrase "may set up entrenched" is intended to include Trenches.

Since at least 1997 we have been trying to consistently include with that phrase a rules citation to B27.1, making it clear that foxholes are intended, not trenches. I don't think I have seen anyone seriously suggest that a lone squad can use this rule to create a 3-squad foxhole, but I have blacked out some of my ... memories.

In this scenario from the Buckeye pack, the numbers of Japanese units are listed in the form of m(n) where the "Number in parenthesis indicates the number of squads that must start step-reduced." So, if it says 4(1) does that mean 4 full strength squads, plus 1 step-reduced squad? Or does it mean 4 squads, 1 of which is step-reduced?