For Whom the Bell Tolls´ FAQ

compiled by Dean Moon from official rulings, October 2006

 

 

Includes Q&A from The Europa Magazine, from the EuroGuru’s website, and from players posting on the Lysator and YahooGroups Europa Association lists.

 

Maps

 

Q: Aguilas is not an Andalucian city, but rather a Murcian city?

A:  Yes, Aguilas is a Murcian city.  I was aware of this and considered moving the border westward, but finally decided not to since the overwhelming majority of the hex was Andalucian and it had no effect on the game (Aguilas is on the plain represented by the clear terrain, but on the extreme eastern edge.)

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q: Of Minor Import, probably not worth mentioning in errata: Oviedo (23A:1007) is misspelled on the map as Oveido.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q: Insurgent OB says Calatayud (23A:2702). Map says Calatyud. Which is right?

A: Calatayud.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q: Insurgent OB says Alcazarquivar (23A:4131). Map says Alcazarquivir. Which is right?

A: Alcazarquivir.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q: Insurgent OB says Sanlucar de Barramdeda (23A:3328). Map says Sanlucar de Barrameda.  Which is right?

A: Sanlucar de Barrameda.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q: Why did Castellon de la Plana, a fair-sized city and important port, not rate reference city status?

A: Its population was below the cutoff (40,000) needed to rate reference city status.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Narrow Straits

 

Q: Do narrow straits only occur where there is a narrow straits crossing symbol on the map, or where geography indicates it might exist?

A: Narrow straits exist (in game terms) only across those sea hexsides where a printed narrow straits crossing symbol is shown.

 

Q: For example, in SW France there is a narrow strait between 1223&1224, however, it seems such a strait would exist between each hexside going south all the way to 1524-1525, though there are no markers. Similarly, there is a marker between 0822-0923 but not between 0221-0322.  I have to think this is intentional, is it?

A: Yes, this is intentional. Note: In general (there are exceptions), a narrow straits crossing symbol is shown at each all-sea hexside which is 3 miles or less in width (this is close to the normal flood width of a non-channel-stabilized major river.) An all-sea hexside 3-5 miles across is occasionally given the narrow straits symbol anyway if it meets either of the following criteria:

1) designating the hexside as a narrow straits would normally "close" the mouth of a bay or estuary to enemy naval movement (this is because the rules prohibit enemy naval units from moving through a narrow straits unless they own both sides of the straits -- this prohibition reflects in game terms the decided lack of enthusiasm naval commanders had for entering enclosed bodies of water controlled by the enemy), or 2) the hexside normally had a civilian ferry running across it and all the other all-sea hexsides near it were much wider than 5 miles across; usually when an exception is made cases #1 and #2 both apply.

Using the same example you cite above (the Gironde River estuary on map 33 from FWtBT) as illustrative of this criteria:

A) At the "mouth" of the Gironde (from Royan in hex 33:1223 to Pointe de Grave in hex 33:1224), the width of the estuary is about 3.5 miles across.  The map shows a narrow straits symbol here even though the strait is more than 3 miles across because placing a straits symbol here "closes" the Gironde to enemy naval movement and because there was normal civilian ferry service of long standing across this section of the estuary. (Note: In reality, the tip of the peninsula in hex 1224 should reach right up to the point where hexes 1124, 1223, and 1224 meet, but this was deliberately foreshortened on the game map so as to make it easier for players to "visualize" that naval movement from 1224 to 1324 is possible when they are allowed to move through the 1223/1224 narrow straits.)

B) The main portion of the lower Gironde estuary between the mouth and Paulliac (that is the 1223/1324, 1324/1323, and 1324/1423 hexsides) widens dramatically to an average width of 7-8 miles. This section of the estuary, therefore, was NOT given narrow straits symbols.

C) The middle section of the Gironde estuary (a roughly 6 mile stretch from Pauillac on the west bank south to Blaye on the east bank narrows to about 2.5 miles across, with the effective width even less due to several islands in mid-channel). This section (the 33:1423/1424 hexside), therefore, WAS given a narrow straits symbol.

D) The upper Gironde estuary south of Blaye widens again to a 3-4 mile width -- also there are no islands in this stretch. This section (the 33:1424/1524 hexside), therefore, was NOT given a narrow straits symbol.

E) The uppermost section of the estuary (the 33:1524/1525 hexside) narrows again to 1.5-2.5 miles across (with islands in mid-channel again).  And looking at this again now, I cannot see why this section should not have a narrow straits hexside.

[AEG, Developer, 29-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

Counters

 

Q:  There seems to be several counters used neither in the Europa OB nor in the Civil War scenarios:
    Insurgent/Spanish:

1x 3-8 Cav X           Mar (Col)

1x 3-6* Inf III          Tdl (Col)

1x 1-8 Lt Arm II      S

2x 0-1-6 Inf II          I/TdI, IV/TdI (Col)

A:  Players may substitute the 3-8 Cav X Mar. (Col) for the two 2-1-8 Cav III 1E. and 2O. (Col) at any time during WWII scenarios.  The two 0-1-6 Inf II I/Tdl and IV/Tdl (Col) should be Spanish Neutrality Watch units on the islands of Gran Canaria and Tenerife, respectively. Players may substitute the 3-6* Inf III Tdl (Col) for the 2-6* Inf III Tdl (Col) and the two 0-1-6 Inf II I/Tdl, IV/Tdl (Col). The 1-8 Lt Arm II S. should have been deleted from the countermix.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  It appears there are a number of counters that are not used in any of the scenarios included in the game.

A:  Yes, there are a few and here is a list:

Insurgent/Spanish:

1x 3-8 Cav X                       Mar(Col)

1x 3-6* Inf III          TdI(Col)

2x 0-1-6 Inf II          I/TdI,IV/TdI(Col)

1x 1-8 Lt Arm II      S

1x N.52                   1F1      0/4

1x Bre.19                0A1      1/8

1x Vild                    1A1      1/F/9

Loyalist:

1x A-101                 1A1      1/9

German:

1x 7-6 Inf XX          Pol(SS)

Note that the Nationalist air units above may come into play when using 44H.  Similarly, use the Loyalist A-101 in place of the Bre.19 in the Insurgent OB should it go over to the Loyalist player.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

Q:  Why is there no Insurgent counter for 1-0-8 Lt Arm III AAC?  (Not backprinted like the others either.)  Aranjuez could join the Insurgency.

A: It may be a design decision not to have this unit available to the Insurgents.  Thus, if Aranjuez is Insurgent due to 44H, then there is no AAC unit in the game.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Sep-03]

A: This was a deliberate choice made by the FWtBT designers.  The AAC unit was not a pre-Spanish Civil War unit, but instead was an ad-hoc unit assembled by the Loyalists in just a couple of days by pulling miscellaneous assets from other units and by arming a number of private vehicles quickly impressed into Loyalist service.  As such it was a unique unit that only the Loyalists should be able to form.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

                 

Q: No 2nd Loyalist-printed Bre.19 in case Sevilla does not rise?  Errata says use A-101 instead, but it has different ratings!  (Bre.19 is 0A1 1/8, A-101 is 1A1 1/9)

A: Well, obviously you know what the rules (per the errata) say:  use the A-101!  It's pretty clear, though it seems odd.  Not really a rules question, but one of design intent/OB research.  I will ask the Developer about it.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Sep-03]

A: This was a deliberate choice made by the FWtBT designers.  The Bre.19 squadrons stationed in and around Sevilla were in the process of reequipping from Bre.19s to A.101s when the Spanish Civil War began.  As part of this process a fair number of A-101s were in the final stages of assembly at Sevilla.  Even though the insurgents quickly took Sevilla (and the facilities there that were assembling the A-101s), they failed to get any appreciable numbers of A-101s into service (I think this was because of a shortage of engines, but I may be wrong) and just kept flying the Bre.19s instead.  However, had Sevilla stayed Loyalist, the pre-war plan to replace the existing Bre.19s with A-101s would probably have quickly been implemented.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

Master Terrain Key -- Major City Terrain Type

 

Q:  Are major city hexes considered non-clear terrain?

A:  No, major cities do not contain clear terrain.  They are a terrain type, not a feature.  Features exist within the other terrain of the hex and do not change the basic terrain type.  For example, you cannot have a “dot city hex”; you simply have a dot city existing in a hex of whatever terrain type it is.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

Terrain Effects Chart -- Mountain Hexsides

 

Q:  Movement across a mountain hexside should be +3, not 3, correct?

A:  No, movement across a mountain hexside is treated as if the unit entered a mountain hex, ignoring the actual terrain of the hex entered.  For example, a c/m unit entering a clear terrain hex, in Clear weather, by cross a mountain hexside would pay 6 MPs to do so.  In Winter (Snow) weather it would not be able to enter a clear terrain hex by crossing a mountain hexside, since a mountain hex is prohibited terrain for motorized and artillery units under those conditions.  If the effect was an additional modifier, this would be listed as such, as is done with rivers and wadis.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

Terrain Effects Chart -- River and Swamp Freezing

 

Q:  When do rivers freeze?

A:  Never.  The map includes only weather zones D and E, per 36A1, and note 5 on the TEC states, “Rivers and lakes freeze in weather zones A, B and C during cold weather…”

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

Q:  The weather zone qualifier is not listed after the semicolon.  In zone D, for example, do swamps and wooded swamps freeze in Snow weather?

A:  No.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 07-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

Combat Chart

 

Q:  The patrol attack table on the Combat Chart has an error on the 0 to +2 differential on the "1" result, whereby the attacker aborted result is printed as a second defender aborted.  Is this correct?

A:  Correct; the chart is in error.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

Game Play Charts

 

Q: The summary seems to say that a unit's defense strength is halved when it is U-1 and isolated, but that doesn't jibe with what 12E says.

Do you recall an erratum for either FWtBT or WitD about an error with the Supply Conditions Summary?

A: Yes, there is an erratum stating that a unit's defense strength is unaffected on the first turn out of general supply regardless of isolation status.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 21-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

Orders Of Battle

 

Variable Rebellion Ramifications

 

Q: Regarding forces that rise against the Republic that did not do so historically.  For example, the N.52 Loyalist fighter rose against the Republic when the Insurgency gained ownership of the West Madrid hex.  The Loyalist I Nov 36 OB says that N.52 withdraws?  Should the Insurgent side withdraw the Insurgent N.52 on  I Nov 36, or ignore the issue?  Same question would apply to any other such unit that is referenced in one side's OB when the unit or air unit is owned by the other side due to variable rebellion.

A: A reinforcement activity – such as a withdrawal – only applies to the side it is specified for.  For example, reinforcement activities specified for the Loyalists apply *only* to Loyalist forces.  Therefore, if the sole N.52 fighter in the game falls to the Insurgency as part of “Variable Beginning to the Rebellion”, it is thereafter an Insurgent N.52 and any and all references in the Loyalist OB to a Loyalist N.52 (which does not exist in this game’s universe) are ignored.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q:  Why do the El Ferrol and Cadiz artillery disbands cause the CD levels to drop, while the Cartagena and Mahon disbands have no effect on the CD  levels?  Was something dropped from the Loyalist OB, or is their a history based reason for this apparent difference in handling between the two sides?

A:  After looking at my FWtBT development notes I think both of the issues cited above about the disbandment of the static artillery units at the main Spanish naval bases were oversights on my part.  Also, looking at this, I now see that there is also a potential problem with how these units are disbanded if Rule 44H (Variable Beginning to the Rebellion) is used.  With variable rebellion, one side may start owning anywhere from 0 to all 4 of these static units, yet per the OBs the only ones they can disband are the historical ones.  To fix all of these problems, consider the OBs and rules changed as follows:

 

Insurgent OB:

 

Add to Jan I 37:

 

Special: If 'Variable Beginning to the Rebellion' (Rule 44H) resulted in 1-0 Art X Mahon becoming an Insurgent unit:
Disband: 1x 1-0 Art X Mahon to:
            1 art RP
Notes:

            1) The Mahon Art X may be disbanded while isolated; the resulting art RP then accumulates at the port in the hex.
            2) Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of Mahon (33:4625) from Level 2 to Level 1 when the Mahon Art X is disbanded.


Add to Jan II 37:

Special: If 'Variable Beginning to the Rebellion' (Rule 44H) resulted in 1-2-0 Art X Cart becoming an Insurgent unit:
Disband: 1x 1-2-0 Art X Cart to:
            1 art RP, 0.5 Nat inf RP
Note:

            1) Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of Cartagena (23A:4410) from Level 2 to Level 1 when the Cart Art X is disbanded.

 

Loyalist OB:

 

Add to Jan I 37:

 

Notes:

            1) The Mahon Art X may be disbanded while isolated; the resulting art RP then accumulates at the port in the hex.
            2) Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of Mahon (33:4625) from Level 2 to Level 1 when the Mahon Art X is disbanded.
Special: If 'Variable Beginning to the Rebellion' (Rule 44H) resulted in 1-0 Art X Cadiz becoming a Loyalist unit:
Disband: 1x 1-0 Art X Cadiz to:
            1 art RP
Note: Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of Cadiz (23A:3428) from Level 1 to none when the Cadiz Art X is disbanded.

Add to Jan II 37:

Note: Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of Cartagena (23A:4410) from Level 2 to Level 1 when the Cart Art X is disbanded.
Special: If 'Variable Beginning to the Rebellion' (Rule 44H) resulted in 1-2-0 Art X EF becoming a Loyalist unit:
Disband: 1x 1-2-0 Art X EF to:
            1 art RP, 0.5 PA inf RP
Note: Reduce Intrinsic Coast Defenses of El Ferrol (23A:0313) and La Coruna (23A:0314) from Level 2 to Level 1 when the EF Art X is disbanded.

Change to 1937-39 Grand Campaign/Mid-War and Late-War Scenario Listings:
The Intrinsic Coast Defenses of both Cartagena (23A:4410) and Mahon (33:4625) at the start of these scenarios are Level 1 (not Level 2).

 

A:  The access to the ports of El Ferrol and La Corunya is through the same bay and thus the coast defenses of the bay are common to both ports (although in the main the coast defenses here were oriented more to protect El Ferrol than they are to protect La Corunya).  However, in game terms this can cause problems when the 'Variable Beginning to the Rebellion' results in each side owning one of the ports at the beginning of the game.  The only entirely clean fix I can think of to this problem is to specify that the coast defenses of La Corunya (23A:0314) are the same as the coast defenses of a friendly-owned El Ferrol (23A:0313).  Examples: 1) El Ferrol has a current coast defense strength of 2 and both El Ferrol and La Corunya are friendly owned so La Corunya also has a coast defense strength of 2 and 2) Same as #1 except that El Ferrol is enemy-owned - La Corunya thus has a coast defense strength of 0.  With the coast defense strength of La Corunya then dependent on El Ferrol you just ignore the mention in the OB of how disbanding the EF Art X lowers the coast defense strength of La Corunya.

[AEG, Developer, 01-Oct-05]

 

Loyalist OB - Conditional Reinforcements, Barcelona Revolt

 

Q:  For disarming during the Barcelona revolt, should the Pe X never upgrade to its XX incarnation, it appears to be left off the disarming conditional reinforcement.  Clearly the intention was that all POUM forces are disarmed.  Should the Pe unit be included in both its possible incarnations?

A:  Yes, this is an oversight. If the Le X is in play instead of the XX, the brigade should be disarmed.  Consider the Loyalist OB modified as follows:

Conditional Reinforcements

The Barcelona Revolt. Take the following actions the turn the Barcelona Revolt occurs:

Disarm:

    1x 3-4-5* Inf XX    29 Le (P)

    2x 1-2-5 Inf X     An, Maur (P)

    Special: If  the Le X (P) is still in play (because it was not upgraded to the 29 Le XX) then disarm 1x 2-5 Inf X Le (P) instead of 1x 3-4-5* Inf XX 29 Le (P).  Reduce any accumulated P inf RPs to zero.

[AEG, Developer, 23-Sep-05]

 

Insurgent OB - Calculating ARP Rates

 

Q:  How "in-play" are the air units in the Italian intervention box?  I note that the naval units can be brought in at any time by the Insurgents, so long as they have not used their intervention for the year.  All air units can come on board so long as the Loyalists allow it to happen via their own actions.  I ask because the CTV has an air unit available in the intervention holding box on I Aug 36, so this unit may or may not be allowed into the ARP calculations when the I Sep 36 air cycle begins.  I.e., though the CR32 arrives in Sep 36, they do not count for ARP calculations per the ruling above.  Do the Mxd A floatplanes count for the calculations, or is their placement in the intervention box similar in nature to the France holding box and they therefore don't count?

A:  For ARP purposes, don’t count any CTV air units in the Italian intervention box if they haven't been released.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Jun-05]

 

Insurgent OB - Conditional Reinforcements, Italian Naval Intervention

 

Q:  If the Insurgent player decides to use the Italian naval forces for on-map operations, must all 3x 6-pt TFs be used the same turn?  Or is he allowed to use each TF in different turns?  (Or even use them on their reduced sides, in order to have smaller but more TFs with which to "bother" the Loyalist player?)

A:  He must use them all in the same turn.  Note that the OB entry says "3x 6-pt Task Forces..." not "up to 3x 6-pt Task Forces".  But note that while the 3 naval units are released at the same time per the OB, they don't have to operate together while on the map.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 05-Feb-05]

 

Insurgent OB - Conditional Reinforcements

 

Q:  The two Italian landing craft are never released if there is no Loyalist landing on Mallorca.  Is this an oversight?
A:  That's how it was designed.  As an option, you could release these units when you first call up the Italian Navy for on map use, and then keep the units from then on.  Note that you couldn't have more than two LCs present, in any case.

[RCV] & [JAM]

A:  Agree.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Insurgent OB - Com RPs

 

Q:  Why introduce the concept of “Com" RPs when Italian and German RPs must be tracked separately anyway?

A:  "Com" does not refer to "combined Italian and German", it refers to "combined infantry and artillery".  Interventionist units are the only ones which do not require separate handling of inf and art RPs.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Loyalist OB - Calculating ARP Rates

 

Q:  For the purposes of calculating ARPs on the first turn of each air cycle, are air units in the France Holding Box behind a Closed French Border considered to be "on the map"?

A:  No, the OB's specify that "Air units in play include all those on the map and in the aborted or eliminated boxes of the air chart."  Whether the French border is opened or closed, the France Holding box meets neither of these requirements.  For ARP purposes, don't count any Loyalist air units in the France holding box.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 27-Jan-05 and 13-Jun-05]

 

Loyalist OB - Conditional Reinforcements, Releasing Basque Garrison

 

Q: One of conditions for release of the Euzkadi garrison is the presence of 4 REs of Insurgent units north of the 19xx hexrow.  Does this include the 19xx hexrow itself?

A: No.  The term “north of the 19xx hexrow” means just that.  Units *in* hex of the 19xx hexrow are not *north* of the 19xx hexrow.  Had it been intended that units in the 19xx hexrow be included, the Loyalist OB would have specified “on or north of the 19xx hexrow”.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

 

Loyalist OB, Rule 38D5 (Insurgent Gobernito border garrisons) and Rule 39D (Intrinsic Garrison)

 

Q: For the purposes of 1) Insurgent REs triggering Gobernito garrison release, and 2) checking the required Insurgent Gobernito border garrison, are the REs of intrinsic garrisons (of pacified cities) considered units?

A1: 39D specifies that intrinsic garrisons are treated as units.  The trigger conditions listed in the Loyalist OB for release of the various Gobernito Garrisons refer to insurgent units without modifying the term “units” in any way.  Therefore, yes, Insurgent intrinsic garrison “units” that otherwise meet the conditions specified in the OB *do* count towards Gobernito garrison release.

Note that the trigger conditions for the release of the various garrisons all require the Insurgent units being counted toward the garrison’s release to be inside the Gobernito.  If the Insurgent player has taken a city inside a Gobernito and pacified it (thus leaving an intrinsic garrison behind), then that intrinsic garrison is definitely contributing towards the unease being felt by that Gobernito and should count towards the release of that Gobernito’s garrison.

A2: There is no such thing as an “Insurgent Gobernito border garrison”.  38D5 refers to “Insurgent Gobernito Guard Forces”.  Per that rule, “Only Insurgent ground units with an attack strength greater than 0 may be used for these guard forces”.  Since 39D specifies that intrinsic garrisons always have an attack strength of 0, intrinsic garrisons cannot be counted towards part of any Insurgent Gobernito Guard Force.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

Rules

 

Rule 3E1 and 3E3 -- Geography Terms and Regions

 

Q:  Spanish Morocco is not part of Spain, but it is still a region of Spain, correct?

A:  Yes.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 3A2 -- Artillery unit types

 

Q:  AA units are replaced using art RPs, and are in fact anti-aircraft artillery.  However, the rules, at least as I can find, do not seem to make a distinction beyond that.  Are these units treated the same as artillery units for movement, or purposes of combat restrictions?  Can they provide support?

A:  3A2, 2nd bullet:  "Artillery.  All unit types listed as artillery on the unit identification chart...  ...Note that for game purposes antiaircraft and antitank units are not artillery."  So the answer to both questions above is no.  For more details, see also the Unit Identification Chart (UIC).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 21-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 3E2 and Master Terrain Key -- Point City Features

 

Q:  According to the rules, point cities are not even features.  Is a point city hex somehow different from another hex of the same terrain type?

A:  No.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 3F, Isolation

 

Q:  The Balearics, Canaries, and Morocco seem to be hopelessly isolated in this game.  Is this correct?

A:  No.  Consider the following official errata:

    "A unit in the Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, or Spanish Morocco is not isolated if an overland supply line (of any length) can be traced from the unit to any friendly-owned and functioning port from which a naval-element line of supply can be traced back to a Rebel full general supply source.  For the purpose of this rule, a naval-element supply line may be traced from any port (not just major/great ports as specified in 12B4).

    Example: The Insurgents have units on Mallorca (one of the Balearic Islands) and own the functioning port of Palma there.  However, the Insurgent player is unable at this time to trace a naval-element supply line from Palma back to an Insurgent full general supply source.  The Insurgent units on Majorca are therefore isolated.”

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  Should we extend the above ruling to the case of Interventionist units tracing isolation *from* mainland Spain back to their off-map full general supply source?  Or are Interventionist units intended to always be isolated when fighting the SCW and thus generating no special replacement points due to losses?

A:  Yes, the same ruling applies as Interventionist units are clearly not intended to always be isolated in Spain:  note that 40B4 specifies that when unisolated German and Italian units are eliminated that the special replacements received are com RPs.  There would be no reason for this if they were always supposed to be isolated.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 24-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 3F and 37C -- Isolation during the first two turns

 

Q: Supply and isolation are checked starting with the Insurgent II Aug 36 player turn, not before.  This means that there is no way for either side to isolate the enemy prior to combat, and therefore all ground losses will generate special replacements during the II Jul 36 and I Aug 36 game turns.  Correct?

A: Correct, per 37C, 2nd paragraph, 1st bullet.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

A: And this is deliberate. The very confused nature of the opening of the rebellion meant that both sides’ ability to isolate (completely cut off) units during the opening weeks of the war was extremely limited.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q:  However, only units are unisolated and in supply during the II Jul 36 and I Aug 36 game turns.  May factories (and other hexes) be isolated in the initial phases of the  I Aug 36 player turns?  This is relevant due to the production cycle of I Aug 36, and there is a chance that the 3 factories in the Northern Gobernitos may be isolated due to enemy ZOCs.

A:  Yes.  The rail lines that link factories for supply/isolation purposes were much easier to cut (even during the confused opening of the civil war).

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 5 -- Reduced Zones of Control

 

Q:  ZOCs:  Are the effects of reduced ZOCs the same as normal ZOCs with respect to restrict enemy supply and isolation?

A:  Yes.  The only difference between normal and reduced ZOCs is the movement costs required to leave or move through them.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 5, 37C1 and 37D -- Restrictions on projection of Zones of Control


Q: "A unit prohibited from entering a specific terrain type or crossing a specific type of hexside does not exert a ZOC into that hex or through that hexside. For example, a unit prohibited from crossing a high mountain hexside does not exert a ZOC through any high mountain hexside."
  This rule says that hex and hexside terrain affects exertion of ZOCs into adjacent hexes. But what about political or operational restrictions on units where the terrain would otherwise allow the exertion of ZOCs?
  The Spanish-French border provides a couple of interesting examples:

Q.a) political restriction: a Rebel infantry regiment in 33:2031 attacks a Republican unit in San Sebastian and achieves a DR combat result; the Republican unit may in general retreat into France under the French internment rules, but does the Rebel unit exert a ZOC into Bayonne (a neutral French hex) thereby denying the Republican unit a retreat route into France?
A.a) No.  The last sentence of the second paragraph of 37C (Neutrals) covers this: "ZOCs do not extend across a neutral's border."  Since France is neutral, neither Insurgent nor Loyalist ZOCs extend across the French border into France. Note also that nothing in 37C1 (France) modifies the general statement about ZOCs in 37C.  Regardless of the status of the French border (open or closed) ZOCs do not extend across the French border into (always neutral) France.
[AEG, Developer, 07-Feb-04]


Q.b) operational restriction: the Basque operational area has not expanded outside the region of Euzkadi; a Basque infantry regiment in 33:1933 attacks a Requete unit in 33:2033 and achieves a DR combat result; the Requete unit may otherwise retreat into 33:2032, but does the Basque unit exert a ZOC into 33:2032 (a hex outside the Basque operational area) thereby denying the Requete unit a retreat route in that hex?
A.b) Yes, the Basque unit exerts a ZOC into 33:2032.  However, the Basque exertion of a ZOC into this hex does not necessarily prevent the Requete unit from retreating into hex 33:2032.  37D (Gobernitos) lists the general rules pertaining to operational areas. 37D3 (Euzkadi) lists the additional special restrictions that pertain to the Basque operational area.  Neither 37D nor 37D3 prevent a Basque unit from exerting a ZOC outside the Euzkadi operational area while the Euzkadi operational area is in effect.  Therefore, Basque units operating in the Euzkadi operational area while that operational area is in effect *do* exert ZOCs outside of the Euzkadi operational area unless otherwise prohibited from doing so (such as being prohibited from doing so by prohibited terrain).

  The fact that the Basque unit in 33:1933 exerts a ZOC into 33:2032 does not necessarily prevent the Requete unit from retreating into 2032 because, per 9F1 (Movement after Combat, Retreats), enemy ZOCs *do not* prevent retreats, instead, such ZOCs only modify the priorities of the retreat and whether or not the retreating unit takes additional casualties.  If the Requete unit has no other retreat path except into an enemy ZOC it *may* retreat into 33:2032, but doing so will result in the cadre’ing of the Requete unit (if it has a cadre side and is at full strength) or the elimination of the Requete unit (if it does not have a cadre side or is already at cadre strength).
    Note: I (as the developer for FWtBT) remember the operational area/ZOC question coming up during development of FWtBT and that the consensus (between me and the game's designers) was that it was better to allow ZOCs to extend across operational area boundaries than to limit them.  A neutral border (such as France) where there are neutral border guards and/or military forces to consider and concerns about an international incident mandate no ZOCs across a neutral border; but an operational area border is a game construct and in no way would really prohibit the "hot" pursuit of a retreating force that the "retreat into an enemy ZOC and become cadred or eliminated" mechanic partially represents.  Also, just because a battle occurs in a hex adjacent to an operational area border does not always mean the battle took place immediately adjacent to that border with one side's flanks 100% secure just because they are anchored on the operational area border; much more likely is that the battle took place several miles away from the border where both sides must realistically worry about their flanks.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Feb-04]

 

Q.c:  May a Gobernito unit trace a line of supply outside of the Gobernito's present operational area?

A.c:  Yes.  38D, 2nd para. details the restrictions of the  Gobernito operational areas:  "A Gobernito unit may not move or attack  outside its operational area, and is eliminated if forced to retreat outside its operational area."  Nothing here restricts the tracing of supply lines.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 28-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 6B, 20F -- Administrative Movement and Air Transport

 

Q1. Okay to use all a unit's MPs on administrative movement and then be transported by air in the same movement phase as long as the target airbase is not adjacent to an enemy unit?

Q2. Okay to use administrative movement in the movement phase, and then be transported by air in the subsequent exploitation phase, even if the target airbase is adjacent to an enemy unit?

A:  Yes to both since neither violates the restrictions of 6B.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 6B -- Administrative Movement in neutral hexes

 

Q.  May units use administrative movement in neutral hexes?

A1a.  Per the last bullet point of 6B, a unit using administrative movement may not enter an enemy-owned hex.  There is no prohibition on entering a neutral hex, so the answer is yes.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 14-Feb-06]

A1b.  Yes, in neutral hexes they are allowed to enter. Some neutral territory (such as Gibraltar, Portugal, etc.) is prohibited for either side to enter.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 6B -- Administrative Movement across hexsides

 

Q:  Why can admin movement be used across narrow straits but not across a major river?

A:  A narrow strait is a sea/lake hexside that is both relatively short in distance (3-5 miles) and crossed by regular ferry service; that is, it normally has various small craft available for use in crossing it.  While these small craft can be destroyed or moved away, they generally tended to remain available even when the area changed hands.  A major river hexside may be about the same distance across, but it generally doesn't have permanently associated small craft.  Maybe it will help to think of it this way:  a narrow strait (across which admin movement is allowed) bears the same relationship to a sea/lake hexside (across which admin movement is prohibited) as a bridged major river hexside (across which admin movement is allowed) bears to an un-bridged major river (across which admin movement is prohibited).

[AEG, Developer, 30-Mar-06]

 

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A -- Effect of Rail Breaks and Unpacified Cities on RMY Connection

 

Q:  Do rail breaks, or unpacified cities serve to isolate RMYs from one another?  Rolling stock cannot move (in the case of breaks anyway), so how can you make use of the RMY?
A:  The effects of a rail break are specified in 7A3:  "A unit may not use rail movement to enter or leave a hex in which the rail line is broken" and 12B3 specifies that:  "Rail breaks do not block the tracing of the rail element."  7A also specifies that RMYs "are connected if a rail line of any length can be traced between them; this line is traced in the same manner as the rail element of a supply line".  Unpacified cities will block supply lines unless the city has its required garrison per 39A.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A2 -- Regular Movement and Strategic Rail Movement

 

Q:  May units mix strategic rail movement and regular movement in a movement phase?

A:  No, the operational rail rules specifically allow this, but the strategic rail rules do not.  Furthermore, one may not combine strategic and operational rail movement in the same turn.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A2 – Naval Transport and Strategic Rail Movement

 

Q:  May naval transport and strategic rail movement be combined in the same movement phase (assuming all other restrictions for those 2 forms of movement are met, of course)?

A:  The rule reads, "The unit must start and end its movement in the movement phase".  I think it's a typo and not a deliberate change:  the words "on a rail line and may not otherwise move" seem to have been left out before the phrase “in the movement phase”.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 25-Sep-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 7A3 and 43C2 -- Initial rail capacities in the Orders of Battle

 

Q: How is the Insurgent Rail Capacity of 1 RE in the Zaragoza area *not* connected to the 2 REs in the Valladolid - La Corunya area?

  The OB booklet is quite clear that there are 4 separate rail nets for the Insurgent side at the start of the game, and three of them are apparent, but this is confusing.  The rail line though Vitoria (23A:2001) can be ruled cut at 33:2033, making the north route broken, but the south route though Calatayud (23A:2702) - Soria (23A:2403) - Burgos (23A:1906) has no clear breaks on it (that we can see).  What are we missing?

A: I can't see any reason why Zaragoza is considered a separate section of rail net. As far as I can tell, the initial Insurgent rail net should be divided into 3 (not 4) separate rail nets: 3 REs in the Sevilla-Cordoba area, 3 REs in the Valladolid-La Corunya-Zaragoza area, and 1 RE in the Granada area.

  Complicating the issue, however, is the manner in which 43C2 (Isolated Sections of a Rail Net) is written.  Taken literally, that rule means that the initial rail nets are even more fragmented than specified in the OBs since a section of net is isolated if separated by hexes that are not friendly-owned, and many hexes are unowned at the start.  This means that almost every rail-marshaling yard constitutes a separate net at the start of the game (there are a few cases where directly adjacent marshaling yards at Madrid or Barcelona would still be connected).  However, since nowhere in the rules does it specify that you judge rail net isolation at a specific point in the turn sequence, it appears that all that matters is whether or not the rail marshaling yard is isolated at the time you want to use its capacity.  If you apply this definition, many of the isolated sections of rail net at the start immediately join together once the game begins and units begin to project ZOCs (and thus gain ownership of a lot of those intervening initially unowned hexes).

  It occurred to me that this entire issue is more complicated than it needs to be.  The only real purpose of the 'isolated sections of a rail net rule' is to keep the capacity of an isolated rail-marshaling yard from being used outside of its isolated pocket.  If 7A3 (Capacity) were revised to specify that the player's capacity on a rail net is equal to the sum of the current capacities of the friendly-owned rail marshaling yards on that net, and that the capacity of a specific rail marshaling yard can only be used to move a unit by rail through rail hexes from which it is possible to trace an unbroken chain of friendly-owned rail hexes to that yard, then there would be no need for the isolated sections of the net rule.

[AEG, Developer, 02-Apr-03]

 

Q1: How do we work out which segment of rail is owned by which side, which stretch of hexes are owned by which side, on the II Jul 36 turn?

A1: The rail line in a hex (or stretch of hexes) is owned by a side if the hexes containing those rail lines are friendly-owned. If a hex is neutral (owned by neither side) --as is the case with many, many hexes at the start of FWtBT -- the rail line in the hex is owned by neither side, and thus unusable by a side until that side gains ownership of the hex. Note, however, that many, many hexes that

start FWtBT neutral will immediately become friendly-owned once the game begins due to friendly units projecting uncontested ZOCs into those hexes.

Q2: I assume that any rail segment between 2 friendly owned cities is owned by friendly force.  How about that between one friendly owned and enemy-owned city?

A2: A rail segment between two friendly-owned cities is only friendly-owned if *all* the rail hexes between the two cities are friendly-owned. If even one hex of the segment is enemy-owned or neutral than rail movement along that segment is not possible (until/unless all the rail hexes constituting the segment are friendly-owned).

Q3: We are trying to work out the legal rail and admin movements, and failed to find any charts/table/simple rules on this.

A3: The situation facing both sides at the start of FWTBT is very confused and chaotic. A good bit of the opening turn or two is normally taken up by both sides maneuvering to take control (gain ownership) of the various 'neutral' portions of Spain. Until you do this, it will not be possible to use rail movement or admin movement in much of Spain.

[AEG, Developer, 25-May-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A4 -- French RMYs and Spanish Rail Capacity Increasing / Building

 

Q: When tracing a rail element (3 or more RMY) can one RMY be in northern Spain, the second be France, and the third be a RMY in southern Spain or must the two Spanish RMYs be connected together with the third RMY being France.

A:  I'm not sure what you're asking here.  If you're referring to the need to have connected RMYs in order to build capacity on a rail net, you only need 2, not 3, and since RMYs in France won't be on any of either player's rail nets, no, an RMY in France can't be used.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Jan-03]

A: You cannot use the French rail marshaling yards for any purpose because they belong to a neutral country, and neither player has any control over anything in a neutral country unless the rules specifically say otherwise; and 38C1 (France) - which lists the special ways the Loyalist player can use France - does *not* list this as one of the things the Loyalist player may do.  Note also, that 38C1 is very specific about tracing a rail element of a supply line in the manner of transferring RPs from the France Holding Box: the rule specifies that the line is traced from a Loyalist-owned hex in Spain adjacent to the French border - it does *not* say it is traced from the France Holding Box.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A4a -- Capturing Rail Capacity

 

Q:  Say that the Insurgent player captures a Rail Depot with a capacity of 2, so that its capacity is reduced to 1.  Then, he increases the capacity to 3.  If the Loyalist player recaptures this depot, then it seems to me that the capacity is now 1.  (The Loyalist player cannot recapture the 1 which he owned originally, but captures half of the remaining 2.)  Is this correct?

A:  Correct.  Although it probably would just be simpler to specify that you always capture half of the current rail capacity of each rail marshalling yard you capture, but with any fraction of rail capacity captured which calculates out to less than 0.5 RE being rounded down to zero.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]  --***Confusing question, don’t understand answer***

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12A/B -- Tracing Supply Lines

 

Q:  This rule forbids tracing of a supply line *into* all sorts of hexes. Do the same restrictions apply for tracing *through* such hexes? Does this also apply to naval supply lines?

A:  To go through the hex you must first go into the hex, thus you cannot trace a supply line through a hex which you cannot trace a supply line into.   Not withstanding this, I think what is really being asked is if you can trace a supply line "out of" a hex such as is listed in 12A.
 And if that is the question, the answer is yes. The rule only prohibits tracing "into" such hexes, it does not prohibit tracing them "out of" such hexes.  Note that the only time this causes any concern at all is when you are tracing a naval element of a supply line from a friendly-owned hex with a major or great port and the hex is in an enemy ZOC (but also in a friendly ZOC) and no friendly units are in the hex.  Assuming the naval element of the supply line is valid, the hex remains in general supply and can conceivably be used to place reinforcements (assuming it is a replacement city) or base air units (assuming it has an airbase).  I know this bugs some people, as two individuals (at different times) brought this up during playtest as a theoretical consideration, but I judged (and still judge) this situation will occur so rarely that it is not worth adding an exception to the standard rule to cover it.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12B -- Order of Application of Out of Supply Effects

 

Q:  We have just finished a Loyalist player turn where the Insurgent supply lines (on land and sea) have been compromised in several sectors of the front.  We are about to begin the Insurgent player turn, but would like to resolve this first.  Two adjacent, opposing units are at U-1 and each will go U-2 in the Insurgent initial phase if it cannot trace to a supply source.  At U-1, both units exert their reduced ZOC into a mutually adjacent hex through which each unit must trace in order to be supplied.  It seems that the order in which each unit is judged in or out of supply matters:  whichever unit is judged first goes U-2 and loses its reduced ZOC allowing the unit which is judged second to trace through the critical hex and go back in supply.  Does each side judge simultaneously the supply status of its units, or are either phasing or non-phasing units judged first by convention?

A:  The RAW (including the MSOP) say that both players check supply in step 4 of the initial phase, so supply is checked simultaneously and units don't go U-2 (i.e. they retain their U-1 effects) until their supply status is checked, and that therefore both units go U-2 in the situation you describe.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 08-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12B4 and 34K -- Naval Supply through Danger Zones

 

Q: Ceuta, a major port and therefore also a naval base, exerts a danger zone, and has an intrinsic CD strength of 1 and therefore also exerts CD combat zone in its hex.  This is double coverage on any possible Loyalist naval element line of supply that could otherwise be traced from a Loyalist Biscay port through the Strait of Gibraltar to a Loyalist Mediterranean major port.  A related question is whether naval supply lines may be traced through the Gibraltar hex even though naval movement may not be conducted through the Gibraltar hex.  (All of this correct?)

A: A naval supply line may be traced thru the Gibraltar hex (a naval supply line is not part of a player's forces, and Gibraltar itself doesn't exert a danger zone or combat zone as it will never be enemy-owned in the Spanish Civil War scenarios).

  However, Ceuta will block a Loyalist naval supply line due to the danger zone (which unlike a combat zone is not reduced at night).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1 -- Affiliation of Full General Supply Cities

 

Q: Is there a discrepancy between the Insurgent and Loyalist coalition full general supply sources?  12C1a says that cities must be capable of generating Rebel inf RPs.  This would include any of the affiliations, Nationalist, Colonial, Falangist, and Requete.  But 12C1b says that cities must be capable of generating People's Army inf RPs.  This is not parallel to the Insurgent wording because Rebel is a coalition whereas People's Army is an affiliation.  Perhaps not a big deal because People's Army is the only affiliation in the Republican coalition that can receive replacements from replacement cities, but I wanted to make sure that the Insurgent rule does indeed mean all Rebel affiliations and not just the Nationalist affiliation.

A: As you note, a distinction without difference in this instance, since no city in Spain will generate replacement points of the International affiliation.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

Q:  If Gobernito, or Radical forces for that matter, cannot for example trace supply to their source of full general supply, what would prevent them from drawing from a Republican full source of general supply?  It seems there is nothing preventing the Loyalist player from creating general supply points and these non-PA units drawing general supply from them.  However, this seems redundant and would only serve to complicate accountings.  What is the thought here?

A:  Units other than PA units and International units are prohibited from drawing full general supply from Republican full general supply sources by 12C1b, which defines full general supply sources for each separate Loyalist Coalition, and for each separate affliation within the Gobernito Coalition, in combination with the restriction in 12C1:  "Any and all units of the APPROPRIATE side, coalition, or affliation (as listed below) may use a full general supply source..."  Gobernito and Radical units are not of the appropriate coalition to use Republican full general supply sources.

    The Loyalist player can generate supply points at his general supply sources, but note that 12C3a limits the number of supply points that can be generated at each general supply source, so only a finite number of units can draw supply from them.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1 -- No Republican Supply for Gobernito Units

 

Q:  Per 38D, could not Gobernito units (from a Gobernito that has not collapsed) draw from regular Republican sources as well as their own sources?  Makes no sense that they would wait until their enclave is perishing before accepting assistance against common cause.
A:  No.  Per 12C1:  "Any and all units of the appropriate side, coalition or affiliation (as listed below) may use a full general supply source, without restriction."  As described in the list which follows in 12C1b, Gobernito units are not of the appropriate coalition to use the full general supply sources listed for the Republican coalition.
If there is a disconnect, it is a question of design intent, not a
rules question.

Q2:  How would this same concept play out in terms of isolation?
A2:  Per 3F:  "A unit is isolated if the owning player cannot trace an overland supply line of any length to any full
general supply source of the unit's affiliation."

Q3:  What about Gobernito units that are isolated from their Gobernito source
of supply, but not from Republican sources of supply?  Would special replacements from casualties not accumulate in the general pool?
A3:  No.  Again, to be unisolated, a unit must be able to an overland supply line of any length to a full general supply source of its affiliation, and Republican full general supply sources are not full
general supply sources for units of a Gobernito which has not collapsed.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12C1 and 7A -- Supply City Rail Connections

 

Q: May low-volume rail lines connect cities for general supply source considerations?  (12C1a/b seem to indicate that any rail line may be used.)

A: Yes, any lines may be used.

[RCV, Rules Guru, 01-Oct-97]

 

Q: For a replacement city to be part of a general supply source, it must be connected to two other replacement cities.  May a city trace its path over more than 7 low-volume rail line hexes, to other cities, and be counted as a general supply source?

A:  Yes, there are no additional limitations due to the type of rail line.  You aren't tracing an actual supply line, which would be limited by the low volume rail line.  You are tracing a “connection", which, per the rules, can be any length. (Check the rules here.)  The limitations for tracing rail element supply lines do *not* apply to tracing “connections".  You have to abide by the general restriction on rail element supply lines when tracing connections, i.e. enemy ZOCs, friendly ownership, ability to use the line, etc.  But the over-riding point in the RAW is that it flatly states the line traced between "connected" cities may be of any length.

[RCV, Rules Guru, 01-Oct-97]

 

Q: But a strict reading of the rules leads one to believe that no special consideration for the rail-element “connection” means that the 7 hex low-volume rail connection limit would still be in force?

A: No, I agree with the Rules Guru.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1 -- Supply Connection of hexes of Multi-hex Cities

 

Q: Based on the recent ruling for 44H (see below), for the case where such a city is split-owned, may each side treat each hex (producing Nat/PA inf RPs) as a connectable supply city per 12C1?  The distinction here (I believe) is that when each side owns some of Madrid and each is producing the appropriate inf RPs to rate it as a supply city, but neither side actually owns Madrid completely, in its multi-hex entirety.  What about a 2-hex city counting itself as 2 connected supply cities?

A: No.  A multi-hex city only counts for supply purposes for a side if all hexes comprising the multi-hex city are friendly owned.  Note: The supply rules refer to cities, not city hexes; and a multi-hex major city is still just a single city no matter how many hexes it comprises.  Note: To allow the opposite would turn many multi-hex cities into unwarranted impregnable supply bastions -- think of London, the Ruhr, Berlin, Leningrad and Moscow where this would mean that so long as 3 hexes of the city remained friendly owned and connected to each other, the city would always be a supply source for the units in the pocket around the city.

[AEG, Developer, 05-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1 -- Full General Supply Sources

 

Q:  If the Loyalists no longer have two cities (and one port) connected by rail anywhere in Spain, are special supply sources eliminated?

A:  There are no special supply sources in the game.  Note that 12C1 defines general supply sources in terms of three (not two) connected cities.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12C1 and 7A -- Full General Supply Source Connection

 

Q:  In order for connected cities to be used as a full general supply source, must all the rail hexes connecting them first be owned per 3D?

A:  Yes, the rail lines in question must be friendly-owned and must be ones which the player could use for friendly rail movement.  An unowned rail is neither, may not be used for rail movement, and may not be used for any purpose of the rules that require friendly-owned rail lines.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

Q:  To act as general supply source, three friendly-owned cities must be "connected."  Does that mean connected by friendly-owned *rail lines* or just by traceable supply lines?

A:  Connected by friendly-owned rail lines. See last paragraph of the introduction to 7A (Railroads):  "Some rules require two rail marshalling yards or cities to be connected to one another.  They are connected if a rail line of any length can be traced between them; this line is traced in the same manner as the rail element of a supply line (per 12).”

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1b, 1st bullet

 

Q: For tracing to a general supply source (in most cases, three connected replacement cities) can one city be in northern Spain, the second be France, and the third a city in southern Spain (all connect by rail) or must the two Spanish cities be connected together by rail with the third city being France.

A:  The rules just say that a city in France (for the Loyalists) or Portugal (for the Insurgents) may be used in place of one of the 3 replacement cities, so I don't see how it would matter in what order they are connected.  Note that for the Loyalists to use a city in France as one of the 3, the French border must be open.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Jan-03]

A:  The 3 cities need only be connected to each other.  When one of the cities is in France, there is no requirement that the two cities in Spain be connected to each other independently of the city in France.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C1b, 1st bullet

 

Q:  If Republican units recapture a city in a collapsed Gobernito, does that city function as a supply source and begin producing PA RPs?

A:  It would function as a supply source for any units of the Gobernito which survived the collapse and remain in play, if it is one of the cities listed as a supply source for that Gobernito in 12C1b, 2nd bullet (though note that such a unit may draw supply as a Republican unit as well, per 38D).  It may only count as one of the 3 cities that are connected to function as a Republican supply source and produce PA RPs if it would normally be capable of producing PA RPs (this would only be applicable to Barcelona, and after the Barcelona Revolt, to Lerida and Terragona).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 21-Aug-05]

Q2:  The Santander Gobernito has collapsed.  No Santandero units remain. The city is a production source for Santandero units and Nationalist units. Is it then true that even if the Loyalists recapture Santander, Gijon, Oviedo, Bilbao, or San Sebastian; those cities do not benefit them as a supply or replacement source?  According to the OB, none of these cities produce PA RPs.
A:  Correct, they will not produce PA RPs, nor function as full general supply sources for units of the Republican Coalition.  Note that they will still function as limited general supply sources per Rule 12C2b, but the status of the Gobernito is not relevant to 12C2b. Also note that ports in the Gobernito areas may also function as limited general supply sources per 12c2c, if the appropriate naval-element supply line can be traced, and that again, the status of the Gobernito is irrelevant to this ability.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C2 -- Dual supply sources at dot cities with ports

 

Q:  If the standard port at Santander could trace a naval supply line element to a major port connected by rail to a full Loyalist supply source, then Santander could provide 6 REs of limited general supply to units of any Loyalist coalition (per 12C2c), plus 3 REs of limited general supply to units of the Republican coalition (per 12C2b), for a total of 9 REs of limited general supply to units of the Republican coalition, for instance.  Correct?

A:  Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C2, Overseas Limited General Supply Sources

 

Q:  Does 12C2a intentionally not include 3 REs per city in the Balearic Islands?

A:  Yes, the omission is intentional.  Note: The Canaries and Spanish Morocco declared enthusiastically for the Insurgents, while the Balearic Islands were more like Mainland Spain in being deeply divided between the Loyalist and Insurgent causes.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  Rebel units at Palma (a standard port) may trace a 6 RE limited naval supply line to any of the following major ports (Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz, each of which has a limited supply source of 3 REs), is this correct?

A:  I believe you interpret the rules correctly, but let me clarify just to be sure.  Per 12C2c (Limited General Supply Sources, Either Side Any Coalition or Affiliation) any standard port (such as Palma) may provide general supply for up to 6 REs of friendly units (of any coalition or affiliation) provided the port is friendly-owned and functional and a naval-element supply line can be traced from the port to a friendly full general supply source (the rule contains an exception to 12B4, Tracing Naval-Element Supply Lines, that allows such a line to be traced from a minor or standard port).  The situation you describe does not meet the requirements of 12C2c, as none of the major ports you cite (Ceuta, Las Palmas, or Santa Cruz) can ever be a valid Insurgent full general supply source (per 12C1a only connected, Insurgent-owned cities in Mainland Spain can ever be Insurgent full general supply sources as Ceuta is in Spanish Morocco and Las Palmas and Santa Cruz are in the Canaries, and neither the Canaries nor Spanish Morocco is part of Mainland Spain).  Thus, Palma itself provides 0 REs of general supply in this situation.

    However, per 12C2a (Limited General Supply Sources, Insurgent), up to 3 REs of any Rebel coalition units may trace general supply to each city in the Canary Islands/Spanish Morocco (that is to cities such as Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz).  And, since Rule 12C2c allows naval-element supply lines to be traced from standard/minor ports (such as Palma) for limited supply purposes, naval-element supply lines may be traced from Palma to major ports such as Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz that are limited general supply sources.  Therefore, even if Palma itself is ineligible for use as a limited general supply source, Rebel coalition units in Palma could be considered to be in general supply via the 3-RE rebel coalition limited general supply sources available at each of Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz (assuming valid naval-element supply lines can be traced from Palma to each of Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz and the ports at all three of these locations are Insurgent-owned and functioning).

   Therefore, I agree with your interpretation that the number of REs of units that can trace supply from a specific standard/minor port (that is, "use" the port for limited supply purposes) should be limited to no more than the number of REs of units that are allowed to trace to the port if it were functioning as a limited source of general supply.  In the situation under discussion, this would mean that no more than 6 REs of Rebel units at Palma could trace general supply back to the three 3-RE sources of general supply available at each of the three cities of Ceuta, Las Palmas, and Santa Cruz.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  The Loyalists in our game are currently using Vigo (a major port) to trace an unlimited naval supply line back to Gijon (also a major port), which has a limited supply source of 3 REs.  This is similar to the Insurgent situation of an excessive (greater than 12) number of REs of Rebel units in Morocco tracing overland to Ceuta (a major port), and then using the naval supply line proper to trace to Las Palmas and Santa Cruz (major ports with 3 REs of limited general supply each).

A:  The examples you cite (Vigo to Gijon, and Ceuta to Las Palmas/Santa Cruz) are legal.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C2 and 12C3a -- Generating Supply Points at Limited Supply Sources

 

Q:  Gijon generated three general supply points (per 12C3a) in the initial phase of the Loyalist I Jan 37 player turn, and these points will last through the initial phase of the Loyalist II Jan 37 player turn.  In the initial phase of the Insurgent II Jan 37 turn, may the Loyalist player use Gijon as a limited general supply source (for up to 3 REs of Republican coalition units) even though the points generated there last turn are still in play?

A:  Yes.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

Q:  Malaga is not currently connected to any city, and there are Italian submarines in its hex.  May general supply points be generated there?

A:  Yes.  General supply points may be generated at any full or limited general supply source.  Per 12C1b, third bullet point, Malaga is a full general supply source for the Radical Coalition.  Nothing requires the tracing of a naval element supply line for this condition to apply.

 

Note that if Malaga was not a full general supply source per 12C1b, it couldn't generate general supply points under 12C2c, since to qualify as a limited general supply source under that rule, a naval element supply line would have to be traced from the port to a full general supply source, and the combat zone of the Italian subs would block the naval element supply line per 34K.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 01-Feb-06]

 

Q:  So this means that Insurgent replacement cities can generate GSPs even if they are not connected to any city?

A1:  Not necessarily; any city can generate GSPs if it is a full general supply source or a limited general supply source.  Per 12C1, if a city is a replacement city for the Rebel Coalition, or the Republican Coalition, it has to be connected to 2 other such cities in order to be a full general supply source.  If not, it may still be a limited general supply source (and thus capable of producing GSPs) if it meets the requirements set out in 12C2.  But the full general supply sources listed in 12C1 for the Radical Coalition and the 3 affiliations of the Gobernito Coalition don't have to be connected to function as full general supply source for that coalition or affiliation.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 14-Feb-06]

A2:  It depends.  12C3a allows general supply points to be generated at any general supply source (full or limited).  12C1 and 12C2 list the various general and limited supply sources usable by each side.  Many of the cities listed as general supply sources are only supply sources when connected by rail to various other cities.  So, no, these cities could not be used to generate supply points while they are cut off from the other cities, because while cut off they are *not* general supply sources.  However, some cities are general supply sources regardless of whether connected to anything.  So, Yes, these types of cities can have GSPs generated at them regardless of whether the city is connected to anything or not.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12D and the Game Play Charts -- Tracing an Attack Supply Line

 

Q:  To be in attack supply, units must trace an overland supply line, but its length is not specified.  Is it the same as the overland portion of the general supply line, or unlimited as for isolation purposes?

A:  It is limited to the overland length listed in the supply line summary.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12D -- Attack Supply and the MSOP

 

Q1:  In the Combat Phase MSOP, checking attack supply status distinctly precedes flying DAS air ops -- this appears to allow the non-phasing player to get a rather solid "read" on almost exactly where and with what the phasing player will attack, before deciding on target hexes for any DAS air ops -- do we correctly interpret the sequencing on the Combat Phase? 

A1:  The MSOP does indeed specify that attack supply is checked before DAS missions are flown; you have interpreted the sequencing correctly.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Dec-04]

 

Q2:  Some of us perceive an additional advantage for the defender relative to the defender in games without attack supply.

A2:  While not strictly speaking a rules question, I think most players would perceive this as an advantage to the defender.  I note that in the other GRD game series, Glory and TGW, both use attack supply, and both check attack supply after DAS is flown, not before.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Dec-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12D2 –- Tracing Inverventionist Attack Supply

 

Q: 12D1 says that only an overland element is traced from a unit to a step of attack supply.  But 12D2 (attack supply from ports for Interventionist units) does not give an explanation about how Interventionist units trace the line to the standard/major port.

When tracing attack supply to a port, do Interventionist units only trace an overland element?

A:  It's possibly not made clear, but yes, Interventionist units that trace attack supply to a port trace in the same manner as tracing to a step of attack supply, i.e., overland only.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 23-Oct-04]

A:  12D2 states that "any Insurgent-owned, functioning standard or major port is a source of unlimited attack supply for Interventionist (only) units."  Since 12D2 places no restrictions on how Interventionist units trace this supply line, the line is traced per 12B (Tracing Supply).  This means that the line can include overland, road, railroad, and naval elements of a supply line.  It could even be traced overland, by road, and by railroad to a minor port and then by sea to an Insurgent-owned functioning standard or major port.

    And, yes, this was/is the design intent.  The Italian and German forces in Spain were almost always much better supplied than the Spanish forces there.  Allowing the Interventionist forces to trace to ports for attack supply reflects this.  The alternative (tried during playtesting) was to have several additional steps of supply arrive for the Insurgents over the course of the game; however, this did not work well as it allowed the Insurgents to use the supply for purposes other than supplying Interventionist units.

[AEG, Developer, 05-Nov-04]

 

Q:  Interventionist units can trace general and attack supply through various ports.  Is it correct to count each RE, or portion thereof, of general and attack supply against port capacity?

A:  In the case of general supply, no if traced thru a major or great port, yes if traced through a minor or standard port.  See 12B4, 12C1a (2nd bullet point), and 12C2c.  (I can give a more detailed answer if you would like, if studying the cited rules doesn't clarify the situation for you.  However, it may be a few days before I have the time to post an in-depth answer.  If you would like a more in-depth answer, please let me know either here or off-list by e-mail.) 

    In the case of attack supply the answer is no, because 12D2 specifies that a port that provides attack supply for Interventionist units (note that only standard and major ports do so) provides unlimited attack supply.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 21-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12F and Orders of Battle – Steps of Attack Supply Terminology

 

Q:  Are “steps of supply” in the OBs and “Supply” on the Factory Production Table what are called “steps of attack supply” in the rules?

A:  Yes.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

Q:  Steps of supply are received according to the OB.  Are these attack supply?

A:  Yes.  Only attack supply is referred to as “steps”, general supply is referred to as “points” of supply.  Any reference in the rules to “steps of supply” can be read as “steps of attack supply”.  By the same reasoning, any reference to “points of supply” can be read as “points of general supply”.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12H and 3A3 -- RE Size of Supply/Resource Items

 

Q:  What are the RE equivalents of supply/resource items for purposes of naval and air transport (1 SMP load 1 RE, or 1 point 1 RE)?

A:  3A3 (Regimental Equivalents) lists the RE sizes of all the things that SMPs can carry (1/4 RE per point of general supply, 1 RE per resource point, and 3 REs per step of attack supply), while rule 12Ha (Supply Movement Points) states that a SMP load can consist of up to 3 REs of supply/resource items.  Thus a SMP load could consist of a single step of attack supply (3 REs) or any combination of resource points (1 RE each) and points of general supply (1/4 RE each) so long as the total number of REs carried does not exceed 3.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12H -- Multiple Modes of Supply/Resource Item Transport

 

Q:  May a supply/resource item move by rail and off-rail by SMP, both in the *same* phase?

A:  Yes.  (This falls in the category of anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed).  Further, you theoretically could rail something in this category somewhere, move it off-rail by SMP to another rail line, rail it further, and then continue moving it off-rail by SMPs again (and repeat this process for as long as you have rail capacity and SMPs available).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12H -- Advancing With Supply/Resource Items

 

Q:  May units advance with supply/resource items up to limit (just like they may when retreating)?

A:  No.  While 12H does mention that units may carry supply/resource items while retreating, it makes no mention that units may carry them while advancing after combat.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

A:  Note:  This question comes up perennially in connection with various Europa games, probably at least in part because the title to 9F is "Movement after Combat".  The Total War draft rules changes the title of 9F to "Retreats and Advances" and changes the wording of that rule slightly so as to make no references to retreats or advances being movement.

[AEG, Developer, 15-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 13 and 12D -- Attack Supply and Overruns

 

Q:  What is the mechanism for putting a unit in attack supply for overrun purposes?  Rule 13 is silent on the issue, other than to say that supply counts as normal (i.e., as in regular combat) and 12D says that steps of attack supply are removed at the end of the combat phase in which they have been used.  Does this mean that units can draw attack supply for overrun purposes without expending the step?  The overrun rules specify that all supply modifications affect the calculation of the overrun odds, but the rules regarding attack supply seem to indicate that it is used only in the combat phase.  Does a unit need attack supply to overrun at full attack strength?  If so, is this attack supply removed from play, can it be used again in the combat phase normally, or can it be used only to the extent that it’s 6 REs were not all used in the movement phase?
A:  Overruns never have anything to do with attack supply.  Add one sentence to the first paragraph of 13 (Overruns) as follows: "The overrun strength of a unit is the unit's attack strength as modified by its general supply condition (see 12E, Supply Effects)."

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 14A1 and Master Terrain Key -- Construction on Terrain Types and Features

 

Q:  Are hex features (e.g. dot city, major port) considered “any other terrain” for the purposes of number of turns required to construct a fort or permanent airfield?

A:  No, a “feature” is not “terrain”.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 14A1 -- Repair of Facilities

 

Q:  When does a damaged port, airfield, or rail line repaired by engineers become operational:  immediately or in the next turn?

A:  Immediately.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 14A1 -- Incremental Repair Activities

 

Q:  If a construction capable unit enters a hex, expends MPs towards repair or demolition of an item in the hex, but leaves the hex before the repair/

demolition is complete (e.g. spends 1 MP of the 2 MPs required to repair an airbase hit), is the repair effort completely scrapped once the unit departs the hex, or can the effort be accumulated over a series of turns?

A:  If the unit leaves the hex before the repair is completed, yes, the effort is lost.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 18-Jan-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 14A1c -- Civilian Labor

 

Q:  Want to confirm that 14A1c does not require Loyalist ownership of a multi-hex major city (in its entirety) in order to use the civilian labor feature of a Loyalist-owned major city hex.  The 1st paragraph is stated in terms of Loyalist-owned major cities, but in the 2nd paragraph the usage of civilian labor is limited by major city hex.  A subtle difference, but could result in the Loyalist player not being able to use the civilian labor of a Loyalist-owned major city hex of Barcelona or Madrid unless both hexes of the city are Loyalist-owned?

A:  Technically, the RAW do require that the city be Loyalist-owned, which means that the Loyalists have to own both hexes.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 26-Sep-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 14A2 -- Combat Engineers

 

Q:  Does the clause about a negative combat DRMs apply to fortifications only, or also to major city hexes?  The ramification of the latter is that partial major city hexes would not be eligible combat engineering targets.

A:  Since the optional rule (see p. 6 of the Official Errata) for Assault Engineers appears to extend to both Full and Partial City hexes, I give the regular Engineer Modifier to both major city hex types as well.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 17-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 14F -- Transport Counters and Calculation of Special Ability Proportions

 

Q:  I assume that transport counters are ignored for AEC/ATEC computations (this is explicitly stated for position AA), for determining combat engineer proportions and for purposes of 14B.  If this is not correct, then how are these units treated in these computations?

A:  Per 14F, transport counters are not units, therefore do not count in any calculations where REs of units are counted (i.e. for AEC/ATEC, combat Eng proportion, or artillery support).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 16C1 -- Operative Air Unit

 

Q:  Identify which actions are taken by both players and which by the phasing player only.  For instance, 12B indicates that general supply status is checked by both players.  Do both players or only the phasing one make inoperable air units operable (this may or may not fall under the phasing player's activities in 16C1.1)?  If both, then same aircraft could be used in both player turns of a game turn.  Is this intended or not?

A:  As stated in 16C1.2) "all inoperative air units (of both players) become operative."  And yes, this means that (in most cases) an air unit gets to fly one mission in your player turn and another mission your opponent's player turn.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 17D -- Abandoning Temporary Airfields

 

Q:  If a temporary airfield is removed from the map because there is no longer a construction engineer in its hex, then what happens to an air unit at that airfield?

A:  It attempts to escape per 17B.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

A:  Technically they remain in the hex (but can do nothing).  Alternatively, treat them as having been eliminated.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 20C & 20D -- interception and patrol attack

 

Q:  A unit on CAP must declare whether it will become an escort immediately upon its hex becoming a target of a friendly air operation, otherwise it is ignored for the remainder of the air operation, correct?  This means a CAP fighter cannot wait to see if the mission requiring an escort will actually be intercepted prior to making a decision to switch to escort, correct?

A:  Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Jun-05]

 

Q:  Previous rulings established that interception is a reaction to an air operation, not itself an air operation per se, and therefore not subject to enemy interception (read counter-interception).  Does the same principle apply to patrol attack?

A:  Yes.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Jun-05]

 

Q:  If your opponent flies a CAP mission over your fighter's base, then flies a DAS mission within range of that base, may the fighter on CAP attempt to patrol attack one of *your* fighters as it takes off from that base to intercept the opponent's DAS air operation?

A:  No.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Jun-05]

 

Q:  If the fighter on CAP does not first switch an escort mission, may it patrol attack/intercept a subsequent GS mission to the same hex?

A:  Absolutely.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 22A2 -- Position AA and Calculation of Special Ability Proportions

 

Q:  I assume position AA are ignored for determining combat engineer proportions and for purposes of 14B.  If this is not correct, then how are these units treated in these computations?

A:  Per 22A2, position AA units do not have a unit size, ergo, they cannot be counted in any RE calculations.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 23F1 -- Floatplane Basing

 

Q:  May floatplanes base at an inland port?  Alternatively, may floatplanes operate from the river leading up to an airbase at an inland port?

A:  Per 23F1, floatplanes may only operate from airbases in partial-sea or partial-lake hexes.  The fact that a port, inland or otherwise, is in such a hex has no bearing on whether floatplanes can base there.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

Q:  WW appears to have an advanced rule (23G2a) where a floatplane does not use airbase capacity but rather a port (with positive capacity) -- it's not the RAW, but would you recommend retrofitting such a rule to SF, FWtBT, etc.?

A:  Since SF allows floatplanes to operate from any hex that has an airbase and is partial-sea or partial-lake, for example a temporary airfield built in a partial-lake hex up in the Alps, I wouldn't recommend changing to WW port-based requirements just yet.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 25C and Insurgent Order of Battle -- Receiving Inoperative Air Units

 

Q:  Air Force: The unit 1x Mxd  1B2  1-1/F/10 is Nationalist, not CTV. And what does (inop.) on 1x Mxd T mean?  In the aborted air units box?

A:  Per 2nd paragraph of 25C (Air Replacement System, Reinforcements) inop. air units listed in the OB as reinforcements represent hand-me-down aircraft from outside countries requiring considerable working up time to become combat ready.  The normal replacement procedure is not followed.  Instead, the player rolls a die for each inop. air unit received.
 This die roll is the number of turns the air unit is placed forward on the game turn track. When the track reaches that turn the air unit is received as a reinforcement.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 25D -- Calculating Air Replacement Points

 

Q:  Are ARPs received before or after the plane reinforcements arrive on map in the reinforcement segment (this is important because the number of ARPs depend on the number of planes on the map)?

A:  Before.  This could be spelled out better, but I think the intent of 25D is clear:  since ARPs are received "...at the start of each air cycle..." they must be received before anything else happens in the air cycle.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 25D -- Air Unit Replacement

 

Q:  Can aborted or eliminated units in the last player turn be immediately replaced?  If yes, strange things can happen as players with ARPs-to-spend can voluntarily try to get their planes destroyed in order for them to appear again where they want.

A:  Yes.  On occasion this may seem to become abusive, but consider that an air unit which is eliminated in the game actually has the remnants of the unit fly back to some airbase (which could be a long ways from the airbase it started from and the hex it flew a mission to), the remnant air unit could then be rebuilt at the airbase it returned to and then stage to yet another airbase before flying a new mission.  Total up all the distances involved in these movements and you'll see that most air units could effectively reach most of Spain any time you really needed them to.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 25D -- Air Replacement Limit

 

Q:  The air replacement limit rule specifies that the air replacement limit is the number of air units a side (in this case affiliation) may "replace" or "rebuild" per turn.  However, it then goes on to say that eliminated units are "replaced", but aborted units are "repaired".  I wonder if perhaps the “rebuild" and "repair" language in the rules is perhaps an accidental failure to coordinate terms.  If so, then perhaps the "rebuild" should have been worded "repair", and then the air replacement limit would pertain to both eliminated and aborted air units in total.
A:  Your interpretation is correct.  I agree that the wording could be better and avoid confusion over the terms "rebuilding" and "repairing", but the example in 25D is pretty clear:  "The Loyalist player has 4 ARPs available to spend on [PA] air units during his initial phase.  The [PA] air replacement limit is 1.  The Loyalist player, therefore, may spend ARPs to replace or rebuild a *maximum of one* [PA] *air unit* during this initial phase."  (Crucial section in relation to this question emphasized.)  Note that in some Europa games, the players are limited in the number of ARPs that they can spend, not in the number of air units that the ARPs may be spent on. A subtle yet important difference.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 26-Sep-05]

 

Q2:  But what does "rebuild" mean?  My guess is, "repair" (i.e, return from abort status) is what was meant.  Clearly this is your interpretation as well.  I think it should be made clearer however.
A2:  It means "repair".

[AEG, Developer, 01-Oct-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 27B1 and Insurgent OB -- Sea Zone Concepts

 

Q:  What’s the difference between “Any ports” and “Any Atlantic or Mediterranean ports”?

A:  There are three varieties of ports in the game:  Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Biscay.  Thus the difference per the question is “any Biscay ports”.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28 -- Off-Map Naval Movement

 

Q:  Is off-map naval movement restricted to the routes listed in the "off-map port summary"? (i.e., must a TF intending to move off-map from 23A:3033 to 23A:0933 go all the way via the Azores?)

A:  Yes (and yes).  There was only so much space available for the Off-Map Port Summary and the routes listed were the ones absolutely required.  Attach a blank map sheet to the west edge of map 23A if this bothers you and count hexes directly as you round Portugal trying to avoid enemy air units on naval patrol air ops.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28 – Night Movement Across Naval Movement Step Boundaries

 

Q: Another item I'd like to know: How does this impact the previous prohibition on "beginning" a naval movement step at night?  My guess is this would be allowed, otherwise you'd lose the protection you're attempting to let happen (i.e. naval strike missions could be launched prior to beginning any movement at all, and thereby preventing this new and improved night movement from working.)

  On the other hand, this allows a properly phased movement to prevent all naval air strikes at all, since the naval unit to be attacked must either begin a naval movement step in range, or enter the range of the air unit.  If I can begin movement at night now, which the above would seem to indicate, and then stop (doing nothing in a hex), I can now prevent your air strikes from ever being launched, so long as I don't mind moving at 1/3rd speed.

A: Although originally it was ruled that naval units at sea could claim the beginning of a Naval Step to be at Night if they then spent 10 MPs on an activity allowed at Night, the Rules Guru later admitted this was "nonsense" and that naval units at sea could not perpetually hide from Naval Patrol attacks in this manner.

  Therefore, Naval Patrol attacks and Danger Zone contact attempts at the start of a Naval Step against naval units at sea take place before any NMPs are spent, regardless of whether the naval units then spend NMPs in Day or Night.

  Note that the tactic I described was naval units moving at Night from Port to Port, and then hiding out in Port during Day through the start of each Naval Step.  Naval units in Port cannot be targets of Naval Patrol attacks and Danger Zone contact attempts.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 15-Feb-04]

 

Further elaboration:  There have been rulings published in TEM that naval units may not spend Naval MPs (NMPs) doing nothing.  The Developer has advised me that this is incorrect, and the SF/FWtBT naval system was designed on the presumption that naval units may spend NMPs doing nothing.  Therefore, in answer to the above idea, when a naval unit stops spending NMPs for an activity before it is completed, and switches to spending NMPs for another activity or spending its NMPs doing nothing, then the first activity is considered terminated and all NMPs spent on that activity lost.

  Note that the above insight from the Developer on the design intent means that naval units may use 10 NMPs to move from one port to another by Night Movement, hide out in port during daylight spending 20 NMPs doing nothing, move on to the next port again moving by night, hide out again, and so on.  This correctly simulates a frequently used tactic of naval movement exclusively at night thru stretches of sea under a high threat of air attacks or daylight surface interception.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 15-Feb-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28A -- Naval Reaction Movement

 

Q:  Is reaction movement possible to or from an off-map position (within 15 hexes)?

A:  Yes.  The only restriction on making a reaction movement attempt is that the enemy naval unit be within 15 hexes, it matters not whether this is on- or off-map.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28A -- Qualifying Events for Naval Reaction Attempts

 

Q: For the purposes of naval reaction, is a phasing NG considered "moving" if it spends 90 NMPs preparing for NGS?

A: No, because the rules (e.g. 28C) specify when spending MPs triggers something.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 25-Jan-04]

A: This is literally correct the way the rule is written, but that was never the design intent.  It’s silly that a naval group can spend 3 naval movement steps (90 NMPS) on-station providing NGS (which is what the 90 NMP cost to “prepare” represents) yet an opposing naval group in the immediate vicinity cannot respond to the NGS group (which is at sea and “moving” around in its on-station area.  The design intent is better shown by changing the wording of the first sentences of 28A (Reaction Movement) to read:

               “When a phasing naval group is at-sea in a hex within 15 hexes (traced by sea) of a non-phasing naval group during a naval movement step, the non-phasing player may attempt to have his naval group react.”

               “A non-phasing naval group may attempt to react only once per naval movement step.  It may attempt to react at any time while a phasing naval group is at-sea in a hex within 15 hexes.”

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q:  Does unloading units on an enemy-owned beach trigger naval reaction movement?

 

A:  Reading 28A (Naval Reaction Movement) literally, the answer is *no* because reaction movement is only triggered when an enemy naval unit 'moves' and spending MPs to disembark does not involve the naval unit 'moving' at all. But that was never the design intent. It's silly that a naval group can spend 3 naval movement steps (90 NMPs) at sea in a hex disembarking (or embarking) cargo yet an opposing naval group in the immediate vicinity cannot respond to the enemy naval group while it is disembarking (or embarking) its cargo on a beach. The design intent is better shown by

changing the wording of the first sentences of 28A (Reaction Movement) to read:

  "When a phasing naval group is at-sea in a hex within 15 hexes (traced by sea) of a non-phasing naval group during a naval movement step, the non-phasing player may attempt to have his naval group react. A non-phasing naval group may attempt to react only once per naval movement step. It may attempt to react at any time while a phasing navalgroup is at-sea in a hex within 15 hexes."

[AEG, Developer, 19-Apr-06]

 

Q: When a naval reaction movement attempt is successful at Night, when the reacting NG moves are the move and the combat zones of NGs considered exerted at Night?  34A2 says that only phasing groups may conduct part of their movement at Night, but I'm more concerned with what are the effects on the combat zones of that phasing NG that moves at Night when non-phasing reaction is successful at Night.

A: As explained in ruling #10 in TEM 49, only the phasing player's NGs may use Night movement.  The reacting NG (the only way the non-phasing player can move an NG) may not use Night movement.  Therefore, the individual phasing NG that was moving at the instant of the reaction roll is suspended at Night with a Night Combat Zone, and all other phasing NGs (which have either not yet started or have completed that Naval Step) have Day Combat Zones and all phasing CDs have Day Combat Zones.  I suppose both the phasing NG and the reacting NG would have to use their Night Gunnery strengths to avoid any blatant illogicalness.  One way to reconcile the rule is to imagine that the reacting NG actually put to sea the day before and only made contact with the target NG after nightfall.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 21-Jan-04]

 

Q: Does a non-phasing unit with low fuel have its reaction movement allowance halved (in effect) to 7 MPs?

A: Yes; 28A (Reaction Movement) gives the non-phasing naval units a "Maximum movement allowance of 15 MPs", and 34B says, a naval unit with low fuel has "its movement allowance halved" with no qualifications, so it appears that low fuel effects both phasing and non-phasing movement.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 20-Jan-04]

 

Q: Can a friendly NT in port at El Ferrol putting to sea there and heading west, give an enemy NT at Santander a reaction roll attempt?  El Ferrol is exactly 15 hexes by sea away from Santander, but I'm asking about whether the act of putting to sea in a port hex is "moving within 15 hexes", or whether the first hex after leaving port hex is the first time that the NT is actually "moving".

A: The act of leaving port can trigger a reaction attempt to be consistent with the act of taking off from a hex (before moving away) can trigger a patrol attack from a fighter exactly its max patrol range away.  Saying that the act of leaving port is equivalent to entering that hex may help the wording of triggering combat with a blockading NG or enemy CD.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 21-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28A -- Naval Reaction to In-Port Naval Units

 

Q:  It seems asymmetrical for a non-phasing NG to be able to react to a phasing NG going from in-port to at-sea, but not from at-sea to in-port under strict interpretation of AEG's 03-Mar-04 erratum "phasing [NG]..at-sea in a hex within 15 hexes".  I wanted to shake out any unintended consequences of the latest phrasing.  For example, a phasing NG at-sea in the port's hex enters port; it is still within 15 hexes but it is no longer at-sea, and so the non-phasing NG may not attempt reaction, correct?

A:  If the phasing NG is at-sea in the port's hex and the non-phasing NG is within 15 hexes then the non-phasing NG can attempt to react, per the 03-Mar-04 erratum from AEG.  Once the phasing NG enters port, it is no longer at-sea, and no reaction attempt is possible.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 09-Jun-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28C -- Naval Reaction to Various Activities

 

Q: Is dis/embarkation considered "spending any MPs without leaving [a] hex"?

A: Yes.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 29-Jan-04]

 

Q: Is replenishment considered "spending any MPs without leaving [a] hex"?

A: Yes.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 29-Jan-04]

 

Q: Is “doing nothing” (i.e. waiting for NMPs to be spent) considered "spending any MPs without leaving [a] hex"?

A: Yes.  Just as moving using the "Protected Waters" rule provides immunity from Naval Reaction, sitting inside a port provides immunity from Naval Reaction.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 29-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28C1, Naval Movement and Submarine Naval Combat

 

Q:  Does disembarking units on a beach trigger submarine naval combat if submarine NGs are in the same hex as unloading LCs?

A:  Not exactly. Per 28C1 (Submarine Naval Combat), submarine naval combat is triggered by either of the following:

   1) When a non-submarine naval group (phasing or non-phasing) enters a hex in the combat zone of an enemy submarine naval group, or

   2) When a phasing non-submarine naval group starts the step in a hex in the combat zone of an enemy submarine naval group, and the phasing group spends any MPs in its hex without leaving the hex.

  So when a naval group carrying cargo moves into an area preparatory todisembarking that cargo at a beach and the hex containing said beach is in the combat zone of an enemy submarine naval group there is no way for the transporting naval group to avoid combat with the submarine naval group. Either the movement of the transport group into the beach hex will trigger naval combat per 1) above, or if the transport group begins a naval movement step in the beach hex and then spends even 1 MP to start disembarking its cargo there it will trigger naval combat per 2) above.

[AEG, Developer, 19-Apr-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 28C2, Naval Movement and Naval Combat; and Rule 33B, Coast Defenses

 

Q: As it turns out La Corunya did not rebel and is in Loyalist hands this game.  It would seem plausible that the CD could fire upon the naval units in port in El Ferrol, however, the rules do not seem to consider the possibility (probably because this is an uncommon situation).  The naval units would have to expend movement for something other than replenishment, if I am correct, in order for the CD to try to fire upon them.  May the CD fire upon units in port and does putting to sea (moving from the docks into the partial sea hex El Ferrol occupies) constitute movement for the CD to try and engage?

A: The CD cannot fire on naval units in port.  It may fire upon them in the port hex if they leave port; however, any naval units could avoid the CD upon entering and leaving port at night per 34A2, and cargo and submarine NGs may avoid it by using protected waters per 34A1.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 21-Sep-03]

 

Q: Would a CD, with the appropriate strength, be able to fire on ships berthed in a port in an adjacent hex?

A: Yes; per 28C2, surface naval combat is initiated whenever "A phasing Naval group starts a step in a hex in the combat zone of an enemy ... CD, and the phasing group spends any MPs in its hex without leaving the hex".  If a TF is allowed to spend MPs preparing for NGS from inside a port, and is allowed to fire NGS from inside a port, then it can be fired at itself while inside a port.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 29-Jan-04]

A: I agree with the Rules Judge.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 29C -- Naval Combat Disengagement

Q:  It is not explicit in the rules that after declaring disengagement only one more round of combat is played.  Is this true?  Or are there unlimited rounds until the disengagement attempt is successful?

A:  Per 29C, 3rd bullet, "If the player's disengagement attempt fails, another round of naval combat occurs."  This new round is handled as per 29B1e, in that one returns to step a of the Naval Combat sequence.  At the end of this new round, either player can attempt disengagement again, as usual.  So yes, there unlimited rounds of Naval Combat until either one side is totally eliminated or one or both players successfully disengage.

[RCV]

A:  This is how the rule works, but it is probably too hard to disengage (at least I've seen far too many naval battles fought to total elimination.)  I would recommend modifying the rule so that a player who opts to disengage has +2 added to his disengagement die roll on the second and each subsequent time he attempts to disengage.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  Next, suppose a disengagement is successful, which happens to be the non-phasing player, and the naval unit moves 15 MPs away but couldn't quite get away.  Now the rules say that this is a reaction per the reaction moves so by them only one reaction is allowed.  Ok so next the phasing player is still trying to hunt this group down.  And moves to reinitiate combat.
  This happens to be in the same step.  If disengagement is successful can there be another reaction to get away again to some port this time.  Or must the group stay in the hex and a fight to the death ensue?

A:  First of all, even if the reacting TF stayed in the hex, the Phasing player would have to re-initiate combat by moving into the reacting Naval Groups Combat Zone following the disengagement. Note the fourth bullet of 29C, "It must, if it has sufficient MPs ...". This indicates that the reacting Naval Group does not have to leave the  hex to be "disengaged" since Naval Groups may not be *able* to leave a hex. And if so disengaged, the phasing Naval Group would have to retrigger combat, by *entering* a hex in the combat zone of the Naval Group.
    Secondly, note that 29C says that "If a non-phasing group disengages, it makes a reaction movement, with a movement allowance of 15 MPs, per the reaction movement rules."  It does not say it makes a Reaction movement attempt, and rule 28A. limits reaction attempts, not reaction moves.
    So, the non-phasing Naval Group may attempt disengagement after one round of the new combat and if successful, may make a reaction move of 15 MPs away from the hex (indeed it must leave the hex, if able).

[RCV]

A:  Correct.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 28 & 29C -- Blockades and Naval Combat

 

Q:  What is naval blockading and what effect does it have on naval reinforcements, ships leaving and entering the port, etc.

A:  28 (Movement of Naval Units) spells out how a blockade is established: "If a naval group [this should say a combat or mixed naval group] is in the hex of an enemy-owned port, the port and all naval units in port there are blockaded."  The rule then goes on to say "A naval group blockaded in port may leave port and put to sea in the hex containing the enemy naval group.  (This will initiate naval combat, per 28C below)."  Essentially, if you have a combat or mixed naval group in the hex of an enemy port, your warships are blockading the port.  Enemy naval units in port can leave the port, but this will automatically force naval combat with the blockading naval group.

    If naval combat occurs between blockading naval units and enemy naval units attempting to leave a blockaded port, the combat proceeds as normal, except that disengagement is handled differently.  29C (Disengagement): "If it [the disengaging naval group] initiated combat by putting to sea from a blockaded port, it must return to that port and end its movement there for the current movement step."  Essentially, this means that if you fail to break the blockade (win the naval combat) you must return to the blockaded port.

    Blockade per se does not affect anything else. However, if you have a combat or mixed naval group in a hex blockading a port there, the naval combat zone exerted by that naval group will prevent a naval-element supply line from being traced into, through, or from the port per 34K (Naval Supply Lines).  Also, the blockading naval units (since they are within 5 hexes of the blockaded port) will count towards the blockading player's total naval interdiction strength against any reinforcements the enemy player attempts to have arrive at the blockaded port, as described in 34H (Naval Interdiction).

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

Q:  Should the part of SoS 30A4 about blockading a port making a port non-functioning be included in FWtBT?

A:  SoS 30A4 is not intended for use in FWtBT, it is intended for use only in SOS.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 30A2/3 and 34F -- Port Capacity Damage, Port Functionality, and Danger Zone Projection

 

Q:  If a major port or naval base is reduced to zero capacity, does it still exert a danger zone?  If it is damaged to its maximum extent, does it still exert a danger zone?

A:  Yes, and yes.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 12C2c and 30A2/3 -- Port Capcacity Damage, Port Functionality, and Limited Supply

 

Q:  If a major port or naval base is reduced to zero capacity, does it still function as a limited supply source?  If it is damaged to its maximum extent, does it still function as a limited supply source?

A:  Yes, and no.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 30A4 -- Off-Map Naval Movement

 

Q:  When NGs move towards off-map ports, how do we deal with the issue of naval combat?  From what I understand, if you are moving your NG towards an off-map port you place it at a convenient hex and mark the NG with a status marker.  Ordinarily I think you cannot intercept this NG because there is nothing in the hex.  In our situation a non-phasing enemy naval group is one hex off the map; may a phasing NG react to and intercept it?

A:  Since 30A4 only allows a player to move his NGs between the map and friendly off-map ports, NGs moving to such ports may not be engaged in naval combat (or be the target of naval patrol air operations) once they move off-map.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 06-Jun-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 30A6 -- Effect of Sea Conditions on Inland Ports

 

Q:  Do the answers to the questions about 36C change if the port in question is an inland port?

A:  At this point I don't know.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

 

30A6 -- Inter-turn Status of Cargo NGs on a River/Canal

 

Q:  May NTs remain (either before and/or after dis/embarkation) at-sea in the last river/canal hexside leading up to an inland port?

A:  Any NT may remain at-sea at the end of a turn.  An NT that remains in a river or canal leading to an inland port is currently considered at-sea.  I may have to get back to you on whether are not some clarifications need to be issued.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 31 -- Naval Transport of Supply Item Cargo

 

Q:  May NTs dis/embark supply/resource items at friendly beaches?

A:  Yes.

[Rules Court, TEM 62] -clarification that it costs 60 NMPs?

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 31A, Naval Transport phasing and costs

 

Q: If a transport begins to pick up a ground unit in the 5th Naval Movement Sub-Phase, but finishes only 20 pts of the 30 required (for instance), may it complete the remainder in the 6th Naval Movement Sub-Phase?  (I know that these "bills" may be carried over between Naval Movement Sub-Phases, but I'm not sure if they can be carried over between phases (i.e., Movement to Exploitation.))

A: A naval activity may be continued from the Movement Phase into the Exploitation Phase if the activity was permitted in both phases.  For example, replenishing or embarking a c/m unit could start in the 5th Naval Movement Step and be completed in the 6th Naval Movement Step.  An activity like making an amphibious landing that started halfway thru the 3rd Naval Movement Step could not be completed halfway thru the 6th Naval Movement Step.  Embarking a non-c/m unit could not be started in the movement naval sub-phase and completed in the exploitation sub-phase.  Note that disembarking of both c/m and non-c/m units at ports and onto friendly-owned beaches may always be completed in the exploitation sub-phase.

  To clarify some definitions: A Naval Movement Step is 30 MPs long.  A Naval Movement Sub-Phase is composed of 5 Naval Movement Steps.  Each Movement and Exploitation Phase has a Naval Movement Sub-Phase and a Ground Movement Sub-Phase.  Ground costs incurred for embarking and disembarking (per SF 31A) or incurred for Naval Movement Steps at sea (per SF 44G2) only carry over from a Naval Movement Sub-Phase to the immediately following Ground Movement Sub-Phase.

There is no carry-over of MPs costs to ground units incurred in the Movement Phase Naval Movement Sub-Phase to the Exploitation Phase Ground Movement Sub-Phase.  For example, a c/m unit that embarked in the Movement Phase and disembarked in the Exploitation Phase only has to spend the disembarkation cost out of its exploitation phase movement allowance.  If using 44G2 the c/m unit would only spend the MP cost for Naval Movement Steps spent at sea in the Exploitation Naval Movement Sub-Phase.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 15-Feb-04]

 

Q: Or, does the "fact" that the loading was not completed mean the ground unit (presuming it is non-c/m and therefore cannot move in the Exploitation Phase) was never able to pay its portion of the loading cost during the movement phase and hence never got aboard... which in turn means the transport is stuck until the next movement phase before it can complete the load?

A: Non-c/m units (already embarked) may be moved by sea and may be disembarked in the Exploitation Naval Sub-Phase even if they have no MPs to cover the cost of those activities.  Non-c/m units just may not embark or finish embarking in the Exploitation Naval Sub-Phase.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 15-Feb-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 32A, Amphibious Landings

 

Q:  Is amphibious landing unit considered embarked until all of the 90 MPs are spent?

A:  Yes. Per 32A (Amphibious Landings - Transport Costs) a naval group must spend 90 MPs to disembark non-amphibious cargo at an enemy-owned beach. Since it must spend 90 MPs to accomplish this task, until all 90 MPs are spent the task is not finished and the transported cargo is still embarked on the transporting naval unit until all 90 MPs are spent.

     We have had enough questions about this, however, that beginning with Storm over Scandinavia (SOS), and continuing with Wavell's War (WW) and Total War (TW), the naval transport rules have been modified to explicitly pell this out. From the TW rules (but similar wording is also in SOS and WW): "Cargo must be embarked to be moved by naval transport. A transport and its prospective cargo must be present together at the port or beach while the transport spends all necessary MPs to embark the cargo. Once these MPs are spent, the cargo is embarked. Embarked cargo may subsequently be disembarked from the transport. A transport and embarked cargo must be present in the hex together at all times while disembarkation is underway. When the transport has spent all necessary MPs to disembark the cargo, the cargo is disembarked."

[AEG, Developer, 19-Apr-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 33A, Naval Gunfire Support

 

Q: May TFs fire NGS from inside a port?

A: Yes, NGS may be fired from standard (or larger) ports.

[AEG, Developer, 01-Oct-97]

 

Q: If NGS may be fired in port, may it also be prepared in port?

A: Yes.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 27-Jan-04]

 

Q: When NGS is fired in port, is NGS strength affected by Rough or Stormy seas?

A: No, treat the sea conditions inside a port as Calm.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 27-Jan-04]

 

Q:  When defending, does an NGS strength point fired into a defending hex (i.e. the hex being attacked) support any otherwise unsupported units in that hex?

A:  Per SF Official Errata for 33A in TEM 59/60, p.94 "TFs providing NGS are not required to be stacked with friendly units for purposes of Rule 11 (Support)..."  Provided the defending hex is "Naval-Adjacent" (per SF 27B5) a TF does not have to be in the same hex to provide support for defending units.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 09-Mar-04]

 

Q:  When attacking, does/may an NGS strength point also get fired in the defending hex (i.e. again, the hex being attacked), and if so does the NGS strength point support any otherwise unsupported units participating in the attack?  If so, is that true even though the attacking units are not "stacked" with the NGS strength point / "virtual" artillery unit?

A:  Per SF Official Errata for 33A in TEM 59/60, p.94 "All friendly units involved in a combat involving friendly NGS are considered supported."  Provided the attacked hex is "Naval-Adjacent" (per SF 27B5) a TF does not have to be in the same hex with any of the attacking stacks to provide support for all them.  This also applies for purposes of SF 43A (Retreats and Overruns).

[DAT, Rules Judge, 09-Mar-04]

 

Q:  What is the gist of the Retreats and Overruns ramification, that delivered NGS persists throughout the Combat Phase including any retreat resolutions?

A:  After NGS has been allocated, its support component persists through any retreat resolution.  The non-phasing player allocates his NGS in Step 5 of the Combat Phase (after all DAS and GS has been flown).  NGS allocated to defending hexes may affect the retreat of attacking stacks that suffer AR results.  The phasing player allocates his NGS in Step 6 of the Combat Phase as he resolves each hex.  The ground strength of the phasing NGS is directed at the attacked hex, and therefore doesn't add to any particular attacking hex.  However, each attacking stack is supported if the defending stack potentially has the strength to overrun one of the attacking stacks on a DR result per SF 43A.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 09-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 33B -- Surface Naval Combat between CD and NRP

 

Q:  1 NRP has been sitting at El Ferrol for some time.  The La Corunya CD cannot fire on the NRP, correct?

A:  I don't believe that the NRP is "sitting at El Ferrol" at all.  To receive a NRP, a player must control the port listed in the OB at the appropriate time, and the NRP must not be destroyed on the ways, but it is not clear if NRPs have to be used at the port they are received at, or go into a general pool.  The second bullet point of 35B certainly implies that they go into a general pool (the replaced naval unit is placed at any friendly-owned functioning naval base).  The NRPs go into a general pool, and CDs may not fire on them.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 06-Feb-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 33B -- Coastal Defenses

 

Q:  May level-1 CD fire into adjacent hexes (out of its combat zone)?

A:  Yes, as specified in the third paragraph of the introduction to 29B (Surface Naval Combat).  But note that the CD will be halved for firing into an adjacent hex and therefore totally ineffective unless it combines with at least one other level-1 CD (since the naval combat chart has a minimum column of 1).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 33B -- Coastal Defenses

 

Q:  May CDs fire at submarines?

A:  No. The mechanics of rules 29A (Submarine Combat) and 29B (Surface Naval Combat) do not allow CDs to affect submarines or vice versa.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 33B -- Naval Gunfire Support

 

Q:  I am confused about NGS in rough and storm conditions.  Which of the following examples is correct?

1) 6 pt TF = 6 combat strength and 1.5 RE artillery units - calm

   6 pt TF = 3 combat strength and 1.5 RE artillery units - rough

   6 pt TF = 1.5 combat strength and 1.5 RE artillery units - storms

OR

2) 6 pt TF = 6 combat strength and 1.5 RE artillery units - calm

   6 pt TF = 3 combat strength and 0.75 RE artillery units - rough

   6 pt TF = 1.5 combat strength and 0.375 RE artillery units - storms

I've always thought 2) was the correct interpretation, but am no longer certain.

A:  The way the 4th and 6th paragraphs of 33 (Naval Gunfire Support) are written, it is currently possible to claim that 2) is the interpretation, i.e. that a 16-pt TF with 'an NGS strength' of 4 in stormy seas is treated as a 1 RE artillery unit.  However, I have first hand knowledge from the Developer who wrote the naval rules for FWtBT (and SF) that this is not the design intent.  The RE size of TF are not supposed to shrink as their NGS strength shrinks due to sea conditions.  In other words, if each 4 NGS strength points of a TF is 1 RE of artillery in calm seas, then each 2 NGS strength points is 1 RE of artillery in rough seas, and each 1 NGS strength point is 1 RE of artillery in stormy seas.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34A1 -- Protected Waters Naval Movement

 

Q:  Can you use the coastal waters protection when going between two non-contiguous coasts for example, when going from Europe to Africa?

A:  Yes, as the rule is written.  However, this doesn't cover straits such as Gibraltar very well since a TF parked in the Strait should be able to interdict all movement across it.  Fix this by revising the introduction to rule 34A1 as follows:
    "Cargo and submarine naval groups (only) may use protected, inshore waters to screen their movement from enemy naval units.  Each friendly-owned coastal hex is a protected waters hex.  Exception:  a friendly-owned coastal hex is not a protected waters hex if the naval group enters the hex by crossing an all-sea hexside."
    Example:  a cargo naval group moves from Melilla (23A:4822) to Algeciras (23A:3825), moving along the coast through friendly-owned hexes.  From Melilla to hex 3928 movement is through protected waters. However, the movement from hex 3928 to Algeciras is made by crossing an all-sea hexside so when the Algeciras hex is entered protected waters do not apply.  If the naval group were then to continue moving through friendly-owned coastal hexes to Cadiz (23A:3428) protected waters would again apply.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34B, Naval Replenishment

 

Q: Must a naval unit always attempt to replenish?  (34B says that a player “must dedicate”)

A: No; if a player *chooses* to replenish, then he "must" use the described procedure.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 25-Jan-04]

 

Q: 34B equates "replenishment" with "do not move or spend any MPs", so if it's possible to replenish without spending any MPs, it must be possible to "wait" without spending any MPs.  Likewise, not moving / spending MPs is also equated with "no reaction movement or naval combat".  But then advanced replenishment (43D) seems to equate "replenishment" with "spending 30 MPs".  How does one reconcile these rules?

A:  For the sake of logical consistency, interpret the basic rule on replenishment of spending 1 Naval Step to involve spending the 30 NMP of that Naval Step (and thus Naval Reaction can occur - if the naval unit replenishing is at sea, Naval Combat can occur, and other relevant naval activities can occur).  *Waiting* is spending NMPs *doing nothing*.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 29-Jan-04]

 

Q: If a naval unit that is U-1 replenishes, when is the U-1 marker removed, immediately after replenishment or at the end of the turn?  The difference would be that a U-1 naval unit is halved in every naval movement step if it is U-1 in a given turn.

A: Per 34B, a naval unit that is U-1 at the beginning of a naval step has its movement allowance halved for that step.  In other words, if using the advanced rule and the naval unit only spends 1 NMP to complete replenishing in a naval step, its movement allowance is still halved for that step.  However, a replenished naval unit has full movement for all the succeeding naval steps after replenishing.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 08-Feb-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34A2

 

Q:  34A2, 3rd bullet says "A combat or mixed NG or a CD has a combat zone only in the hex it occupies."  Does this bullet intentionally omit submarine NGs from these effects of night movement?

A:  The 3rd bullet of 34A2 does not apply to SS naval groups--submarine naval groups are neither combat or mixed naval groups but are instead SS naval groups.  (Obviously, they are also not CDs.)

[DPS, Rules Judge, 19-Jun-05]

 

Q:  34A2, 5th bullet says "A naval unit has its gunnery strength quartered at night".  Same question really, does this bullet intentionally omit submarine warfare strengths from these effects of night movement?

A:  The 5th bullet is a different matter, since it doesn't reference naval *groups* but rather naval *units*.  A submarine squadron is a naval unit, so the 5th bullet would include SS naval groups.

 

Q:  But it's an inclusion of no consequence, true?  SS NGs have no gunnery strengths to be quartered; they have only submarine warfare strengths.

A:  Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 19-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34F -- Danger Zones

 

Q:  "Danger zones consist of all hexes within 1 hex of an enemy-owned naval base."  Does this mean that the naval base's hex and all adjacent sea or coastal hexes are one single DZ, or that each such hex is its own DZ?  The difference would be a naval unit checking for DZ contact once per step regardless of how many of those hexes (projected from one base) are entered that same step; or a naval unit checking for DZ contact once per step for each such unique hex entered.

A:  The naval base and all of the surrounding hexes constitute a single danger zone.  And, yes, this means that you check only once per naval movement step.

[AEG, Developer, 19-Sep-05]

 

Q: DZs block supply lines; what does this reflect?

A: The DZs in FWtBT are limited to two special cases: 1) within 1 hex of an enemy-owned naval base, and 2) For Interventionist (i.e., Italian naval forces), all hexes in the Bay of Biscay. The first case represents (mostly) the coast defense guns at the naval base and thus this type of DZ can only really be neutralized if the naval base is taken. The second case represents (as mentioned in 34F), the effects of the non-Italian members of the Non-Intervention League who were actively trying to stop Italian arms shipments/etc. into Spain; this interference was most consistently applied by British and French naval patrols in the Bay of Biscay as shown by the rule.

[AEG, Developer, 29-Jan-04]

 

Q:  We have a unique situation where in order for the Loyalist side to trace a naval supply line from Biscay ports, the supply lines must pass the Strait of Gibraltar.  Is it really a designer or guru decision that naval supply lines may not pass the Strait due to the DZ exerted by the Insurgent naval base at Ceuta?

A:  Yes, this is correct.  It is a product of RAW and has nothing to do with any designer or guru decisions.  (Per 34K (Naval Supply Lines), a player may not trace a naval-element supply line from, into, or through any hex that is in a danger zone.  Per 34F (Danger Zones) every hex within 1 hex of an enemy-owned naval base is a danger zone.  Per 30A7 (Naval Bases) naval bases are listed on the naval base summary. Per the naval base summary (on Game Chart 3), each major port (and Ceuta is a major port) is a naval base.  Per the Spanish Civil War II Jul 36 Insurgent OB Ceuta begins the game Insurgent-owned.  Thus the Insurgent-owned naval base at Ceuta exerts a danger zone covering the straits between Mainland Spain and Morocco and thus blocking Loyalist naval-element supply lines from being traced through those straits).

    This is not a unique situation, however. It is a normal occurrence

during play of FWtBT.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  The DZ represents small patrol vessels not directly represented in the game.  So forces of neither side may enter the Gibraltar hex but it seems one may trace naval supply lines through the hex?  Because the CD strength at Ceuta is only 1, the guns are presumed to be too small to range all the way across the Strait, and apparently gunners can't see that far at night in any case.  This means that the DZ around Ceuta is represented by the patrol craft.  Would the British allow these smaller craft in the hex?

A:  Britain would undoubtedly have opposed the presence of shipping of either side in the waters off Gibraltar that they claimed as British territory (a 3-mile limit applied during this period).  This is why, per the "international waters" rule, both sides are only allowed to operate in that portion of the Gibraltar hex that is international waters (outside of British jurisdiction).

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  If the Ceuta DZ is not exerted into the Gibraltar hex, couldn't supply be traced through the Gibraltar hex and then the partial sea hex to the NW and thus escape interdiction?

A:  The DZ emanating from the major naval base at Ceuta is indeed exerted into the Gibraltar hex.  Thus there is *no* legal way you can trace a naval-element of a Loyalist supply line through the Strait of Gibraltar while Ceuta is Insurgent-owned.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  Could the Loyalist side send ships racing through the Strait at night, taking advantage of the British looking the other way?

A:  As a one-time venture this kind of thing might have some chance of success (and you can try it by loading some general supply points on a Loyalist transport and then sending it through the straits at night – it might get through without damage from the DZ), but establishing a naval-element of a supply line requires you to do this on a regular, routine basis.  And establishing a regular, Loyalist night supply run through the Strait is going to get noticed pretty quickly and the Insurgents are then going to take steps to shut it down (sending those patrol craft out into the Strait at night to intercept the supply convoys for example).  The naval-element of a supply line rules only allow you to trace such an element through those areas where you could run unescorted supply convoys on a routine basis with a realistic chance of them getting through on a routine basis.  Running Loyalist supply convoys through an Insurgent-dominated Strait of Gibraltar does not qualify.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

also 27B1 & port arrivals

 

Q:  On the I Oct 36 turn, the CTV begins to arrive on the side of the Insurgency at "Any Atlantic or Mediterranean ports".

 

q1:  Doesn't that cover all ports as there are only those 2 sea zones in the game?  27B1 says that the Bay of Biscay is a portion of the Atlantic sea zone therefore doesn't any reference to the Atlantic sea zone include the Bay of Biscay unless otherwise modified?  We want to understand if CTV units may arrive in Bay of Biscay ports on the Atlantic sea zone according to the RAW, and if this is what was intended.

a1:  Units specified as arriving at "Any Atlantic or Mediterranean ports" may not arrive at ports in the Bay of Biscay per the June 1, 1996 errata.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Oct-04]

 

q2:  If CTV units may arrive at, or otherwise operate from, the Biscay coast may they trace naval supply lines from a Biscay port back to the Italian off-map holding box?  34F says that the Bay of Biscay is a danger zone to Interventionist naval units, but does not go further to say that it is a DZ for Interventionist (or any other Insurgent) units tracing naval supply lines through Biscay.

a2:  No.  Rule 34K:  "A player may not trace a naval-element supply line from, into, or through any hex that is: 1) in the combat zone of an enemy naval group or CD, or 2) in a danger zone."  Also see the ultimate paragraph of 34F.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Oct-04]

 

q3:  I understand the Biscay DZ to be only for Interventionist naval units (and due to British, French, and other Non-Intervention League warships).  So,

 

q3.1) Interventionist coalition units may not trace a naval supply line through the Biscay DZ back to the Italian off-map ports holding box?

a3.1) Correct, Interventionist units may not trace a naval supply line through the Biscay DZ.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

a3.1) Agree.  Recommendation: Change 34F, 3rd paragraph from "Interventionist (i.e., Italian) naval forces..." to "Interventionist Coalition forces..." to remove the confusion.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Jan-05]

 

q3.2) But Rebel coalition units may trace a naval supply line through the Biscay DZ back to a Rebel full general supply source?

a3.2) Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Jan-05]

 

Example and follow-on questions:  the Insurgent-owned port of Santander is functioning, and currently supplied 6 REs of supply to any coalition or affiliation per 12C2c.  In the vicinity using those 6 REs of limited general supply are 3 REs of Rebel coalition units, and 3 REs of Interventionist coalition units:

 

q3.3) what does 12C2c intend, that any coalition / any affiliation may use a minor / standard port as long as it can trace a naval supply line back to a full general supply source of either coalition?  or something more specific, such as that each unit using a port per 12C2c must trace back to its own full general supply source, not just to any full general supply source?

a3.3) The former, tracing to a full general supply source of either coalition.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

a3.3) The intent here is that you must trace back to a full general supply source usable by the unit for which you are tracing supply.  Therefore recommend:  Remove the confusion by rewriting 12C2c, last paragraph to read: "For a unit to use a minor or standard port as a limited source of general supply, the port must be friendly-owned, and a naval-element supply line must be traced from the port to a full general supply source usable by the unit."

[AEG, Developer, 07-Jan-05]

 

q3.4) if yes to q3.3), does this mean that the Interventionist coalition units may trace naval supply through the Biscay DZ as long as they are tracing to a non-Interventionist full general supply source?  (i.e. using non-Interventionist supply ships that would not be intercepted by the Non-Intervention League patrols constituting the Biscay DZ)

a3.4)  Provisionally, pending discussion by the errata group, the answer is no.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

a3.4)  Answer definitively is no, given above-recommended rewrite of 12C2c.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Jan-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34G -- Landing Craft Repair

 

Q:  This describes how LCs are repaired, using die rolls rather than points.  Then what are the "amphibious repair points" in the OBs good for?

A:  There are no "amphibious repair points" in the OBs.  The OBs cite "amphibious repair: 1" which refers to the die roll needed to repair a damaged LC of that nationality.  The last paragraph of 34G (Landing Craft Damage) is in error:  it should state that a damaged LC is repaired on a roll of 1 only.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34G and Loyalist OB – Repair of Landing Craft Damage

 

Q:  The OBs say amphibious repair occurs on a roll of 1.  34G says on a roll of 1 or 2.  Which takes precedence?

A:  The rule is correct, ignore the listing in the OBs.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34H -- Limitations of Naval Interdiction

 

Q:  This rule seems to allow a port blockaded by a NG (combat or submarine) in its hex to receive imports, subject only to naval interdiction.  Correct?

A:  Yes.  Neither side effectively carried out a close blockade of any port during the civil war.  The naval interdiction rule simulates the somewhat haphazard nature of the blockade attempts actually made.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34H -- Effect of CD on Imports

 

Q:  The Loyalists own La Corunya.  The Insurgents own El Ferrol.  El Ferrol is not isolated.  If art RPs are imported into El Ferrol, what effect, if any, does the CD at La Corunya have on this?  The rules don't state that there is any ability for CD to "blockade" a port, nor is CD considered in the naval interdiction calculations on imports arriving at ports.  The Loyalists argue that CD should have a blockade ability similar to fleets.  At best, it might be included in interdiction calculations, but this could very easily cause problems where CD was within 5 hexes of the arrival port but not in actual combat range of same.

A:  Yes, there is no provision in the rules for CDs to blockade a port with regard to imports.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 06-Feb-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34H -- Naval Interdiction

 

Q:  Does a blockaded port stop all reinforcements going to the port or does 34H (Naval Interdiction) alone determine if the reinforcements arrive at the port?

A:  It does not stop arrival of reinforcements at the blockaded port.  However, the presence of the blockading naval units does make it more likely that naval interdiction will prevent reinforcements from arriving at the port.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 35B -- Replacement of NTs

 

Q:  When naval transport points arrive as reinforcements, there are no counters for these.  What should we use?

A:  All NTs which appear through the OB, except for an Insurgent NT on I Feb 37, a Loyalist NT on I Sep 37, and a Catalan NT on I Aug 37, are replacements of previously sunk NTs.  For example, the Loyalist OB entry for I Nov 37 has a listing for:

            Replace at any standard or major port:

            1 pt naval transport       any (PA or Cat)

There are enough counters in the game to allow the Insurgents to have 3 NTs, the Loyalists 2 NTs and the Catalanos 1 NT.  Note that these replacements may be accumulated.  They are not lost simple because you have not taken “enough” naval losses.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 36C -- Sea Conditions Effects

 

Q:  Are naval units in-port that are the targets of the Naval Units In Port tactical bombing mission considered land targets or naval targets for determining the effects of inclement weather and/or seas?

A:  Both 20G and 36C say that air units are affected by sea conditions when bombing "naval units."  Since I don't know if the intent was to include naval units in port (which surely are in calm water all year round) I'll have to get back to you on this question.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

Q:  When TFs (in a standard or larger port) prepare for and deliver NGS from in-port, are they subject to the effects of Rough or Stormy seas?

A:  I'll have to get back to you on this question.

[DAT, Rules Judge, 11-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 36D -- Inter-zone Effects

 

Q:  If a unit is sitting on a weather line and that zone is mud, does it use the mud supply length even if all of the supply line is traced through a weather zone that is clear, or does it use the clear weather supply length since that is the weather the supply line length is traced through?

A:  If the first supply line element traced from the unit in the zone with mud weather is an overland or road element, then that supply line element uses the mud supply length.  Per 36D (Effects Between Zones / Sea Zones):  "When tracing supply lines through zones with differing weather, the specific supply line element being traced is affected by the worse weather of the zones."  The fact that the unit is in a hex where the current weather is mud makes it impossible to not trace the first supply line at least partially through a zone with mud (since you trace from the unit towards a supply source, you cannot trace the line from a hex in mud to another hex in clear weather without at least part of the first hex of the line being in mud).

[AEG, Developer, 20-Feb-03]

 

Q:  Two adjacent sea zones have differing sea conditions (let's say one is Stormy and the other is Rough).  A NG sits on the edge of the Rough sea zone, and its gunnery strength is halved.  Another NG approaches from the Stormy sea zone side (in which its gunnery strength is quartered), moving adjacent to the first NG.  Since this happens during the day, and both NGs are combat NGs, naval combat ensues.  In which sea condition(s) do the NGs fight? 1) Rough, 2) Stormy, or 3) each fights in the sea conditions of the sea zone in which it occupies at the time that naval combat is initiated?

A:  Stormy.  Per 27B1, the boundary between 2 sea zones runs along a hexside. Per 36D, second paragraph, "A hexside falling between two zones or sea zones is treated as having the worse weather of the two zones or sea zones.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 20-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37A2 -- Improved Forts

 

Q:  What is the combat effect of improved forts (built by engineers)?  Same as printed improved fortresses?

A:  -2; no AEC; Eng modifier, as specified in 37A2 (Improved Forts).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37B -- Factory Supply Item Production

 

Q:  If a factory produces 1 step of supply/resource point in a given cycle, does the factory produce a) 1 step of attack supply or 1 resource point; or b) 1 step of attack supply and 1 resource point?

A:  I think this question assumes that the "supply" column on the "factory production chart" refers to both steps of attack supply and resource points.  It does not; it refers only to steps of attack supply.  The "production" sections of the Loyalist and Insurgent OBs clearly states that each friendly-owned factory in production produces 1 resource point on the first turn of every even-numbered month in addition to the steps of supply.  The factory production chart should have another note at bottom to the effect that each factory also produces 1 resource point each time production is received.  The chart should note that 'steps of supply' actually refer to 'steps of attack supply'.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37B -- Factory Production of Attack Supply

 

Q:  Factories produce supply.  Are these attack supply?

A:  Yes, per 37B, 2nd para.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 7A and 37C -- RAil Movement through Unowned Rail Hexes

 

Q:  Just to make sure: Is rail movement allowed only through friendly hexes, not through *neutral* ones?  And is rail movement allowed through captured and garrisoned but not yet pacified cities?
 (This is very important in the early-war and campaign scenarios, in which many rail hexes at start are owned by neither side.  It makes for a very interesting challenge having to acquire ownership of the net. 44B1 helps and I think should be used if ownership is required.)

A:  Rail movement is allowed only through friendly-owned hexes, not through neutral hexes.  Rail movement is allowed through captured, but non-pacified cities (even if not garrisoned).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A and 37C -- Rail Movement through Unowned Hexes

 

Q:  On I Aug 36, when rail movement is no longer prohibited per 37C, may rail hexes will still be unowned by either side per either 41B1 or 44H.  I wish to confirm that rail movement per 7A is not allowed in the above situation.

A:  One may only use rail movement in friendly-owned hexes, per 7A.  An unowned hex is not friendly-owned, therefore no one may use rail movement through unowned hexes.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A and 37C -- Rail Connections through Unowned Hexes

 

Q:  If rail hexes between cities (to be used to connect cities for the purpose of full general supply) remain “unowned by either side” on the II Aug 36 turn (when units are no longer automatically in general supply per 37C), are those cities considered unconnected for full general supply source purposes?

A:  Yes, they are unconnected, since they are not connected by friendly-owned rail lines and are not connected by rail lines which the tracing player is able to use for rail movement.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37C -- II Jul 36 turn, 3rd special rule bullet

 

Q: When using 43F2 (spend MPs for naval transport only on disembarkation), may Insurgent units be embarked and moved?  Technically they have not spent MPs to move, although this is only because those MPs for being moved by naval transport are deferred until disembarkation.  The wording seems ambiguous; what is the intent of the rule?

A: Other than Army of Africa units, Insurgent units may only move a single hex during the II Jul 36 turn.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

Q: "Move" means move in the narrow Rule 6 ground movement sense, or does it mean "move" in the broader sense of the term to include leaving its hex for any reason or mode of transport, ground, air, or naval?  I ask specifically about the Insurgent units in the Canary Islands because they are prohibited from "moving" at all during the II Jul 36 turn.  May units in the Canary Islands embark on naval transports as long as they do not "move", whatever your ruling on "move" is?

A: The term “move” in 37C refers to ground movement.  Movement by air transport or naval transport is not otherwise prohibited by this rule.  And, in fact, air transport of elements of the Army of Africa to Spain during II Jul 36 historically was crucial to the early Insurgent success.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37C, 3rd and 4th paras.

 

Q:  May c/m units move 1 hex in each of the movement and exploitation phases on the II Jul 36 turn, or simply a single hex during the entire II Jul 36 friendly player turn?

A: A single hex during the entire II Jul 36 friendly player turn.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q:  May c/m units move during the exploitation phase of the II Jul 36 and I Aug 36 turns?

A1:  Yes, but they are still bound by the limitations on movement found in 37C (single-hex per turn in II Jul 36, and half-allowance per phase in I Aug 36).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 14-Feb-06]

A2:  This could have been clearer in 37C.  The intent of the single hex movement provision in this rule that applies to most units during II Jul 36 is to limit units to moving a single hex during the turn (regardless of whether this single-hex movement occurs during the movement phase or during the exploitation phase).  So, a unit that has its movement limited to a single hex during the II Jul 36 turn *can* move a single hex during the exploitation phase of that turn, but only if doesn't move during the II Jul 36 movement phase.

    C/m units may always move (at half-allowance) during the I Aug 36 exploitation phase.

[AEG, Developer, 15-Feb-06]

 

Q:  May units carry supply/resource items up to their limits on the II Jul 36 turn when they may only move 1 hex?

A1:  Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

A2:  Yes.  12Hb specifies that a ground unit that carries resource pts has either 1 or 2 MPs deducted from its movement rating depending on how many resource pts it carries.  Rule 6 says that a unit's movement rating is the number of movement points that the unit may *normally* spend in a movement or exploitation phase.  Rule 6 also explains how a unit may always move a single hex in a phase by expending all its movement points (regardless of the number of MPs it would normally cost to move to the hex).  Thus during a turn it is possible for a unit to move a single hex, carrying the maximum number of resource pts to a directly adjacent hex even if the unit's available MPs (after deducting MPs for res pt carriage) is less than the number of MPs that would take to enter the hex without the single-hex movement provision.  37C contains a provision that limits many (but not all) units from moving more than a single hex during the II Jul 36 turn.  However, the single-hex movement provision of Rule 6 still applies.  And, therefore, the unit moving the single hex may also carry resource pts while doing so.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37D -- Militia Unreliability When Defending Adverse Terrain

 

Q:  Example:  The Insurgent player receives an additional +1 to his militia reliability roll due to the rough terrain in the defender’s hex.  This leads to the Requete unit defending at full strength and the Falangist unit defending at half strength.  Correct?

A:  Correct, the example is in error, in that it does not take into account the rough terrain militia reliability DRM.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37D -- Militia Unreliability and Effective GS / DAS

 

Q:  Does a GS/DAS air operation still cause an enemy militia reliability DRM even if it doesn't contribute any strength to friendly combat?  E.g. a lone Art III defending in a hex cannot receive an DAS strength (because there are no non-artillery REs in the hex with the Art III), but can it enjoy the services of a friendly DAS air op nonetheless, seeking to demoralize the attacking militia?
A:  No.  Air support (GS or DAS) affects the Militia Reliability die roll only if that side *has* air support.  And since 20G2b (GS) and 20G2c (DAS) state that no air units may provide GS or DAS to artillery units, an artillery unit in this situation would not have any air support.

[AEG, Developer, 26-May-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 37E, 38A and 38B -- phasing of "government events"

 

Loyalist side gains ownership of Insurgent government hex during the combat phase of the Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn.  If not captured, the Insurgent side suffers no ill effects and simply relocates the government in the initial phase of the Insurgent II Sep 36 player turn.  Correct?

A: Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

If captured, units of the Insurgent "nation" are halved in combat strength for the remainder of the Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn, which is by definition the remainder of the I Sep 36 game turn.  After the player turn of capture, the Insurgent side must reestablish the government in the initial phase of the Insurgent II Sep 36 player turn, and any Rebel coalition units out of supply at that time are demoralized and may not move or attack during that Insurgent player turn.  Furthermore, units of the Insurgent "nation" are halved in combat strength for both the Insurgent II Sep 36 and Loyalist II Sep 36 player turns.

A: Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

Case 2:

Insurgent side already has ownership of West Madrid and gains ownership of the Loyalist government hex in East Madrid during the combat phase of the Insurgent I Sep 36 player turn.  If not captured, the Loyalist side must relocate the government (to a hex not in Madrid) in the Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn.  At this point, there is a certain amount of foreknowledge (both sides know that per 37E2 the "owning player *must* relocate [the government] in his *next initial phase*", emphasis mine) here that could allow one to read Rule 38B1 1st bullet to mean that the remainder of the Insurgent I Sep 36 player turn (to include any remaining attacks in the present combat phase) is covered by the phrase "throughout the game turn in which the Loyalist government relocates to any hex except a Madrid hex".  If captured, units of the Loyalist "nation" (question: define nation as used in 37E3) are halved in combat strength for the remainder of the Insurgent I Sep 36 player turn and the entire Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn, which are collectively the remainder of the I Sep 36 game turn.  After the player turn of capture, the Loyalist side must reestablish the government in the initial phase of the Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn, and any Republican coalition units out of supply at that time are demoralized and may not move or attack during that Loyalist player turn.  Furthermore, units of the Loyalist "nation" are halved in combat strength for the remainder of the game turn, which in this case

Coincides with the remainder of the game turn in which the government was captured by the enemy.

A: All correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

Discrepancies I see:

 

* The capture of the Insurgent government results in a combat strength halving of Rebel coalition units for 2.5 player turns (last half of Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn, all of Insurgent II Sep 36 player turn, all of Loyalist II Sep 36 player turn), whereas capture of the Loyalist government results in a combat strength halving of Republican coalition units for 1.5 player turns (last half of Insurgent I Sep 36 player turn, and all of Loyalist I Sep 36 player turn).

A: The effects of capturing a government are indeed asymmetrical, but not as asymmetrical as the effects of gaining ownership of the hex containing a government without capturing it.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

* If ‘nation’ (per 38, heading) means Insurgent and Loyalist, the combat strength halving applies to all coalitions of the side whose government was captured, but the demoralization applies only to the Rebel/Republican coalitions of the given side.

A: Yes, "nation" in this context refers to either the Insurgent or Loyalist side, and the halving of combat strengths applies to all forces of that side, while the demoralization effects apply only to the specified coalition.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

* The above combat strength halving applies to the Loyalist side Republican coalition International affiliation, but not to the Insurgent side Interventionist coalition German/Italian/Mixed affiliations.

A: Yes, these distinctions are intentional.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

A: I remember questioning this during final development of FWtBT, and that Jeff Millefoglie (one of FWtBT's designers) telling me that the distinction was very much intentional.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Jan-04]

 

* 38A1, 1st bullet and 38B1, 2nd bullet say the same thing and could be covered under 37E3, where any distinction between side/nation and coalition effects could be better illuminated.

A: 37E3 covers the aspects of morale that are the same for both sides.  38A1 and 38B1 cover morale in greater detail listing those things that are peculiar to a particular side.  38A1 1st bullet and 38B1 2nd bullet do *not* say the same thing, each imposes demoralization penalties on differing units (38B1 1st bullet imposes them on Rebel units (but not Interventionist units) while 38B1 2nd bullet imposes demoralization penalties on Republican units (but not Gobernito or Radical units)).

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q: 38B1 says that their combat values are halved "...throughout the game turn...".  If the capital is moved in the Loyalist II Dec 37 player turn, are the unit's values halved just for the remainder of the II Dec 37 turn or are they also halved during the Insurgent I Jan 38 player turn?

A: Just during the remainder of the II Dec 37 turn.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38A3b and Insurgent OB, Conditional Reinforcements, Italian Response to a Loyalist Attack on Mallorca

 

Q:  If the Italian naval forces were used in a turn during the current game-year, and the Loyalist player makes an amphibious landing in Mallorca, may all the TFs react to the Loyalist invasion or only if they were not used during the current game-year?

A:  The "Italian Naval Intervention" conditional reinforcements and the "Italian Response to a Loyalist Attack on Mallorca" conditional reinforcement are completely seperate entries.  The forces listed in the later are released if the conditions set forth are met, and this is totally independent of whether or not the former have been used in the current game year or will be later.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 05-Feb-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38B5 -- Barcelona Revolt, 2nd para

 

3rd bullet:  "...strengths...are halved until the turn after...purification is completed"

4th bullet:  "...restrictions...are removed beginning with the turn after purification...is completed"

Q1: If purification is completed in the I May 37 initial phase, does the above mean that strengths are no longer halved in the I May 37 and later turns or no longer halved in the II May 37 and later turns?

A1: The statement that they are halved until the "turn after" purification concludes means that if purification is completed in the I May 37 initial phase, they are halved throughout that turn.  On II May 37, they are no longer halved.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 24-Nov-04]

 

Q2: If purification is completed in the I May 37 initial phase, does the above mean that restrictions are lifted on the I May 37 turn, or on the II May 37 turn?

A2:  The statement that the restrictions are removed beginning with the "turn after" purification concludes means that if purification is completed in the I May 37 initial phase, the restrictions are still in place throughout that turn.  On II May 37, the restrictions are lifted.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 24-Nov-04]

 

Q:  If Palma is owned by the Loyalist side, should it also have to go through repurification during the Barcelona revolt?  It's not a Catalonian city per se, being on the Balaerics of course, but it is an inf RP source for Catalonian units, so perhaps it should be included for those instances where the Loyalists own the city either via variable rebellion or naval invasion.

A:  The Balaerics are not part of Catalunia for game purposes, so no.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 20-Sep-05]

A:  The game distinction whereby Palma in the Balearic Islands yields Catalonian inf RPs, but is not considered part of Catalonia in game terms is deliberate. The Balearic Islands are *not* part of Catalonia proper (neither in the game nor in Spanish life - where they have almost always been a separate political unit from Catalonia).  Although the dominant dialect spoken in both Catalonia and the Balearics was/is Catalonian the islanders were (in general) much less attached to the concept of an independent (or autonomous) Catalonia than the mainland.  This shows up in the voting patterns in the last election before the civil war and in the fact that significant portions of the islands (including the main city Palma) went Insurgent when the civil war broke out.

[AEG, Developer, 23-Sep-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38B6 -- Default Declaration of International Replacement City in Spain

 

Q:  Albacete is insurgent-owned at start of The 1936-39 Grand Campaign Scenario.  How can it also be the international replacement city for the Loyalists?

A:  Oops!  The first international unit does not show up until I Oct 36, however.  So let the Loyalist player designate the international replacement city in Spain at that time if Albacete is still Insurgent-owned (or isolated).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  Albacete starts the game as the (Loyalist) International Replacement City in Spain, but the Insurgent OB says that Albacete starts the game Insurgent-owned.  How can this be?

A:  This is not a problem.  The Loyalists don't receive any International units until the I Oct 36 turn, so there is plenty of time to capture Albacete, or move the International Replacement City per the rules.  (Given that it's on the high-volume rail line leading from Murcia and Valencia to Madrid, the Loyalists will definitely want to capture it ASAP, if they can.)

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Sep-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38C -- Neutrality Violations

 

Q:  How do naval units get past hex 23A:2633 of neutral Portugal?

A:  Allow naval units to enter coastal hex 23A:2633 without any penalty or violation of Portugal’s neutrality.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38C, Neutrals:  France, Portugal, and Gibraltar

 

Q:  Strictly in political terms, why couldn't the various factions simply trace supply using French or Portuguese rail nets as appropriate to sustain their forces?

A:  Realistically, in order to trace a rail-element of a supply line along a particular stretch of neutral rail line, the tracing force must first establish a logistics delivery system along that line. Establishing such a system necessarily means that various administrative, supply, and transport units must move into that area. In Europa in general, all of this is invisible and assumed to be going on in the background all the time.  In the case of a neutral nation's territory, however, this is flat prohibited because the reality of all those non-neutral admin/supply/transport personnel being in the "neutral" country would have major political impacts.

    Although France provided some support to the Loyalists during the war and Portugal provided some support to the Insurgents, neither country allowed (or even seriously contemplated as far as I can see) forces from the faction they were supporting to openly operate in their country in this manner.  Occasionally shipping supplies across the French/Portuguese border into Spain in support of the faction you want to see win (which the rule allowing a side to count a French or Portuguese city as one of the three cities needed to establish a supply net represents) is allowed in the game (when appropriate, such as when the French government in power was inclined that way as shown via the mechanic of the French border opening or closing) as this is hard for the rest of the international community or even your own populace to detect, and is easy to deny (or declare as a one-time mistake made by over-zealous underlings who will now be punished) and thus constitutes an acceptable political risk; but allowing military forces of a warring faction to openly operate on your sovereign national territory (which tracing a rail-element of a supply line would entail) is prohibited as to have done so would have allowed other members of the international community (and elements of your own populace) to charge that the nation had "abandoned" its declared neutrality -- a charge that carries major domestic and international fallout (a domestic populace unhappy with your actions could remember this come the next election, another country might show its displeasure by imposing economic penalties -- abandon your neutrality in this manner and we'll treat you as a belligerent and extend the international blockade on Spain to you as well) that neither France nor Portugal appeared willing to risk.

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  How do the rules intend us to handle the Gibraltar hex?

A:  38C4 applies, and forces of neither side may enter Gibraltar's hex.  However, this has been amended by errata issued since the game was published that allows forces of both sides to operate in the "international waters" portion of the Gibraltar hex.

    A more formal write up of the "international waters" concept can be found in SoS or WW Rule 38A1 (Common Rules for Neutral Territory).  The WW Rule is listed below:

    "In general, neither side's forces may enter, pass through, trace supply into or through, or attack into any hex of a neutral nation or neutral region of Vichy France.  (The rules for a specific nation or region may modify this general rule.)  Forces, however, may operate in or over the international waters off the coasts of neutrals.  For game purposes, every coastal sea hex of a neutral contains international waters.  All forces may operate in the international waters portion of a hex.  For example, an air transport could carry cargo over the international waters portion of a coastal hex of a neutral nation. Forces in international waters may not undertake any action that would violate the neutrality of the land portion of the coastal hex.  For example, with Spain neutral, an air unit in flying over the international waters portion of hex 24A:4105 could not fly directly to 24A:4005, since even though both hexes have international waters, it would have to pass over neutral Spanish land on the 24A:4105/4005 hexside.  (It could instead move 24A:4105-4106-4005.)"

[AEG, Developer, 11-Mar-04]

 

Q:  If some Loyalist units are forced to retreat into France, may they attack out of France into Spain?

A:  I don't see anything in 38C or elsewhere that specifically prohibits this, and I don't see how doing so violates any of the rules, so I'd have to say it's allowed.  Note that Insurgent units may operate in Portugal under basically the same rules as Loyalist units in France.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Jan-03]

A:  Yes.  38C does not specifically prohibit attacking into neutral territory: it only prohibits moving into neutral territory except as specifically allowed in the appropriate section.  38C1 (France) lists the conditions under which Loyalist units may enter France, and that rule specifically allows Loyalist units to retreat into France, but limits a retreating unit from entering no more than 2 hexes in France before re-entering Spain (or face internment).  If the unit is not interned, it may re-enter Spain, and thus attack into Spain from France.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D -- Gobernito Special Replacements Post-Collapse

 

Q:  Do post-collapse fragile units produce special RPs?
A:  Since units of a collapsed Gobernito that score a Failure result are eliminated but produce PA special replacements, it can be inferred that units that score a Success result will generate PA special replacements if subsequently eliminated.  However, this is not made clear.  Provisionally, I am going to rule that if unisolated they will generate PA special replacements, pending review.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D -- Gobernito replacement pools

 

Q:  If forces from a Gobernito are eliminated in combat, yet cannot trace a supply line of any length to their affiliation's source of general supply, but can trace to a Loyalist affiliation full general source of supply, they cannot go into their affiliation's isolated general replacement pool.  Do they then go into the general replacement pool?  What are the prohibitions concerning this?

A:  The only way that units go into a Gobernito garrison box's replacement pool is when a division is formed from units in the available section of the garrison box--the division is then place in the garrison box's available section and the non-divisional units used to form it go into the replacement pool section of the same garrison box.  Any on-map Loyalist unit which is eliminated goes into the Loyalist player's general replacement pool.

    As far as special replacements are concerned, they are received when any unisolated unit is eliminated by overrun or combat.  It doesn't matter which side, coalition, or affiliation it belongs to, or where it is on the map, or its supply status  The only thing that determines whether a unit generates special replacements or not is its isolation status.  If it's unisolated, it produces special replacements, if it’s isolated, it doesn't.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D -- Gobernito Garrison Reinforcements after Garrison Release

 

Q:  If the Insurgent player takes actions which activate a Gobernito garrison, does the release a) apply only to units currently in garrison, with future garrison reinforcements being placed in the garrison box; or b) apply to all current and future garrison reinforcements, with all reinforcements being placed immediately on the board?  E.g. if the Insurgent player attacks in Asturias on I Aug 36 when there are no units in garrison, are the units assigned to the garrison on II Aug 36 placed in garrison or are they released immediately?

A:  A garrison is either released or it is not.  Once you meet the conditions for its release (per the conditional reinforcements section of the Loyalist OB) it is released and stays released for the remainder of the game.  New units listed in the OB as being added to the released garrison are therefore also immediately released from the garrison.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  Once the garrison for a specific Gobernito has been released, may that garrison be reestablished?

A:  No.  Once a specific Gobernito garrison has been released, it is permanently released for the remainder of the game:  it may not be reestablished by the player; and the various entries in the later OB that refer to activities within the released garrison do not serve to reestablish the garrison either.  The rules explain how garrisons can be released.  They do not give any mechanism as to how a released garrison may be reestablished by the player.  In effect, the various Loyalist garrisons exist from the beginning of the game until the conditions for their release are met for the first time.  And, once a garrison is released, it stays released for the rest of the game.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Apr-05]

 

Q:  When a Gobernito’s garrison has been previously released, does one place units later listed in the OB as “Available” in that garrison also in any friendly-owned hexes in that Gobernito’s region?

A:  No.  When the OB lists a unit as "Garrison: Available" and the garrison referred to has already been released, the unit is instead received as a reinforcement at any city in the Gobernito's area.

  I know that I previously ruled that when a garrison was released you could place the units released from garrison in any friendly-owned hexes in the Gobernito's area --- as a change from the RAW that said you received the units as reinforcements in the Gobernito's area (meaning at any city in the Gobernito's area).  However, the RAW here were abusive as in many cases it was the case that the event that triggered a garrison's release was the capture by the enemy of the only city in the garrison's area.  And since the only city was now enemy-owned this effectively caused the elimination of the garrison before they ever appeared on the map (even though the units had actually existed and would almost certainly have put up a fight for their homeland).

  However, my change in how *existing units* are released from a garrison are placed was NOT meant to apply to *new reinforcements* (i.e., those units listed in the OB as "Garrison: Available").  New units should appear at cities.

  In effect, all "Garrison: Available" units appear at cities, but if the specific garrison being reference has not yet been released, the game shortcuts this to just placing the units in the appropriate garrison box.

  Once a unit has been added to a garrison it exists and presumably could be anywhere in the garrison's area (thus my ruling that released units could be placed anywhere in a garrison's area).  However, once the garrison has been released, any new units listed as "Garrison: Available" must be placed in a city in the garrison's area.  New garrison units appear at cities.

  Existing garrison units, when their garrison is released, are placed in any friendly-owned hexes in their garrison's area.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Apr-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D and Loyalist OB -- Release of Gobernito Garrisons

 

Q:  Are garrisons released according to the rules or OB?

A:  38D, 3rd para., states that “A Gobernito’s garrison may be released when the conditions specified for its release (per the conditional reinforcements section of the Loyalist OB) are met.”  If these conditions are met for a Gobernito, then its entire garrison is released.  Regardless of any conditions, if the OB calls for specific units to be released from garrison, then release those units only.  (As always, specific historical designations may be ignored.)  Note that garrison reinforcement activities due to the regular reinforcements section of an OB are distinct from any garrison reinforcement activities due to the conditional reinforcement section of an OB.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D – Operational Limitations on Gobernito Naval Units

 

Q:  What, if any, restrictions are or should be imposed on the Basque naval unit?

A:  None.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

38D, 4th para., 1st bullet

 

Q:  For Gobernito units that achieve Success on their collapse roll, what does it mean that "The unit is now fragile for replacement purposes"?  the rule quoted is 40N, but that is probably a typo for 40C.  but 40C 1) specifies *divisions* (while most Gobernito units are non-divisional), and 2) says fragile divisions have OB substitutions, but I could find no substitutions for any units in the Loyalist OB other than the PA tank XX.

A:  Yes, it was previously released in errata that the reference should be to 40C, not 40N.

    I have taken the provision that "the unit is now fragile for replacement purposes" in this instance to simply mean it cannot be rebuilt (DTM:  i.e. cannot be replaced?).  Note that due to the last 2 bullet points in Rule 38D, it would not be possible to rebuild (DTM:  replace?) them anyway.

    The OB does specify a substitution for the Catalan 4-7 Mtn XX.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 12-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D, Catalunya Collapse

 

Q: If Catalunya collapses and Barcelona is still Loyalist-owned, may Anarchist units still draw supply from Barcelona?

A: Yes, if the Anarchist units in question can trace a valid supply line to either hex of Barcelona per 12.  Nothing in the general 38D (Gobernito collapse) or in 38D2 (collapse of Catalunya) strips Barcelona of its ability to function as a general supply source (as spelled out in 12C1b and 12C2b).  Thus, regardless of whether Catalunya has collapsed or not:

    1) Barcelona may continue to function as a Republican Coalition full general supply source provided the city remains Loyalist-owned and connected (per 7A and 12C1b) to two other Loyalist-owned cities in Mainland Spain that are capable of generating People's Army infantry RPs (or, so long as the French border is open, one such city and any city in France remain Loyalist-owned and connected).

    2) Either hex of Barcelona may continue to function as a Radical

Coalition (Anarchist and POUM affiliations) full general supply source so long as the hex remains Loyalist-owned.

    3) Each hex of Barcelona may continue to function as a Republican Coalition limited general supply source (for up to 6 REs per hex) so long as the hex in question remains Loyalist-owned.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

Q: If Barcelona is Insurgent-owned, do the anarchist units draw supply only from general supply points?

A: No.  Per 12C1b, any hex of Barcelona or Malaga (23A:3822) is a Radical Coalition (which includes the Anarchist affiliation) full general supply source.  Thus, even if Barcelona has been lost to the Insurgents, Malaga remains a valid general supply source for Anarchist units.  If both Barcelona and Malaga are Loyalist-owned, however, the only supply sources remaining for Anarchist units would be general supply points, or standard and minor ports.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

Q: May Anarchist units draw supply from a limited supply source port?

A: Yes.  Per 12C2c "either side, any coalition or affiliation" (and the term "any affiliation" perforce includes the "Anarchist affiliation") may use the limited general supply ability of friendly-owned standard and minor ports.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

Q: Does Catalunya still create replacement points for the Anarchist and People's Army affiliations after Catalunya Collapse?

A: Yes.  Per the general Gobernito collapse process described in 38D, when a Gobernito collapses, all accumulated infantry RPs for that Gobernito are eliminated and that Gobernito no longer receives reinforcements or replacements.  In the case of the collapse of the Gobernito of Catalunya, all accumulated infantry RPs of the Catalan affiliation would be eliminated and no further Catalan infantry RP production would be received for the remainder of the game.  However, the production of People's Army infantry RPs at the city of Barcelona, the production of Anarchist affiliation infantry RPs at the cities of Barcelona and Tarragona, and the production of POUM affiliation infantry RPs at the cities of Barcelona and Lerida, would continue as normal (unaffected by Catalunya collapse).

  Note that 3B3 (Sides, Loyalist) defines "Gobernito Coalition" and the various Gobernito (Asturian, Basque, Catalan, and Santandero) affiliations.  Each Gobernito has one (and only one) affiliation associated with it. For example, the Catalunya Gobernito is associated with the Catalan (and only the Catalan) affiliation.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

Q: When Catalunya collapses do all, some, or none of the Anarchist units roll for elimination like the Catalan units?

A: Maybe.  When the Gobernito of Catalunya collapses (per 38D2), all Catalan units are checked to see if they remain in play or are eliminated per the general Gobernito collapse procedure outlined in the 4th (last) paragraph of 38D (Gobernitos).  Only Catalan units are affected by this process; no other Loyalist units (including Anarchist units) are affected.

  However, per 38D2, when Catalunya collapses Barcelona must be declared an open city, and, starting with the Insurgent player turn following the declaration of Barcelona as an open city, any Loyalist air or ground unit in any hex of Barcelona must surrender and is immediately eliminated when an Insurgent unit moves adjacent to it. This effectively means that once Catalunya collapses, Loyalist units (of all affiliations, including the Anarchist affiliation) risk surrender/elimination each turn in which they occupy either hex of Barcelona.  Or, in other words, if the Catalans quit the war (which the Catalunya collapse represents), the Catalans are still going to ensure that their capital/major city of Barcelona is not destroyed in a futile last-ditch defense by non-Catalan Loyalist units in the defense of a lost cause contrary to Catalan interests.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D2 -- Catalunya Collapse and Loyalist General Supply Sources

 

Q:  Per 38D2, one of the two conditions of Catalunya’s collapse is that “a Loyalist rail element supply line cannot be traced from Barcelona to a general supply source (full or limited).”  May Barcelona itself be one of the three connected cities needed to constitute a general supply source for the purposes of 38D2?  E.g. if the French border is open, Tarragona (its port otherwise unusable as a limited supply source) and Barcelona are Loyalist-owned and pacified/purified, and all three are rail-connected, is the condition for Catalunya collapse met?

A:  Yes, Catalunya collapses because Barcelona does not count as one of the cities, which is what the “from” means; you have to trace to a supply source independent of Barcelona.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D2, 2nd bullet

 

Q: 38D2 lists, in part, how Catalunya will collapse.  Regarding "...traced from Barcelona...", is Barcelona (for 38D2 only) counted as one of the three connected cities that forms a full general supply source?

A:  Yes.  The "traced from Barcelona" specified in 38D2 is entirely different from the "connected" provision of 12C1b.  First you determine if a Republican general supply source (full or limited) is available to trace to.  Then you trace from Barcelona to the general supply source.

  Example:  A large section of Catalunya and Aragon is cut-off from the rest of Loyalist Spain.  Within this Catalunya/Aragon pocket, the only cities in the pocket that the Loyalist player owns that are capable of producing People's Army inf RPs are Barcelona and Zaragoza.  The French border is open.  The Loyalist player can trace connections (per 7A and 12C1b) among Barcelona, Zaragoza, and a city in France (this last allowed because the French border is open).  Thus Barcelona, Zaragoza, and the city in France are collectively a Republican Coalition full general supply source.  So long as this "connected" supply net is maintained Catalunya will collapse only due to outright Insurgent capture of both hexes of Barcelona.  Should this supply net collapse (due to a closure of the French border, Insurgent capture of any of the connecting rail lines, or Insurgent capture of Zaragoza), Catalunya becomes vulnerable to collapse each turn that an Insurgent unit begins a game turn within 3 hexes of Barcelona.

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-04]

 

Q:  Doesn’t note 3 under the production section of the Loyalist OB, page 4 mean that Tarragona produces PA points following the completion of Ideological Repurification following the Barcelona revolt?  And would that not mean it becomes eligible to provide Loyalist supply as one of 3 cities, or 2 cities & France?

A: Yes, once Tarragona (and similarly Lerida) begins production of People's Army inf RPs, the city then becomes eligible for use as one of the 3 cities (or 2 & France) needed to establish a Republican Coalition Full General Supply Source.

[AEG, Developer, 19-Feb-04]

 

Q: May Anarchist units still use Tarragona as a replacement city?  Are the rules meant to remove most of the Anarchist influence from Catalunya?  Or, should Tarragona be more than a city that produces People's Army inf RPs and nothing else (part of a 3-city full general supply source for some Loyalist units)?
A: 40B3a explains in detail where units are replaced.  In general, eliminated units of a particular affiliation (such as the Anarchist affiliation) may only be replaced at cities that produce inf RPs for that affiliation.  When Tarragona ceases to produce Anarchist affiliation inf RPs following the Barcelona Revolt, Tarragona immediately ceases to be an eligible location at which to place previously-eliminated Anarchist units following their replacement.  Yes, the rules on the Barcelona Revolt and Ideological Purification are meant to remove most Anarchist influence from Catalunya.

[AEG, Developer, 19-Feb-04]

 

Q: The rules state that on Catalunya's collapse and when an Insurgent unit is next to a city hex of Barcelona and Loyalist ground and/or air units are in the city hex next to the Insurgent unit the Loyalist unit is eliminated.  They do not state what happens to any of the Loyalist naval units in the Barcelona port when an Insurgent unit is next to the port hex.  Do the naval units just move out to sea in the hex?  Do they roll to see if they can escape?  Or, are they also just eliminated?
[JB, Player, 18-Feb-04]
A: As nothing in the rules on Catalunya Collapse/Declaration of Barcelona as an Open City (covered in 38D2) mention any affects of such a collapse/declaration on Loyalist naval units in Barcelona, naval units in Barcelona are unaffected by Catalunya Collapse/Declaration of Barcelona as an Open City.  Any Loyalist naval units present in either hex of Barcelona (regardless of whether or not they are at sea in the hex or in port there) remain in the hex as normal (they are not eliminated, are not required to leave port or to roll or for escape).
  Yes, this is intentional.  You can argue that maybe you should have to move the naval unit from being in port to being at sea in the hex, but even there the justification is iffy as the ships the naval unit represents can just cut their moorings to the docks and move just offshore (but still inside the port's area).  And given that by the time Catalunya Collapse occurs the Loyalists usually no longer have a navy to speak of, it seemed unnecessary to have a rule covering this marginal topic.

[AEG, Developer, 19-Feb-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D, Loyalist OB Conditional Reinforcements section; phasing and sequencing of Gobernito garrison release, expansion of Gobernito operational area, Gobernito collapse, and required Insurgent Gobernito border garrisons

 

Q: These four Gobernito-related events are not entirely transparent to me, so I'll state my understanding.  (Please correct me on all points.  I recall being confused by the Gobernito collapse rules in my last game, so thought it would be good to have it all solidly under the belt before starting the next game.)

  Insurgent initial phase:

step 3. check for Gobernito collapse (despite 4th paragraph of 38D which says to check for "Gobernito collapse at the start of each *player* turn, the Gobernito-specific instructions say that they may collapse at the start of a *game* turn, which by definition is always only the Insurgent player turn)

step 6. do not check for required Insurgent Gobernito border garrisons (see below)

step 7. do not release Gobernito garrisons (see below)

step 8. do not check for expansion of Gobernito operational areas (see below)

  Loyalist initial phase:

step 3. do not check for Gobernito collapse (see above)

step 6. check for required Insurgent Gobernito border garrisons

step 7. release Gobernito garrisons, conditional reinforcements still being a reinforcement (40) activity (depends on whether any Gobernito has collapsed in step 3. of the prior Insurgent initial phase)

step 8. check for expansion of Gobernito operational areas (depends on either steps 6. or 7. above)

To summarize, all Gobernito related checks are made in the Loyalist initial phase, except that the check for Gobernito collapse is made in the Insurgent initial phase.  All correct?

A: Yes, this is correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D, 4th paragraph, 1st bullet

 

Q: When a collapsed Gobernito unit (which is successfully still in-play as a fragile unit) is eliminated, does it generate People's Army special inf RPs?

A:  Yes.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 30-Mar-04]

A:  Yes.  Note:  This is the design intent; however, a strictly literal reading of the rules can be interpreted as giving a "no" answer.  This is because 40B4 (Special Replacements) says that special inf RPs for eliminated units are calculated separately for each "affiliation" and received as inf RPs for that affiliation.  And, because, nothing in the rules says that units of a collapsed Gobernito cease to be of that Gobernito's affiliation post-collapse, any special inf RPs received when units of that affiliation are later eliminated will continue to be of that Gobernito's affiliation.  However, interpreting the rules in this manner would then allow the post-collapse replacement of that Gobernito's eliminated units (using the special infantry RPs generated), which is abusive and unintended.

   To fix both the garrison and the special inf RP problems discussed above, consider 38D, 4th paragraph (Gobernito collapse) modified to read as follows:

 

    "Gobernitos may collapse.  Check for Gobernito collapse at the start of each Insurgent player turn in which the conditions for its collapse have been met.  When a Gobernito collapses, take action in the sequence listed below:

    1) Release from garrison any units in the Gobernito's garrison.

    2) Reduce to 0 any infantry RPs accumulated for the Gobernito.

    3) Check each on-map unit of the Gobernito to see if it remains in play or is eliminated.  For each unit, the Loyalist player rolls a die, applies any applicable modifiers, and consults the success table; results are:

        Success: The unit remains in play, but is henceforth considered to be a People's Army unit for purposes of supply (Rule 12C) and special replacements (Rule 40B4).  However, the unit is also now fragile for replacement purposes (per Rule 40C).

        Failure: The unit is eliminated, but generates People's Army special replacements.

        Failure*: The unit is eliminated, generating no special replacements.

    4) Ignore all future mention of reinforcements or replacements for the Gobernito."

[AEG, Developer, 30-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D & Loyalist OB, Conditional Reinforcements

 

Q:  Can Gobernito units go back into garrison?  And if so can XXs be formed in the garrison, even though every hex of the Gobernito is in an enemy ZOC? (XXs cannot be formed in an enemy ZOC).

A:  Gobernito units in a garrison can be released from that garrison when the conditions for their release are met (per the conditional reinforcements section of the OB).  Once released from garrison, they cannot be returned to garrison (as there are no rules in FWtBT to do so).

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

Q:  If there are no friendly-owned hexes of a Gobernito that are free of enemy ZOC, the Gobernito cannot form divisions from units in the garrison box, or units on map, correct?
A:  Incorrect.  Units in a Gobernito garrison box are never in an enemy zone of control, regardless of where enemy units may exert ZOCs on the map.  The ZOC rule specifies that:  "A unit exerts a ZOC through the six hexsides of the hex the unit occupies into the six surrounding hexes."  Clearly, ZOCs are exerted into hexes, and since a Gobernito garrison box is not a hex, a ZOC cannot be exerted into it.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Aug-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D1-4 -- Timing of Gobernito Collapse Checks

 

Q:  38D, 4th para. (general Gobernito collapse) says "Check for Gobernito collapse at the start of each player turn in which the conditions for its collapse have been met."  But the specific Gobernito rules (e.g. 38D1, 3rd para.) say "Asturias will collapse if both Gijon and Oviedo are Insurgent-owned at the start of a game turn..."  Catalunya, Santander and Euzkadi have similar specific Gobernito collapse rules.  Isn't 38D1 more correct?

A:  Yes, Gobernito Collapse occurs only during the initial phase of the Insurgent player turn.

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

Q:  Per 38D1 (this is consistent for each Gobernito as far as I can tell) last sentence, "Asturias will collapse if both Gijon and Oviedo are Insurgent-owned at the start of a game turn and a supply line can be traced from each of these cities to a Rebel general supply source (full or limited).  Is game turn intended to be the same as player turn?  The fourth paragraph of 38D reads player turn.  The rules 38D1-4 all read game turn.

A:  Gobernito Collapse is checked during the initial phase at the start of each Insurgent player turn.

[AEG, Developer, 05-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D1-4 & the MSOP

 

Q:  In what manner and when exactly is it determined whether "a supply line can be traced from the city to a Rebel general supply source"?  when we reach step 3 of the Insurgent initial phase where Gobernito collapse is checked, do we determine whether "a supply line can be traced" based on 1) the last time supply was checked, 2) in step 3, judged *before* the rest of the units in the game are checked for supply in step 4, or 3) in step 3, judged *after* the rest of the units in the game are checked for supply and have their supply statuses updated accordingly. 

A:  Check at the time the Gobernito is checked for collapse.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 08-Oct-04]

 

Q:  So, when checking supply from the city of Santander, the Insurgent player is not committing to a particular manner of supply for units there, and they are checked "for real" later in step 4?  I.e. If any unit in Santander may be judged in supply based upon the conditions before collapse, the collapse checks proceed, and in step 4 that same any unit may be able to supply itself via a different route and/or source as a consequence of new conditions after the collapse?

A:  Right.  In step 3, you only check to see if a supply can be traced from the city to a Rebel general supply source (full or limited).  You don't actually check supply until step 4.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 08-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 7A and 39A -- Rail Movement through Unpacified Locations

 

Q:  Is rail movement allowed into and through captured and garrisoned but still unpacified cities?
 (A) If they have a garrison sufficient for pacification?
 (B) If they have a garrison insufficient for pacification?
Since this reflects on other rules, please clarify exact terms of ownership of hexes containing cities that are captured but not yet pacified (including point cities not having intrinsic garrisons).

A:  Ownership is entirely separate from pacification status.  You own a hex per the stipulations of 3D (Ownership):  i.e. if your units occupy the hex, if your units exert an uncontested ZOC into the hex, or if your units were the last to occupy or exert an uncontested ZOC into the hex.
 Per 39A (Pacification), the only restriction on what a player may or may not do if a friendly-owned, but unpacified city does not contain the required garrison is that he may not trace a supply line into or through such a hex. Since rail movement is not prohibited, it is therefore allowed.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

39A -- Attacking During Pacification

 

Q:  Can units used as a pacification garrison be included in an attack?

A:  39A requires the units used as the garrison to pacify a city be present in the city at the start of the friendly initial phase, and specifies that the none of the units may leave the city nor spend MPs for any purpose.  There is no specific prohibition on including them in an attack, though if they advance or retreat after combat, they would no longer be in the city pacifying it, and the pacification process would have to start all over.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 19-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 14A1 and 39A -- Construction During Pacification

 

Q:  It is stated that MPs cannot be used when a unit is a pacification garrision which seems to disallow engineer construction abilities.  Can an engineer both pacify and build a fort which (does not explicitly use MPs?

A:  No (presume you're referring to combat engineers; i.e., those with an attack factor), they're theoretically intimidating/educating the population with their rifles, not their shovels.

[JAM]

A:  Agree with JAM although technically rules do not disallow this since only restriction is that you cannot spend MPs.  And I could probably be convinced by an opponent that his engineers were brutally pacifying the population through the process of forcing them to build the field works for the fort (and shooting everyone who was less than enthusiastic in doing so).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 
Rule 39A -- Pacification

 

Q:  We need clarification of the role of unpacified cities.  For example, undefended point cities are entered and occupied.  In subsequent turns, the garrison leaves before pacification is complete. Supply may not be drawn through the hex, but can units still rail through?  And is the hex still considered friendly owned to the last occupier?  And are these rules applicable to other cities as well, assuming the intrinsic garrison cannot become undispersed?

A:  Per the last paragraph of 39A (Pacification), the only effect a friendly-owned unpacified city has is that a supply line may not be traced through it unless the city has its required garrison. Yes, you may rail through the hex; and, yes, it remains friendly-owned to the last occupier.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  While a disputed ZOC is insufficient to gain ownership of a hex, it is sufficient to cause a change in pacification status, correct?

A:  No.  Per 39A, enemy-owned cities which are captured (become friendly-owned) must be pacified.  Since a contested ZOC cannot change the ownership of a hex, there is no way that it can have any effect on the pacification status of the city in the hex.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 22-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A and 39A -- Rail Movement and Pacification

 

Q:  Although supply cannot be traced through a friendly-owned, not-yet-pacified city that doesn’t have its required pacification garrison, may units still rail through such a city?

A:  No, units may not rail through an unpacified city lacking the requisite garrison.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96] –Note, overruled later

 

Q:  Although supply cannot be traced through a friendly owned not yet pacified city that doesn't have its required pacification garrison, may units still rail through the city?

A:  As the rules are written, yes, you can rail through an unpacified city without the requisite garrison (so long as the city is friendly-owned).  The only restriction in rule 39A is that you cannot trace supply through a non-pacified city without the required garrison. I rechecked earlier versions of the rules to make sure I hadn't changed something here inadvertently, but as far as I can tell there has never been a restriction on railing through these (the last paragraph of this rule is identical (save two words that have no bearing on this issue) to the version sent me by JAM).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39A -- Pacification

 

Q:  Why must point cities be pacified?

A:  Since pacification mainly affects tracing supply, it is important to pacify point cities as many of them are on rail lines and/or roads that are critical for supply.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39A -- Pacification definition

 

Q: Is a city pacified when the required pacification garrison is present as well as after the specified period of time without the garrison present, or only after the specified period of time?  I ask because 39D refers to an intrinsic (i.e. non-pacification) garrison existing at friendly-owned, pacified cities.

A: A city must have its required pacification garrison units in place for the required time in order to be pacified.  It has to be pacified in order to have an intrinsic garrison (39D, 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

Q:  The last par. of 39A says that a player *may not* trace supply through a friendly-owned unpacified city without the garrison, which I understand; what I wanted to understand though was whether this means that a player *may* trace supply through an *enemy-owned* unpacified city, without an enemy garrison of course?

A:  39A says nothing about tracing supply thru enemy-owned cities, only friendly-owned ones.  12B1 allows players to trace the overland element of a supply line thru enemy-owned hexes (note that players may not so trace a rail or railroad element), so, yes, you may trace an overland element of a supply line thru an enemy-owned city that is not pacified (of course, if the city was pacified, it would have its intrinsic garrison per 39D, which would prohibit the tracing of a supply line into the hex per 12A).

[DPS, Rules Judge, 08-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 38B5 and 39B -- Barcelona Revolt and Ideological Purification

 

Q:  Is Barcelona a supply city if still unpurified after Barcelona revolt?

A:  Yes, if the city has its required garrison present; no, if it does not.  Per 38B5 (the Barcelona revolt) the Loyalist player must ideologically repurify all loyalist-owned replacement cities in Catalunya (this includes Barcelona) a second time as listed in 39B (Ideological Purification) and 39B specifically states that the Loyalist player may not trace a supply line into or through any hex in Catalunya containing a city which has not been ideologically purified, unless the city has its required garrison.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39B -- Ideological Purification

 

Q: 39B requires the Loyalist player to purify Catalan cities "in the same manner as they are pacified"; we note that 39A (pacification) requires point cities to be pacified along with cities; does 39B not qualify cities with "(including point cities)" because a) that qualification is implied by the back-reference to 39A; or b) point cities do not actually have to be purified?

A: Rule 39B applies to all cities (including point cities) in Catalunya.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

Q: If point cities must be purified, when a point city in need of purification also changes hands (Insurgents capture, but then Loyalists recapture), must the Loyalist player now both pacify and purify the point city before supply may be traced through it?  If the answer is yes (must both pacify and purify), must the Loyalist player pacify first and then purify, or may the Loyalist player pacify and purify in parallel?  If the answer is may pacify and purify in parallel, may the same garrison be used for both simultaneously, or must each activity provide its own garrison?  E.g. if Sabadell were in need of both pacification and purification, and the Loyalist player could and wished to satisfy those needs in parallel, would Sabadell require a 1 RE  ‘puracification’ garrison, or a 2 RE garrison (1 RE each for pacification and purification) for 1 turn?

A1: Ideological Purification of a particular city in Catalunya is only required a maximum of twice during the game: 1) the city must be ideologically purified if it begins the game Loyalist owned, and 2) the city must be ideologically purified a second time if it is Loyalist owned at the time the Barcelona Revolt occurs.  Cities in Catalunya do not have to be ideologically purified each time the Loyalist player gains ownership.  Note: Ideological Purification represents the purging of various extreme leftist (mostly anarchist and communist) elements in Catalunya.  The Insurgents as a matter of policy normally purged these types anyway if they took over.

A2: Pacification and Ideological Purification are entirely different procedures.  If both are required of a city, then both must be completed before supply may be traced through that city.  If both are required, they may be carried out in any order the player decides (the player gets to decide which set of enemies he shoots first).  Both may be carried out simultaneously, but each then requires a separate (and different) set of units to accomplish.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37D and 39D -- Militia Reliability of Intrinsic Garrisons

 

Q:  Since the Loyalist garrisons belong to the PA affiliation, is the militia roll modified if there are Anarchist units in the city?

A:  Yes, the Militia Reliability check die roll should be affected.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39A and 39D -- Pacification and Intrinsic Garrison Dispersal

 

Q:  If an intrinsic garrison is forced to disperse in one turn and the city becomes enemy-owned due to advance after combat, may the garrison become undispersed in later turns after the next initial player turn if the city is unoccupied but not yet pacified by the enemy player?

A:  No.  In effect a dispersed garrison is eliminated once its city becomes enemy-owned. However, per 39D 2nd para., if the city subsequently becomes friendly-owned and pacified once again, then a new intrinsic garrison is established.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 9C and 39D -- Exchanges of Intrinsic Garrisons

 

Q:  A 1-6 cavalry and 1-6 artillery stacked in the same hex attack the intrinsic garrison of a reference city (in clear terrain) and roll an EX.  What must be taken as losses?

A:  Nothing, because although the intrinsic garrison is treated as a unit, it is specifically not counted for exchange losses.  In effect, you have exchanged versus a zero-strength unit, which requires no loss.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39D -- Intrinsic Garrisons and Special Replacements

 

Q:  Intrinsic garrisons never generate special replacements, right?

A:  Correct.  This is covered in the next to last paragraph of 39D (Intrinsic Garrisons) which specifies that when an intrinsic garrison is eliminated or required to retreat it is dispersed instead and that "the strength of a dispersed garrison is not counted for the purposes of exchanges or special replacements".

[AEG, Developer, 15-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 39D -- Intrinsic Garrisons

 

Q:  We have penciled in to our rules set the following for Rule 39D
Intrinsic Garrisons, 3rd par.:
  * insert "unsupported" before "static" in the 1st sent.
  * add to the end of the par. "And it is always in general supply."
Are these official errata / clarifications?
A: Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 16-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40 – Per-City Reinforcements Limitation

 

Q:  Restriction "no more than one unit per city" is stated only for reinforcements, not for replacements, and the MSOP does not state a sequence within replacement activities.  This should allow a division in the Form box to be formed from units placed as replacements in the same initial phase?  Moreover, the replaced units return to the pool and so could be used several times in succession for forming other units from the Form box (provided other divisions are in the Form box and enough RP points are available). Is this intended?

A:  I had no problem with this and played that way in playtest (while this is a theoretical consideration, it almost never actually happened), but the errata in TESM 47 has now ruled otherwise.

[AEG, Developer, 1998] –***Note, so overruled later I believe***

 

Q:  The 1 unit per city hex per turn limit applies only to units appearing "at any city", right?  The Asturian brigades appearing in II Jul 36 may all be placed at Gijon during the same initial phase, right?

A:  Yes, you may place all the reinforcements the Loyalist OB specifies as arriving at "Gijon (23A:1006) or Oviedo (23A:1007)" at Gijon.

  The 1 unit per city hex per turn limit you refer to from the first bullet of 40A1, applies only to reinforcements specified as arriving at "any city" or "any cities".

  This would probably be clearer if the last sentence of the bullet were attached to the next to last sentence by a semicolon instead of being set off as a separate sentence (see below for revised wording):

 

Reinforcements are specified mostly by city or cities.  When a specified city is named, place the reinforcements at that city, if it is friendly-owned.  When "any city" or "any cities" is specified, place the reinforcements at any friendly-owned cities in the indicated region where units of that affiliation can be replaced; however, no more than one unit may be placed per city hex per turn.

[AEG, Developer, 14-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40, 2nd para., 1st sent, supply, reinforcements & replacements

 

"If a unit enters play at a city that is out of general supply, the unit's supply status is the same as that of the city."

I find the wording "city" confusing in this context, as Rule 12 says to check the supply status of each unit, not each city -- although the MSOP does say to check the supply status of hexes and airbases (for 44D1) in addition to units.  My concern doesn't have much weight for full general supply sources, but what about for limited general supply sources?

To explain my concern, I have a situation that I would like to relate:

The Loyalist team in a game has for now shut down the Insurgent ability to trace *naval* supply lines to full general supply sources on the mainland. 

...

   [Quick background; there are only 6 major ports in the game to which such naval supply lines can be traced, Bilbao, Gijon, Vigo, Cartagena, Valencia, and Barcelona.  The latter three are firmly under Loyalist control.  Bilbao is under Insurgent control, but that city has been recently disconnected from other local supply cities, so it doesn't help to be able to trace the naval supply line there.  Gijon started the game Loyalist, was captured by the Insurgents, but is presently blockaded by enemy submarines, so the Insurgents cannot trace naval supply to the full general supply source there either.  Vigo started the game Insurgent, but was quickly overrun by a Loyalist force dispatched from La Corunya.] 

...

  Therefore, the Insurgents are left with relying upon tracing naval supply lines to limited general supply sources, of which there are 3 eligible (Santa Cruz, Las Palmas, and Ceuta), and at 3 REs each that is 9 REs total.  There are 3 more cities in Spanish Morocco which will provide another 9 REs of limited general supply, but only to units in Morocco, for this reason:  none of those other 3 cities has major ports, and none of them is connected by rail with the only major port in Spanish Morocco:  Ceuta.

 

So there are 9 to 12 REs of limited general supply available in Morocco, depending on whether the 3 REs at Ceuta are consumed by local units or by overseas units tracing to Ceuta's major port.  It will soon be the I Oct 36 Insurgent initial phase, and the 6Xau(Col) 2-6 Inf III will be placed as a reinforcement at any city in Spanish Morocco:

 

q1: Since supply is checked before reinforcements are placed, how does it make sense to say that a city is in supply (or not) when it is a limited supply source?

q2:  If 12 REs of units consume all 12 REs of limited general supply available in Morocco in step 4, does a unit placed in Morocco in step 7 take a U-1 status since all limited general supply was used?  Or does it take an in-supply status since supply has already been checked and there were units at the placing city that are in supply?  Or may (or must?) the player "reserve" 1 RE of limited supply in step 4 for the unit that will be placed later in step 7?

q3:  Perhaps a definition in in order of how a city is in supply?  "A city is in general supply if it is a full or limited supply city, or if it can trace a supply line to a full or limited supply city."  Is this what was intended, or something else?  (I'm using the term "full supply city" to mean a city that is a member of a full general supply source per 12C1, and the term "limited supply city" to mean a city that is a limited general supply source per 12C2.)

a3:  For now, use your definition above, with the understanding that the provision of "if it can trace a supply line to a full or limited supply city" includes tracing a naval-element supply line, if needed.  Also for now, if the city is in supply in step 4, any reinforcements or replacements that appear there are in supply when placed in step 7, even if all available REs of limited general supply were "consumed" in step 4.  In essence, this will allow the player to get one turn of extra "free" supply, but I believe that this is the best approach until this can be reviewed by the errata group.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A -- Multiple Reinforcement Conditions

 

Q:  Insurgent, I Feb 37

"any cities in mainland Spain" for a couple of Inf Xs (Mxd)

Mxd Inf Xs are replaced with com or com/inf RPs at "any unisolated friendly-owned ports"  Which clause takes precedence, the OB or the rules? or does the clause in the rules qualify the clause in the OB such that Mxd units can only arrive at unisolated friendly-owned ports that are also cities (which would exclude arrival at unisolated friendly-owned ports at point cities)?

A:  I don't see any rule conflict here. Reinforcements are placed according to 40A: "When 'any city' or any cities' is specified, place the reinforcements in any friendly-owned cities in the indicated region where units of that affiliation can be replaced." Since in the case of the two Mxd Inf X's, the indicated region is all of Spain, they may be place in any city in Spain where Mixed units may be replaced. Since Mixed units must always be rebuilt with at least one Italian Com RP, per 40B3a, 3rd bullet point, they may be replaced in any unisolated, friendly-owned port. So it isn't that either rule takes precedence in this case, rather they work in conjunction to limit where the 2 brigades may be recieved: They must be recieved in an unisolated, friendly-owned port in Spain which is also a city (and yes, per 3E2, this would exclude point cities), and per the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the 1st bullet point of 40A1, no more than 1 per city.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 20-Sep-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A -- Reinforcements and Loyalist Release From Garrison

 

Q:  When "any city" is specified may this also be an isolated city?  And does the no more than one unit per turn count for replacements and other specified reinforcements?  For example, can one unit enter a city from the "any city" portion, another enter the same city from a "specified hex", and finally another that is replaced?  Also, does this count for excess units? For example, the Asturias garrison is released but only one or two replacement cities are available so only one or two units out of many can enter?

A:  Yes the city may be isolated.  No, replacements & specified hexes do not count against this limit.  Finally, the rule as submitted was worded such that only one "any city" unit could be placed per hex *until* all such city hexes had been covered, thus the units in particular can pile in (keep in mind that the Basques begin the game with two such replacement cities - Bilbao & San Sebastian - and the Asturians can also potentially have two should they capture Oviedo).

[JAM, Designer]

A:  Agree.  I deleted the part about two units per city after all cities had one unit because it didn't seem to matter in the playtests I saw.  It occasionally kept out a single Basque or Asturian unit for one turn, but that was all.  Note that 40A3 says that units released from a Gobernito garrison are received "as a reinforcement in that Gobernito's region."  I now see that may have not been clear enough, it should have said "as a reinforcement in any friendly-owned hexes in that Gobernito's region."

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  When a Gobernito’s garrison has been previously released, does one place units later listed in the OB as “Available” in that garrison also in any friendly-owned hexes in that Gobernito’s region?

A:  No.  When the OB lists a unit as "Garrison:Available" and the garrison referred to has already been released, the unit is instead received as a reinforcement at any city in the Gobernito's area.

  I know that I previously ruled that when a garrison was released you could place the units released from garrison in any friendly-owned hexes in the Gobernito's area --- as a change from the RAW that said you received the units as reinforcements in the Gobernito's area (meaning at any city in the Gobernito's area).  However, the RAW here were abusive as in many cases it was the case that the event that triggered a garrison's release was the capture by the enemy of the only city in the garrison's area.  And since the only city was now enemy-owned this effectively caused the elimination of the garrison before they ever appeared on the map (even though the units had actually existed and would almost certainly have put up a fight for their homeland).

  However, my change in how *existing units* are released from a garrison are placed was NOT meant to apply to *new reinforcements* (i.e., those units listed in the OB as "Garrison: Available").  New units should appear at cities.

  In effect, all "Garrison: Available" units appear at cities, but if the specific garrison being reference has not yet been released, the game shortcuts this to just placing the units in the appropriate garrison box.

  Once a unit has been added to a garrison it exists and presumably could be anywhere in the garrison's area (thus my ruling that released units could be placed anywhere in a garrison's area).  However, once the garrison has been released, any new units listed as "Garrison: Available" must be placed in a city in the garrison's area.  New garrison units appear at cities.

  Existing garrison units, when their garrison is released, are placed in any friendly-owned hexes in their garrison's area.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Apr-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1 -- Replacement City Restriction of Reinforcements

 

Q:  Just to make sure: Does "...where units of that affiliation can be replaced" refer to the Inf RP cities list under "production" in the OBs?

A:  Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A -- Disbanding

 

Q:  When the Mahon Art X is scheduled to disband, it is not capable of tracing an overland supply line of any length to a PA replacement source.  It therefore appears to be isolated and incapable of ever disbanding, per the letter of the rules (much like the Interventionist forces were permanently isolated until the recent fix of allowing them to trace to a port for isolation effects.)  Should some sort of errata be implemented to allow the Mahon Art X to disband?

A:  Change to Rule 40A (Reinforcements):

The "disband" bullet is changed as follows:

Units may be disbanded regardless of whether or not an overland supply line can be traced from the unit to a source of replacements of the same affiliation (the requirement that the unit cannot be in an enemy ZOC remains in effect). However, whether or not such a line can be traced determines where the replacements that result from the disbandment are received: If such a line can be traced when the unit is disbanded, add the RPs that result from the disbandment to the player's general pool; if  a line cannot be traced, the RPs that result from the disbandment accumulate in the hex where the disbandment took place. (Rule 40B1 - Production, covers how accumulated RPs are used and/or added to the general pool).

[AEG, Developer, 23-Sep-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1 -- Reinforcements, Form

 

Q:  May a divisional unit in the “form” box be formed using replacement points or only by removing on-map units?

A:  Only by removing on-map units.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1 -- Reinforcements, Form

 

Q:  May a unit be formed using a unit replaced that same turn?

A:  Yes.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1 -- Reinforcements Concepts

 

Q:  The rule for placing reinforcements only where such units may be replaced seems to eliminate point cities as entry hexes?  Is this correct?

A:  Correct, point cities are not replacement cities, and therefore not entry hexes.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 1st bullet -- Air Unit Reinforcements

 

40A1, a/c reinfs

Q:  "When 'any port' or 'any ports' is specified, place the reinforcements at any friendly-owned functioning ports in the indicated sea zones, up to each port's current capacity."

 

Insurgent I Nov 36 OB:

 

"Any Atlantic or Mediterranean ports with an airbase:

  1x He 51          1F1      1/5 (KL)

  1x Ju 52g4e      1B2      1-1/15 (KL)"

 

Do these air units count against port capacity according to 40A1?  If so, how much port capacity does a F or B air unit consume (3A3 and 16A are silent on air unit RE-size)?  If not, by what means were the He 51 aircraft historically delivered to Atlantic or Mediterranean ports?

 

A:  Provisionally, I'm going to say that they do *not* count against port capacity; as you point out, no RE size is specified for air units.  (44D1 does say that air units count as 1 RE each, but it seems that definition only applies to the purposes of 44D1).  I also note that in addition to the requirements of 40A1, 25C requires that the airbase in the port have a capacity of 1 or more, i.e., if the current air capacity is zero due to damage, the reinforcement may not be received there.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Dec-04]

 

A:  Agree with the answer listed above. Recommendation: Remove confusion by changing 40A1, 1st bullet, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence from "Some reinforcements are specified by ports." to "Some ground unit and supply/resource item reinforcements are specified by ports". This then limits the applicability of the "up to each port's capacity" to ground units and supply/resource items, and leaving air unit reinforcements arriving at ports governed only by 25C.

[AEG, Developer, 07-Jan-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 1st bullet; and 40B3a, 2nd para., 2nd bullet -- Replacement at Unpacified Cities

 

Q:  These two rules have slightly different wording for bringing reinforcements and replacements on to the map, respectively:  "...place the reinforcements at any friendly-owned cities in the indicated region where units of that affiliation can be replaced", and "place the unit at any...friendly-owned replacement city of the same affiliation as the infantry RPs spent to replace the unit.":

q1) is a city still a replacement city even if it is a) pacified but not yet in production, b) unpacified but garrisoned appropriately, or

c) unpacified and ungarrisoned?

q2) does "where units of that affiliation can be replaced" mean that the city has to be pacified and in production, or is some lesser state allowed, such as one or more of those enumerated in question 1)?

A:  This is not made at all clear by the rulebook.  However, I'm going to rule that it is a replacement city as long as it is friendly-owned regardless of whether is pacified or garrisoned or not, because to rule otherwise would cause problems if 44G is in use.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1 -- Delay of Imports and Overseas Reinforcements

 

Q:  May "port" arrivals (e.g. imports) be *voluntarily* delayed?  A possible use of delay would be for convenience, i.e. better to delay imports for arrival at a more critical port later than a more remote port sooner.

A:  The rule says that reinforcements that are unable to enter play have their appearance delayed.  There is no provision to delay the entry of a reinforcement that is able to enter play.  I see 2 exceptions to this:  1) A player may form a division on any of his initial phases on or after the turn the formation is specified, and 2) there is no requirement to assemble a unit that is available for assembly.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 4th bullet -- Excess Forming RPs

 

Q: If I use three infantry strength points (units) to form an unsupported 2-3-6 Inf XX does the unused 1/2 infantry strength point go into the infantry replacement pool or is it lost?

A: Technically, the "form" section of 40A (Reinforcments) only allows XXs to be formed from units (not from RPs).  In order to form a XX you must remove units with a replacement cost at least equal to the replacement cost of the XX.  As there is nothing in the rule allowing you to get a "refund" when you form a XX using units with a replacement cost greater than the replacement cost of the XX, you lose the "extra" 1/2 strength point.

   I personally would have no problem with a house rule allowing the "extra" RP to be refunded, but this is not allowed under the RAW.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 4th bullet -- Intra-turn Successive Forming

 

Q: Must each forming XX be formed separately or can more then one XX be formed in the same hex using points from the same infantry units?  Example: can you form two unsupported 2-3-6 Inf XXs using five 1-6 Inf IIIs or do I have to use six (three points for each XX)?

A: You "form" XXs one at a time.  (Note that the rule talks about "forming a XX", not about forming multiple XXs at the same time.)  So, if you want to form two XXs in the same hex, you must first form one XX (by removing the units required for its formation), and then form the second XX (by removing the units required for its formation).

   Again, I personally would have no problem with a house rule that allows you to form multiple XXs at the same time; but again, this is not allowed under the RAW.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 4th bullet -- Replacement Using Different RP Mix

 

Q: Can you form a 3-6* Inf XX by using more then 1/2 artillery strength point?  Example: can I use 2 artillery strength points and one infantry strength point to build the XX (don't know why you would want to, but can you)?

A: No.  A supported XX has a cost in inf RPs and a separate cost in art RPs.  You can form the XX using any units that equal or exceed *both* the inf RP cost of the XX *and* the art RP cost of the XX.  For example, a 3-6* Inf XX has a replacement cost of 2.5 inf RPs and 0.5 art RPs.  You can form the XX by removing units with a combined cost of 2.5 inf RPs or more and 0.5 art RPs or more.  You cannot use art RPs to fulfill the inf RP portion of the forming cost and you cannot use inf RPs to fulfill the art RP portion of the forming cost.

   I personally would *not* agree to a house rule allowing you to spend more art RPs and fewer inf RPs as the two types of RPs represent very different things.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 4th bullet -- Sequencing of Reinforcement and Replacement

 

Q:  If you have the required infantry units in the replacement pool to form a XX, can you replace the units then form the XX?  If yes, then can you replace them and form *another* XX, etc.?

A:  Yes to both questions.  All reinforcement and replacement activities are performed during the same part of the initial phase.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 4th bullet -- No RPs When Forming Divisions

 

Q:  If you have enough inf RPs but no units in the replacement pool, can you use the inf RPs to form a XX?

A:  No.  The "form" XXs rule is very specific that XXs may only be formed from units.  You cannot form such XXs using RPs.

   The restriction on "forming" XXs from units only (and not from RPs) is deliberate.  Historically, the XXs listed as available to be "formed" were formed from units at or near the front lines.  The restriction tends to force players to pull units out of the line from time to time in order to form XXs.  If XXs were allowed to be formed from RPs, players would form them from RPs as a matter of choice first in preference to pulling units out of the line, and this has serious (negative non-historical) effects on the tempo of operations from time to time in the game.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A3 -- International Replacement City rule back reference

 

Q:  Reference under International replacement city should be to 38B6, not 7.

A:  Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A3 -- Release From Garrison Reinforcements

 

Q:  Where can Gobernito units released from garrison be placed (in any friendly hex of the respective Gobernito or only in a replacement city)?

A:  In any friendly-owned hex in the respective Gobernito.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A3 -- Gobernito Replacement Pools

 

Q:  What is the purpose of the Gobernito replacement pools?

A:  Each of the Gobernito Garrison Boxes on the Loyalist Game Chart is divided into three sections:  "available", "form", and "replacement pool".  The Loyalist OB specifies from time to time that various units are added to the "available" or "form" sections of specific Gobernito Garrison Boxes.  When a unit (always a division) is added to the "form" section of a Gobernito Garrison Box, that division may be formed from various non-divisional units in the "available" section of the same Gobernito Garrison Box as described in the "Form" bullet of 40A1 (Reinforcements, Concepts).  When a division is formed formed in this manner, the division is moved from the "form" section to the "available" section of the Gobernito Garrison Box and the sub-divisional units used to form the division are moved from the "available" section to the "replacement pool" section of the Gobernito Garrison Box.  The units in the "replacement pool" section of the Gobernito Garrison Box may subsequently be replaced; and if/when this is done they are moved from the "replacement pool" section to the "available" section of the Gobernito Garrison Box (as described in 40B3a, 2nd bullet).

      When a Gobernito's garrison is released (per the specific criteria for release of that garrison as listed on pages 4-5 of the Loyalist OB booklet), the units in the various sections of that Gobernito's Garrison Box are placed (per 40A3, "release from garrison" bullet) as follows:

      Units in the "available" section of the garrison box are received as reinforcements in the specified Gobernito's named region.  (Regions are delineated by the gray internal borders on the game map.)  For example, units released from the "available" section of the Asturias Garrison Box are placed in any friendly-owned hexes within the named region of Asturias.  (Note that this is the Gobernito's *named* region and NOT the Gobernito's operational area.)

      Units in the "replacement pool" section of the garrison box are placed in main section of the Loyalist *general* replacement pool box on the Loyalist Game Chart.

      Units in the "form" section of the garrison box are placed in the "form" section of the Loyalist *general* replacement pool box on the Loyalist Game Chart.

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A3 & 40B3a -- Gobernito Replacement and Garrison Release Location

 

Q:  When Gobernito units are replaced, or garrisons are released, the units may appear anywhere other than an enemy-controlled hex, is that correct?

A:  No.  Replaced Gobernito units appear per 40B3a.  Released Gobernito garrison units appear per 40A3.

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B -- Replacement Limits

 

Q:  Is there a limit on how many replaced units may appear in a city per turn?

A:  No.  Although For Whom the Bell Tolls (FWTBT) Rule 40A limits *reinforcements* to no more than one per city hex per turn, *replacing units* is covered in 40B and contains no such limitation.  Some later Europa games contain wording that replaced units appear as reinforcements (in some cases to deliberately limit how many units can be replaced in any given city), but this is not specified in FWtBT (and from what I remember when I was developing FWtBT this was deliberate as otherwise it was just too easy for the Nationalists to rub out some of the smaller Gobernitos).

[AEG, Developer, 10-Feb-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B -- Replacing Gobernito Artillery and Armor Units

 

Q:  Need some clarification regarding replacement of Gobernito forces.  The situation I'm faced with is I have artillery/armor units that can only be placed/replaced at friendly factories.  In my particular game none of the Northern Gobernitos own a friendly factory.  Per my interpretation of the rules, and at least of errata, replaced units must appear at a city aligned with that affiliation, and art/arm at *any* friendly factory.  However, in the case of the Gobernito forces it would seem they could indeed be placed at factories, but once there couldn't move because they are out of their operational areas.  What is the intention here?  Could I place these units at a location outside of their operational area and simply rail/naval transport them into a region in which they may legally operate?

A:  I think it will work best if I give a quick summary of the pertinent rules before I answer your questions:

  1. (40B1) Art and arm RPs are received as both domestic production and imports.  Domestic production is received at friendly-owned factories that are in production.  Imports are received at any friendly-owned functioning ports.  If the factory or port is not isolated when the production is received, the RPs immediately go into the players general RP pool.  If the factory or port *is* isolated, the RPs accumulate at the isolated location until the first friendly initial phase the location is *not* isolated at which time they immediately go into the players general RP pool.  Thus, a player's arm and art RPs will either be in his general RP pool or located at a specific isolated factory or port.  Note that there is no ability given in the rules for RPs (of any type) to be moved from one hex to another once they are received.

  2. (40B3) Armor units can only be replaced using arm RPs and artillery units can only be replaced using art RPs.

  3. (40B3a) When the owning player has an armor or artillery unit in his replacement pool, he may spend his arm or art RPs, as appropriate, to move the unit from the replacement pool to an eligible location on the map.  The player may spend RPs for this purpose from either his general RP pool or from RPs he has accumulated at specific friendly-owned isolated factories and ports.  Note that a unit can be replaced using RPs accumulated at multiple isolated locations only if the player can trace a line of supply between all of the locations where the RPs are to be spent.  If the RPs are spent from the player's general RP pool, the unit may be placed at any unisolated friendly-owned factory.  If the RPs are spent from one or more isolated locations, the unit may be placed in any of the hexes where the RPs were spent.

  4. (38D) Each of the Gobernitos have an operational area.  Units affiliated with a particular Gobernito may not move or attack outside their Gobernito's operational area.

      Now the situation you describe appears to be one where the northern Gobernitos are cut off (isolated) from the rest of Loyalist Spain (a common occurrence).  As the pocket is isolated from the bulk of Loyalist Spain you can't use RPs from the Loyalist general RP pool to replace northern Gobernito units at any location (either to place them at factories inside or outside of the northern Gobernito pocket).  The art or arm RPs in the Loyalist general RP pool cannot be used to replace northern Gobernito units at locations *inside* the isolated northern Gobernito pocket because when RPs from the general RP pool are spent to replace a unit that unit cannot be placed at an isolated location (the men and equipment the RPs in the Loyalist general RP pool represent are in the other, larger section of Loyalist Spain now cut off from the northern Gobernito pocket by Insurgent territory and forces.)  And RPs in the Loyalist general RP pool cannot be used to replace northern Gobernito units at locations *outside* of the northern Gobernito pocket because to move a northern Gobernito unit from the replacement pool to a map location outside of the northern Gobernito pocket would be to move the unit outside of its operational area and that is prohibited (because historically the various Gobernito forces operated only in defense of their particular little homeland).

      To add to your troubles, the Insurgents have taken (or started the game with) the only Loyalist factory in your northern Gobernito pocket (which usually happens at some point).  This further limits your options as regards replacing Northern Gobernito units.  As northern Gobernito armor and artillery units can now only be replaced using arm/art RPs accumulated at isolated friendly-owned factories/ports, and you have lost your only factory, this leaves only the ports.  If you can arrange for Loyalist arm/art RP imports to arrive at a northern Gobernito port, the imported RPs will then just accumulate at the port and you can then use the RPs there to replace any northern Gobernito units that require arm or art RPs.

      Note:  The rules do not allow RPs to be moved around on the game map or for RPs to be released from a general RP pool back to the game map because playtest experience showed that to do so greatly increased complexity.  It's not hard to add rules allowing RPs to be moved around the map by rail or naval transport (just give RPs a RE size and everything falls into place) or to allow RPs to move in and out of the general RP pool (instead of just being allowed to move one way - into the pool); but doing so then requires additional markers (or paperwork) to keep track of their locations, plus additional rules to cover things like Gobernito inf RPs not being allowed to leave their operational area, etc.  If this situation really bothers you, talk it out with your opponent.  Maybe he'll agree to let you try to make an emergency run of Loyalist arm or art RPs (released from the Loyalist general RP pool) by sea from Valencia to Santander, etc braving the Insurgent northern naval blockade so you can rebuild your northern Gobernito armor or artillery unit in the northern pocket.

[AEG, Developer, 29-Jul-04]

 

Q2:  May RPs which begin in the French holding box go to an isolated replacement city/port in lieu of a factory?  AEG clarified that units may be replaced in the isolated Northern Gobernitos by importing RPs to Biscay ports.  In our game, the port of San Sebastian also connects to the French holding box via a rail link.  It seems to us that the RPs there are imports and the only distinction on the RP is how it is imported, via rail or sea, which is inconsequential.

A:  A strict reading of 38C1, 4th paragraph, would require that imported art/arm RPs be placed either in the general replacement pool (if a rail element supply line can be traced to an unisolated factory) or alternatively at an isolated factory if a rail element supply line can be traced to the factory.  AEG's 29-Jul-04 ruling allows the art/arm RP to be placed at an isolated hex which does not contain a factory.  [I will have to bring this to his attention and see if this is official errata.]

 

Also note that 40B3a allows replacement of units which require a mix of inf and art RPs at replacement cities without a need for a factory to be present in the hex, but units which require only arm RPs, only art RPs, or a combination of arm and art RPs must be replaced at a factory.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 11-Nov-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 3E2 and 40B1 -- Multi-Hex Cities and Infantry RP Production

 

Q:  If both sides have one hex of Madrid and both hexes have been pacified, who gets replacements from Madrid?

A:  No one.  You have to own the city to get replacements for it.  If you own one hex, and someone else owns the other hex, then no one owns the city [which is both hexes].  Note that replacements are provided based upon “City” ownership [and pacification] and not on “city hex” ownership – a critical difference.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]                                  -- Note, overruled later

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B1, 3rd para., 3rd bullet, & 40B3a, 2nd & 3rd paras.:

 

Q:  Does isolation affect any of the rulings given for “40, 2nd para., 1st sent, supply, reinforcements & replacements” above?  I ask because although the Canaries and Morocco (in the situation described) are able to collectively provide 9 REs of limited general supply overseas, oddly the Canaries and Morocco themselves (as well as Mallorca) are all isolated for now because they cannot trace to any full general supply sources (Bilbao disconnected, Gijon blockaded).  I am imagining another odd situation where Col inf RPs, which would go into the general pool if Morocco were not isolated, must now be received independently at their cities.  Does this mean that any accumulated Col inf RPs in the general pool are unavailable for use while Morocco remains isolated, because there are no unisolated Colonial replacement cities at which to spend the general pool Col inf RPs?

A:  If the city is isolated, any units that appear there are also isolated, but this has no impact of whether or not the units are in supply from limited general supply purposes.  It does matter, though, for replacement purposes.  In your example, any accumulated Col inf RPs could be used to help replace or rebuild Nationalist infantry divisions per Rule 40B3, 1st bullet point, but not to replace Colonial units in Morocco.  To replace Colonial units at their replacement cities, you would have to use the Col inf RPs that are received at the cities.  Note that per 40B3a, 1st paragraph after the 3rd bullet point, that RPs accumulated at different isolated cities may be combined if a line of supply can be traced between all isolated hexes supplying RPs.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Oct-04]

 

Q2:  To use the example more explicitly, the 3 isolated hexes at hand are the 3 Col replacement cities Tetuan, Ceuta, and Melilla.  What exactly does it mean that a line of supply can be traced between all isolated hexes?  Does it mean between each pair of hexes, and in both directions?  For Spanish Morocco, Tetuan and Ceuta can trace a line of supply between them, in both directions.  Tetuan and Melilla cannot trace a line of supply between them, in either direction.  (Tetuan can trace overland to Ceuta's major port, but cannot trace the naval supply line to Melilla's std port -- Melilla can trace a naval supply line to Ceuta, but cannot trace a railroad element to Tetuan, road connection only).  Melilla can trace a line of supply to Ceuta (std to major port), but Ceuta cannot trace a line of supply to Melilla (major to std port, not allowed):

 

q1) the 1.0 Col inf RPs from Tetuan-Ceuta can be spent at either city, correct?

a1) Correct.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

 

q2) may Melilla's 0.5 Col inf RP be spent at Ceuta even though Ceuta cannot trace a line of supply to Melilla?

a2) No.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 15-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B1 -- Counting Turns Since Pacification

 

Q:  If a replacement city completes its pacification in the initial phase of the Insurgent I Aug 36 player turn, which is the "fourth turn following pacification", a) the Insurgent II Sep 36 player turn, or b) the Insurgent I Oct 36 player turn?

A:  b) I Oct 36.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 24-Nov-04]

 

A:  The ruling is correct.  The design intent was that a city may not resume production of inf RPs until four complete turns had passed, following the city's pacification.  Thus, if a city's pacification is completed during the Loyalist II Sep 36 initial phase:

  The first complete turn following the city's pacification runs from the Loyalist II Sep 36 initial phase to the Loyalist I Oct 36 initial phase.

  The second complete turn following the city's pacification runs from the Loyalist I Oct 36 initial phase to the Loyalist II Oct 36 initial phase.

  The third complete turn following the city's pacification runs from the Loyalist II Oct 36 initial phase to the Loyalist I Nov 36 initial phase.

  The fourth complete turn following the city's pacification runs from the Loyalist I Nov 36 initial phase to the Loyalist II Nov 36 initial phase.

  Therefore, in this instance, the city that was pacified in II Sep 36 would be eligible to resume inf RP production beginning with the first turn on or after II Nov 36 in which production is received.

  If it helps, think of the design logic like this:  Pacification represents the suppression of civilian opposition in the recently taken town/city (this often was very brutal with much of the opposition being killed).  Until pacification is completed, recruiting (inf RP production) is impossible (both because of opposition to recruitment and because the force that could be used to forcibly recruit manpower is mostly being used to pacify the city).  Once pacification is completed, recruiting again becomes possible, but it takes time (the 4-turn delay) for new recruits to be rounded up, processed, and given some minimal training.  (And, yes, I'm aware that there were numerous occasions during the Spanish Civil War where individuals were forcibly recruited into military units without any training at all, but that was not the norm, and the rule covers what normally happened).

[AEG, Developer, 29-Nov-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B2 -- No Gobernito Replacement Pools

 

Q:  When a Gobernito unit, specifically one from one of the three Northern Gobernitos, is eliminated in combat does the eliminated unit go into the general replacement pool or into the Gobernito specific replacement pool? 

A:  It goes into the Loyalist general replacement pool.  (Note: There is no such thing as a "Gobernito-specific replacement pool".  There are, however, "replacement pool" sections of the various Gobernito Garrison Boxes.)  This is per 40B2 (Replacement Pools), 2nd paragraph:  "When a unit is eliminated, place it in the appropriate *general* (emphasis added) replacement pool."  There are only two *general* replacement pools, one for the Loyalists and one for the Insurgents.  All eliminated units go into the *general* replacement pool for their side.

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 40A1 and 40B3 –- Replacing and Disbanding Falangists for Nationalist Infantry Replacement Points

 

Q:  The rules allow at times some eliminated 1-6 Falangist units to be built from the pool for 1 Nat RP, then be disbanded for 1.5 Nat RP credit.  Correct?

A:  Yes.  Whether the Falangist unit hangs around on map until it is disbanded or is rebuilt from the replacement pool it is the same.  The increase of 0.5 RPs represents putting the Falangist manpower to better use and gives the Insurgent player an incentive to get rid of the Falangist units as he did historically.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 3F and 40B3 -- Replacement Points and Isolation

 

Q:  When a replacement city becomes isolated can RPs from the general pool be specified at that city.  For instance, if Madrid is isolated, can the Loyalist player specify that a number of Inf and Art RPs are in the pocket at Madrid or must they stay in the general pool?

A:  Theoretically, the isolated replacement city's pool starts at zero, though if you have accrued replacements in the general pool and can convince your opponent of the efficacy of dedicating some of these to it (you have my sympathy) on the player turn following isolation, you are of course free to do so.  Note that an early playtest version tracked replacements in a much more discrete/geographically fixed manner than the current system - again, madness...

[JAM]

A:   Agree.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B3a -- Replacing Units


Q:  Can eliminated units in the last player turn be immediately replaced?

A:  Yes.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 38D & 40B3a -- Post-Collapse Gobernito Infantry RPs

 

Q:  What can be done with Ast inf RPs when there are no Asturian replacement cities at which to spend them?  Perhaps they can convert to PA inf RPs when/if Asturias collapses?

A:  Given the situation you describe, the Ast inf RPs are effectively unusable.  They exist, but will automatically be eliminated when the Asturias Gobernito collapses (which given the situation where both Gijon and Oviedo are Insurgent-owned, should happen very shortly).  When Asturias collapses, *all* accumulated Asturias inf RPs are eliminated (see 38D, penultimate bullet of 1st section) -- they do *not* convert into PA Inf RPs.

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B3a -- Per-Side Replacement Limits

 

Q:  What is the intent behind limiting the replacement of certain types of units?  In particular, the ultimate paragraph of 40B3a limits how many units one can replace based on the unit type.  Does this limitation apply to a player side or does it apply to each affiliation?  For example, the rule states that only 1 cavalry RE may be replaced per month.  Does that mean 1 RE of cavalry for all loyalist affiliations or 1 RE for the PA, 1 RE for the Basques, 1 RE for the Santanderos, etc.?

A:  The rule says each player, so it would be per side.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 05-Nov-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B3a -- Replacements, Units

 

Q:  A unit used to form a unit goes into the replacement pool.  May it be replaced in the same turn it is used for the form?

A:  No.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96] –Note, overruled later.

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B3 -- No Spending RPs in France

 

Q:  When art/arm RPs appear as reinforcements in the French Holding box, can the RPs be used (in France) to rebuild artillery/armor units there then move them into Spain?  Or, must the RPs trace a friendly rail line from the French border to a factory and then the artillery/armor be rebuilt at the factory?

A:  If a rail element supply line can be traced from a Loyalist-owned hex on the French border to an unisolated Loyalist-owned factory, the arm and art RPs may be added to the Loyalist general RP pool; if such can be traced from a Loyalist-owned hex on the French border to an isolated Loyalist-owned factory, the RPs may be added to those accumulated at the factory.  Per 40B3a, units rebuilt with arm and art RPs are placed at friendly-owned factories, so they can't be built in France.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 13-Jan-03]

A:  RPs in the France Holding Box exist only to be transferred from the box into Spain in a manner specified in 38C1 (France). You cannot use the RPs in the box to rebuild anything in the box or to replace an eliminated unit in the box.  Note that the wording of 40B3a (Replacing Eliminated Units) and 40B3b (Rebuilding Cadres to Full Strength) prohibit the use of RPs in this manner since only RPs in the Loyalist general RP pool or on-map at isolated Loyalist factories, ports, or replacement cities (and the France Holding Box is not among this list) may be spent for these purposes. And, nothing in 38C1 overrides 40B.

[AEG, Developer, 13-Jan-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A and 40B3b -- Forming and Rebuilding Divisional Cadres

 

Q:  When “forming” a division, may its cadre be formed from units on the board and the cadre then be rebuilt to full divisional strength with the required RPs in the same initial phase?

A:  Yes, there is no specific prohibition about this sort of multi-multiple conversion going on.  Since all reinforcement and replacement activities occur in the same phase, you can replace, rebuild, upgrade and/or convert a unit, all in the same initial phase.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B3c -- Equipping Republican Infantry Brigades

 

Q:  A player may equip an unsupported unit in his initial phase to change it to its supported strength.  Why then does the Loyalist OB list the following upgrades?

Regular Reinforcements

II Oct 36:  1V. and 11Th. Inf X (Int)

II Nov 36:  16. thru 25. Inf X, 12Gar. Inf X (Int)

II Dec 36:  13Dom. and 14Mar. Inf (Int), 130. Mtn X (Cat)

A:  These OB listings are in error, and should be deleted; ignore the references to “upgrading” these units and follow the normal rules for equipping units.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B4 -- Special Replacement Calculation

 

Q:  Are special replacements calculated differently than in other games (e.g. using combat strength, rounding to nearest 0.5 RP, etc.)?

A:  Yes, you calculate special RPs by dividing losses by four and rounding down to the nearest one-half.  However, for those willing to deal with the extra work, there is certainly no reason that one couldn’t retain fractional amounts instead of rounding.  Just what creates a special RP is more complicated.  In all other games, special RPs are only generated by attack factors lost, regardless of whether it was lost while attacking or defending.  Thus, zero strength units and zero attack strength units (regardless of defense strength) generate no special RPs in any other Europa game that uses special RPs.

For replacement purposes, FWtBT uses a unique “averaging” system, where a 2-3-4 Inf X would cost 2.5 Inf RPs as opposed to 2.0 Inf RS in all other games.  Extend this reasoning to special RP generation.  Calculate special RPs by averaging the attack and defense strength (i.e. the combat strength) then dividing by four, rounding down to the nearest one-half.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B4 -- Special Replacement Calculation

 

Q:  Do you use the attack, defense, or average strength when determining how many special replacements an eliminated unit yields?

A:  Use the average strength to calculate special replacements.

[Official Erratum, 01-Jun-96]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40B4 & 40B3a -- Pre-Collapse Gobernito Without Replacement Cities

     

Q:  In our particular game several Asturian units were eliminated unisolated in combat and thus produced special replacements in the Loyalist initial phase.  All of the Asturian replacement cities have been captured by the Insurgent side.  However, the rules seem to indicate the replaced units do not have to appear in a replacement city.  Do the special replacements still accrue until collapse of the Gobernito?

A:  The special replacements still accrue until collapse of the Gobernito.  But I do not see how you can *ever* use these special RPs given the situation you describe.  The Asturian replacement cities are Gijon and Oviedo (as listed on page 3 of the Loyalist OB).  The Asturias Gobernito will collapse (per 38D1) at the beginning of any Insurgent player-turn in which both Gijon and Oveido are Insurgent-owned.  When Asturias collapses, all accumulated inf RPs for the Asturias affiliation are eliminated (per 38D, penultimate bullet).  And since the Master Sequence of Play Chart lists Gobernito collapse as taking place during step 3 of the Initial Phase, the collapse and loss of the replacement points will occur before the replacement points can be spent (since all replacement activities occur during step 7 of the Initial Phase).

      As regards where replaced Asturian units appear:  Where the units appear depends on from where the RPs used to replace them were spent.  If the RPs used to replace an Asturian unit came from the Loyalist general RP pool, the newly replaced Asturian units can only be placed at an Asturian replacement city.  If the RPs used to replace an Asturian unit came from RPs accumulated at a friendly-owned isolated factory, port, or replacement city, the newly replaced Asturian unit is placed at any of the isolated factory, port, or replacement city locations from where the RPs were spent.  (Note: All of this is covered in detail in 40B3a.)

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

Q:  It seems that special replacements accruing in an isolated pocket could be used to replace units provided enough RPs and the replaced unit were placed anywhere within the Gobernito, that is not in an enemy controlled hex.  Is this correct?

A:  No.  RPs received as special replacements (that is, per 40B4) are always added to the general RP pool (see 40B4, ultimate sentence of penultimate paragraph).  And when a unit is replaced using RPs from the general RP pool (that is, per 40B3a), the unit can *only* appear at an unisolated, friendly-owned replacement city of the same affiliation as the infantry RPs spent to replace the unit (see 40B3a, second bullet). 

[AEG, Developer, 04-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 41A -- Initial Deployment of NTs and cargo

 

Q: May the NTs at Santander, El Ferrol, and Gran Canaria start the game embarked with cargo, either units or supply/resource items?

A: No.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 04-Jan-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 41B1, Early-War Scenario starting ownership

 

Q: "...all other hexes begin the game owned by neither side."  We believe this rule presents a handful of small dilemmas.  Should there be a rule that says “each side treats an unowned hex as enemy-owned for the purposes of administrative movement, tracing supply, rail line bombing target hexes and naval transport to beaches and amphibious landings”?

A: This would be helpful.  Consider it official errata to the game.

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 41 ??

 

Q:  When setting up for 1937 campaign game, every front line hex must be occupied by or in the ZOC of a unit. Can ZOCs of reserve units be used for this purpose or do the ZOCs have to be from front line units?

A:  You can use the reserve units or their ZOCs for this purpose (though it should be noted that many of the reserve units are types that don't have ZOCs).  Nothing in 41 or the OBs prohibits this.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 18-Mar-06]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 42A -- Isolation Only Traced to Rebel and Republican Sources

 

Q:  The 1st bullet (Territory) says that VPs for a city are only awarded if a city is friendly-owned, unisolated, and pacified.  Want to confirm that if the Insurgents have San Sebastian surrounded  on all sides (except the backside to France), that the city is isolated even though Basque units in the city are unisolated (San Sebastian being a full general supply source for their affiliation).

A:  It's isolated.  See Rule 3F:  "A hex or a factory is isolated if the owning player cannot trace an overland supply line of any length from the item to any Rebel or Republican full general supply source, as appropriate."  San Sebastian is, as you note, a full general supply source for the Basque affiliation, but not the Republican coalition.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 23-Oct-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 42A, 2nd bullet – Disposition of Gobernito Replacement Pools Upon Collapse

 

Q: On the turn that a Gobernito collapses are the forces presently in the replacement pool counted as part of the end-of-game VP total?  Rule 38D does not state to remove eliminated units in the replacement pool or garrison units from play.

A: They count; as you point out, there is nothing stating to remove them from the replacement pools.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 30-Mar-04]

A: Yes, when a Gobernito collapses the forces of that Gobernito in its replacement pool at that time remain in the pool and thus will count towards calculation of Insurgent VPs for enemy ground losses at the end-of-game.

   The Gobernito Collapse Rule (Rule 38D, 4th paragraph) covers what happens to on-map forces of a Gobernito when it collapses.  It doesn't cover what happens to units the Gobernito has in the replacement pool because *nothing* happens to those units -- they remain in the replacement pool until the end of the game when they are tallied to see how many VPs the Insurgent player receives for eliminating them.

    Regarding Gobernito units in garrison when that Gobernito collapses, in normal play this should rarely (if ever) occur.  The Conditional Reinforcement section of the Loyalist OB lists the conditions under which the various Gobernito garrisons are released. Comparing these release conditions against the conditions required to collapse the various Gobernitos will show that meeting a Gobernito's collapse conditions without previously releasing that Gobernito's garrison is exceedingly difficult.  Taking the Asturias Gobernito as an example, in order for the Insurgent player to collapse the Gobernito without releasing its garrison he must gain ownership of Gijon and Oviedo (as Insurgent ownership of these two cities in Asturias is the trigger condition for collapse of the Asturias Gobernito per Rule 38D1) without having: 1) attacked or overrun an Asturian unit in any previous turn, 2) started any player turn with four or more REs of Insurgent units in Asturias, or 3) collapsed any other Gobernito in a previous player-turn.  In the unlikely event that a Gobernito *does* collapse before its garrison is released, consider the Gobernito collapse rule modified to specify that the garrison is immediately released (and thus placed on map) - the units of the released garrison are then checked to see if they remain in play or are eliminated just like all the other on-map Gobernito units.

[AEG, Developer, 30-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 42A, 2nd bullet -- Gobernito Losses Post-Collapse Count for VPs

 

Q: Are the Gobernito forces, which are still on the map and rolled for after a Gobernito collapses, placed into the replacement pool upon elimination and then counted as losses at the end-of-game VP total -- or are they removed from play and not counted for end-of-game VPs?

A: 40B2 says "When a unit is eliminated, place it in the appropriate general replacement pool" and nothing in 38D directly makes an exception for the units of a collapsed Gobernito.  Surviving units are fragile, but there are no substitutions listed for them, so it would seem that they do count for victory points.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 30-Mar-04]

A: On-map forces of a collapsed Gobernito remain in play (as fragile units) or are eliminated as described in the Gobernito Collapse Rule; if eliminated, the unit goes to the general replacement pool and thus will count towards calculation of Insurgent VPs for enemy ground losses at the end of the game.  Note that the Gobernito Collapse Rule (38D, 4th paragraph) says that the collapsed Gobernito's units are "eliminated".  It does *not* say they are "removed from the game" -- and an eliminated unit is placed in the appropriate replacement pool per 40B2.

[AEG, Developer, 30-Mar-04]

 

Q: Are the Gobernito forces still in garrison upon its collapse rolled for elimination?  If they are, do they go into the replacement pool and are they counted as eliminated ground forces for the end-of-game VP total -- or are they removed from play without being counted in the end-of-game VP total?

A:  Yes, they count.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 30-Mar-04]

A:  If a Gobernito collapses before its garrison is released, consider the Gobernito collapse rule modified to specify that the garrison is immediately released (and thus placed on map) - the units of the released garrison are then checked to see if they remain in play or are eliminated just like all the other on-map Gobernito units.  And, like all Gobernito units eliminated per the Gobernito collapse rule, such units are placed in the general replacement pool where they will remain until the end of the game when they are tallied to see how many VPs the Insurgent player receives for eliminating them.

[AEG, Developer, 30-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 43C1 - Advanced Ownership

 

Q: When a ½-RE sized unit gains temporary ownership of a hex that was previously unowned, does the hex revert to being unowned if the unit leaves the hex (without the player’s other units first gaining permanent ownership)?

A: Yes, the hex reverts to unowned.

[AEG, Developer, 20-Jan-04]

 

Q:  A battalion cannot gain permanent ownership of a hex, however, I believe it owns the hex for as long as it occupies it.  When it departs the hex, ownership will revert to the opponent.  Is this temporary ownership sufficient to cause a requirement to repacify a point city in such a hex?  E.g. My battalion advances into a town that is pacified by my opponent and I gain temporary ownership of the hex.  If I then retreat to a more defensible hex, must the opponent pacify the town when the hex reverts back to his ownership?

A:  Yes, the rules say that enemy-owned cities that become friendly-owned must be pacified; I see no qualifier that changes that in the situation that you describe in either 39A or 43C1.  Note that the question is moot if not using 43C1.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 23-Feb-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 7A4ac and 40A2 and 43C2 -- Assigning Rail Capacity Increases on an Isolated Section of Rail Net

 

Q:  For the following two questions, assume that 43C2 is in use.  When the Insurgent player receives increased rail capacity from Portugal, must he assign this capacity to a particular section of the rail net, or to a particular rail depot, or is this capacity available everywhere?

A:  You must specify the particular rail depot it is assigned to. Moreover, this rail depot must be connected to a Portuguese rail hex by a chain of friendly-owned rail hexes. (i.e. you cannot assign the Portuguese rail capacity increase to a section of your net isolated from Portugal).

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 7A4b and 43C2 -- Temporarily Increasing Rail Capacity on an Isolated Section of Rail Net

 

Q:  When using 43C2 treating separate rail nets, a resource point spent for temporary increase must be spent on the net that uses the excess rail even if the two are later connected?  For example, an enemy unit has moved onto the rail which disconnects two nets.   Now each have four RE capacity.  If 5 REs rail are used in order to help overrun the enemy unit from one rail net.  The resource point must be spent from that net and the max increase is only 2 REs?  Not 4 REs for the now connected 8 RE net since 5 REs which is over the capacity of the first net is over limit?  Of course two resource points could be spent to increase each by 2?
In a different example, the enemy unit doesn't stay on the rail.  In order, for only one point to be spent, the player must first regain possession and reconnect the rail?

A:  As submitted, resource points were spent during the initial phase to temporarily increase rail capacity, therefore my answer would be no. However, reading the current rule (on demand rail cap increases?), it appears that if you perform your overruns/resource point expenditures in the proper order, you can link before spending & get up to 10 REs added to your now reunited rail net.  Note in your example that if you spend 1 resource point on one of your 4 RE railnets (in order to get together the overrunning force), that railnet would have been increased to 8 REs (an increase = of 4 REs, not 2 REs) and any surplus could theoretically be applied to the now reunited rail net.  Is this an answer?

[JAM]

A:  I changed RP expenditure for rail capacity increases so it matched the second front rule.  JMA changed this in SF in response to the fact that most players spent RPs for rail capacity increase as they moved instead of during the initial phase, no matter what the rule said and, as it seemed to make no difference when you did it, why not make the rules match player practice.  (The net effect in SF was to make things easier for players since they didn't have to plan out all their rail movement before moving anything.)  Of course, this complicates things when you have fragmented rail nets.
As the rule is now written it is entirely a matter of what sequence you arrange things to happen.  Spend the RP for rail capacity increase before you unite the two sections of the net and the capacity increase will be based only on the current capacity of the fragment of the net on which the RP is spent.  Spend the RP after the two sections are joined and the capacity increased is based on sum of the two sections.  Yes, this makes planning (optimum planning anyway) more difficult, but it does reward good staff work.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 7A4a and 43C2 -- Capturing Rail Capacity from Increased Rail Marshalling Yards

 

Q:  Under 43C2, a player “must specify the rail depot at which each RE of permanent capacity is built…”  If the Loyalist player owns Santander and builds an RE of rail cap there (for a total of 2 REs now), if the Insurgent player later captures Santander, does the Loyalist player lose 2 REs from his Santander are rail net and the Insurgent player gains 1 RE?

A:  Yes.

[Rules Court, TEM 67]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 43C2 -- Per-yard limit when building Permanent Rail Capacity

 

Q:  Should there be a limit to how much a rail marshalling yard (RMY) may be built up?  Other Europa games do have a limit, but FWtBT doesn't.  Theoretically then it's quite possible to build capacity up at a single RMY indefinitely.  It seems to me more logical to mandate some sort of upper limit to this (say twice the starting capacity of each city?)  This would force a side to spread out its builds in a way at least I would think more historical.
A:  You can certainly make a logical argument for limiting this to double the original capacity, and I don't really see any negative effects to using something like this as a house rule if you find the original rule is being abused in your game.  However, I personally have rarely seen this become abusive:  resource points are rare enough in FWtBT that spending them to build rail capacity is not that common anyway.

Further Elaboration:  I think there is some confusion going on regarding this subject.  SF 7A4b (Capacity Building) does not limit the number of REs of rail
capacity that can be built at a specific rail marshaling yard.  Indeed, SF 7A4b does not even require that a RE of built capacity to be assigned to a specific yard at all:  instead, the new capacity is just added to the overall capacity of the rail net.  And the SF rule is basically the same rule on this subject that exists in almost every Europa game.
   Where FWtBT differs from all the other Europa games on this subject is that 43C2 (Advanced Game Mechanics, Isolated Sections of a Rail Net), which details how rail capacity is affected when a rail net is divided into two or more sections isolated from each other.  And when this
advanced rule is used, "players must specify the rail depot (sic – this should be "rail marshaling yard") at which each RE of permanent capacity is built."
   Although it has been recognized for a long time that allowing all of the capacity of a net to be used on a cut off portion of the net can be abusive, this was just ignored in Europa games other than FWtBT because keeping track of different capacities for rail net sections is tedious and, in most games,
the potential for abuse rarely lasts for more than a turn or two (usually because the cut off section of rail net is either quickly captured by the enemy or rejoined to the main net in some way).  In FWtBT, however, isolated sections of a rail net are commonplace (in fact, historically, the Gobernitos of Northern Spain were cut off from the rest of the Republican rail net for most of the Spanish Civil War), and to ignore them caused a multitude of game problems.  Thus the advanced FWtBT rule.
[AEG, Developer, 26-May-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12B and 43C3 -- Tracing Overland Supply Through Adverse Terrain

 

Q:  Having mountain and wooded-rough hexes count double for tracing of overland supply lines is a nice touch and poses challenging logistic problems.  However, with terrain-dependent cost, the rule must specify whether tracing is from unit to source or from source to unit.  Which is it?

A:  This is spelled out in the third paragraph of 12B (Tracing Supply), which states:  "a unit is in general or attack supply if a supply line can be traced from the unit to a supply source."

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

Q:  Want to confirm that mountain hexsides do not count against the overland supply line (whether using the advanced rule or not).

A:  When playing without 43C3, no hexsides are counted against the length of overland supply lines, only hexes.  If 43C3 is in use, the only hexsides which count against the length of the supply line are narrow strait hexsides.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 24-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44A2 -- Spring Thaw

 

Q:  Is 44A2 (Spring Thaw) really appropriate seeing as how no rivers ever freeze in FWtBT (Spain is in zones D and E only)?

A:  Yes, it's appropriate.  The rule simulates the runoff from the thawing of mountain snow into the rivers and their tributaries, not the thawing of the rivers themselves.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 07-Jun-05]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44B1 -- Optional Ownership

 

Q:  Is there a mechanism to gain ownership of unowned hexes other than occupation or uncontested ZOC?  I ask because there are hexes, particularly in the mountainous parts of the map (W. Asturias, Cordillera Iberica, Cordillera Penibetica) that stand a fair chance of never being occupied.

A:  Ownership of territory is covered in 3D (Basic Rule covering how ownership of hexes is gained via ZOCs and/or occupation), 43C1 (Advanced Rule covering how ownership of cities/airbases is gained by 1/2 RE units), and 44B1 (Optional Rule covering an alternative method to gaining ownership of hexes).  If you are using 44B1 then, yes, there is another way to gain ownership of hexes.

[AEG, Developer, 05-May-04]

 

Q:  Yes, we are using 44B1.  We are specifically asking about gaining ownership of *unowned* hexes via 44B1.  44B1 only specifies the condition under which one's *friendly-owned*, isolated hexes may become enemy-owned.  This question may touch back on our perception of "issues" with the concept of unowned hexes throughout FWtBT.  The best way may be to consider an unowned hex enemy-owned to both sides.  But even if unowned hexes are intended to be subject to 44B1 effects, the situation in our game is such that I don't see any such cases (14 or fewer hexes away from one side but 15 or more hexes from the other) in Northern Spain.  But it would have an effect in Southwestern Spain (c. Huelva and the border with Portugal), and Central Spain (mountain range between Guadix and Albacete; and mountainous and hilly region between Calatayud and Cuenca), and Northeastern Spain (all along the French border from Port Vendres to Pico de Aneto).

A:  Considering non-neutral unowned hexes to be enemy-owned to both sides is what I have been working with for the updated FWTBT errata sheet.  I am slowly going through the rules to see if this causes any unintended problems (haven't found any yet).  However, if even using this revised definition of unowned hexes in concert with 44B1 doesn't cause a hex's ownership to change then you will just have to move a unit through the hex or project a ZOC into the hex if you want to gain ownership of it.

[AEG, Developer, 05-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44B2 -- Dismantling Facilities

 

Q:  On the part of dismantling forts/airfields- As you said, once an airfield starts to be dismantled the airfield being dismantled loses all its special abilities.  What happens if before the airfield is completely dismantled the enemy player captures the airfield - does it have its abilities restored or does it stay  a zero-capacity airbase?  If it is a zero-capacity airbase can the new owners repair the airbase or does it stay a zero-capacity airbase forever?

A:  Once dismantling of a fort/airfield begins, the item *permanently* loses its special abilities even if the dismantling is halted (no matter whether the halt was voluntary or due to enemy capture of the hex).  In effect, once dismantling of an item begins the item no longer exists in game terms except as a potential 1/3 resource pt that is only recoverable when the dismantling is completed; but the item's marker is left on the map until dismantling is complete as a visual reminder that the dismantling process (and recovery of 1/3 of a resource point) is not complete.

    As regards what happens to the the on-map marker for a partially dismantled permanent airfield when the enemy gains ownership of its hex before the dismantling process is complete: In this case the marker for the partially dismantled fort/airfield should immediately be removed from the map.  (Note: The rules already specify that this is what happens to a fort when its hex becomes enemy-owned. The dismantling rule probably needs a sentence added to make this clearer, especially as regards to partially dismantled airfields.)

    Your questions also got me to thinking of a potential way that players can abuse the dismantling rule re permanent airfields. Sans the dismantling rule if a player wants to remove an airfield from the map he must first reduce it to 0-capacity (by having units spend MPs in the airfield's hex to damage the airfield) and then voluntarily remove the 0-capacity airfield from the map.  But the dismantling rule can be abused to make the process go faster.

    An example to illustrate: A player has two 3-capacity permanent airfields he wants to remove from the map (thus denying their use to the enemy).  Without the dismantling rule in play he would have to have spend 12 MPs (6 MPs per airfield) to first reduce the two airfields to 0-capacity and then declare the airfields abandoned.  By using the dismantling rule he can potentially halve the number of MPs required. Assume that an engineer unit with 8 MPs begins a friendly player turn in the hex of one of the airfields.  During the initial phase the player announces that the engineer unit is dismantling the airfield there (at which point the airfield loses all its special abilities); then during the movement phase he voluntarily halts dismantling of the airfield and moves the engineer to the other airfield where he then has the engineer unit spend 6 MPs to reduce that airfield to 0-capacity and then immediately abandons it.  In effect he can use the "dismantling" rule to have an engineer unit "destroy" one airfield per player-turn for free.

    The dismantling rule in FWtBT/WiTD/SF/SoS made no mention at all of how the item being dismantled was treated in the period of time between when the dismantling started and it was completed. The revised wording of the dismantling rule in WW was to clear up this ambiguity. The intent of the WW rule was that all the negatives associated with dismantling (the loss of the item's special abilities) kick in immediately, but the positive benefit (the recovery of 1/3 resource pt) is only received at the end of the process.  But it appears that the rule is still ambiguous in some regards to dismantling of permanent airfields. A revised dismantling rule that fixes these problems (I think) follows:

 

Wavell's War Optional Rule 14A1n (Dismantling) -- CHANGES IN ALL CAPS:

    A player may recover resource points by dismantling forts and permanent airfields.  A construction unit may dismantle an unisolated fort or permanent airfield.  It takes the unit one turn (two turns in poor weather) to dismantle a fort or permanent airfield. (Dismantling such an item is similar to building it, starting and finishing in initial phases. See Rule 14A1.)

SPECIAL: A CONSTRUCTION UNIT THAT ENGAGES IN DISMANTLING DURING AN INITIAL PHASE CANNOT SPEND MPS FOR ANY PURPOSE DURING THE REMAINDER OF THAT TURN.  The item being dismantled loses all its special abilities when the dismantling begins and does not recover them even if the dismantling stopsshort of completion.  For example, when a construction unit begins dismantling a permanent airfield, the airfield's airbase capacity is immediately (and permanently) reduced to 0.  (Keep a paper record of items> being dismantled. When dismantling of an item is completed, OR WHEN A PARTIALLY DISMANTLED ITEM IS CAPTURED BY THE ENEMY, remove that item from the map.)

    For every three items dismantled in a command, the player receives one resource point. The resource point is received as a reinforcement in the turn following the dismantling of the third item, and is placed at any friendly-owned unisolated city in the command in which the items were dismantled.

[AEG, Developer, 06-May-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rules 12C3 and 44D1 -- Special General Supply and Airbases

 

Q:  A sentence in the second paragraph of the first rule reads "using general supply points does not negate or defer the number of turns a unit has been out of general supply." Does "does not defer" mean that if a unit is in general supply, and then uses general supply points for three turns and then is out of supply, that it is considered to be in its fourth turn out of supply? Does this rule apply to airbases if you are using 44D1?

A:  Yes, and yes.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44F3 -- CD Combat Strengths

 

Q:  City intrinsic garrisons (39D) are treated as static units for combat and overruns, but are not counted for purposes of exchanges or special replacements.  CD intrinsic ground strengths are treated as artillery units for combat and overruns.  But are these intrinsic field artillery units counted for purposes of exchanges and special replacements?

 

A:  No, exchanges and special replacements are calculated on the basis of printed strengths.  CD ground combat strengths don't have printed strengths.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 07-Nov-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44G - Local Drafting

 

Q: Does "When a player first gains ownership of one of his replacement cities which began the game enemy-owned..." mean that the replacement city Madrid that split ownership due to the Variable Rebellion "began the game enemy-owned" by neither side, either side, or both sides?  [It has already been ruled that Madrid at start in our game is not entirely owned by either side, and therefore does not produce infantry RPs.]

A: In games after FWtBT this problem has been avoided by assigning inf RP production in multi-hex major cities to a specific hex in the city.  As it is intended that the new format be Europa standard, this should be retrofitted to FWtBT as well.  Consider the Barcelona and Madrid lines of the inf RP production sections of the OBs modified as follows:

 

Loyalist OB

 

Barcelona full hex (33:3625):

               0.5 PA, 0.5 Cat, 0.5 An, 0.5 P

Barcelona partial hex (33:3624):

               0.5 Cat, 0.5 An

Madrid full hex (23A:2710):

               1.5 PA, 0.5 An

Madrid partial hex (23A:2711):

               1 PA

 

Insurgent OB

 

Barcelona full hex (33:3625):

               1 Nat, 0.5 Fal

Barcelona partial hex (33:3624):

               0.5 Nat

Madrid full hex (23A:2710):

               1 Nat, 0.5 Fal

Madrid partial hex (23A:2711):

               0.5 Nat

 

[AEG, Developer, 03-Mar-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 37E2 and 44H -- Capture of Government under Variable Rebellion

 

Q:  The main (eastern) hex of Madrid rebelled for the Insurgents.  Should we treat the government as if it had been overrun, and use the standard rule to determine if it is captured?

A:  Yes.  Many, many coups against governments have succeeded in averting (or at least shortening) civil wars.  It should be in the realm of possibility for the Nationlists to have succeeded from the start.

[AEG, Developer, 1998]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 40A1, 44H and Orders of Battle -- Disbanding Units under Variable Rebellion

 

Q:  If Cadiz and El Ferrol are Loyalist-owned as a result of 44H, should disbanding actions of the artillery units at these cities (as specified in the I Jan 37 and II Jan 37 Insurgent OB entries) be conducted by the Loyalist player at those times?  If so, should the same concept be applied generally throughout the OBs?

A:  No.  The Loyalist player carries out replacement and reinforcement activities listed in the Loyalist OB only.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 34E and 44H -- Random Mine Damage under Variable Rebellion

 

Q:  In 34E, does the phrase “…and has not yet taken…” refer to the side or the BBTF?  Due to the results of our variable rebellion, both BBTFs are Loyalist controlled, and we cannot determine if the Loyalist side should roll once or twice per turn, and whether to discontinue rolling upon the first or second hit.

A:  “…has not yet taken…” refers to the BBTF; roll once for each BBTF in play that has not taken random mine damage.

[Rules Court, TEM 62]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44H -- Variable Beginning to the Rebellion

 

Q: If Cartagena rebels, is the Loyalist NT-4 lost on the ways (to both sides)?  If not lost, which side gets it?  Does the Loyalist side receive its I Sep 36 NT-4 at some other port?  Does the Insurgent side receive a I Sep 36 NT-4 at Cartagena, and then another I Oct 36 NT-4?  It just seems odd that the first three NTs were serialized and unique, but there can exist two NT-4s.

A: The Loyalist NT-4 received at Cartagena on I Sep 36 is listed as a regular reinforcement.  If Cartagena in not Loyalist-owned at that time, its arrival is governed by the following in Rule 40A, 2nd paragraph:  "Unless otherwise specified, reinforcements that are unable to enter play as specified have their appearance delayed until they are able to enter play."

  So the NT wouldn't be received by either side unless/until the Loyalists capture Cartagena.  Technically this also applies to the Insurgent NT received on I Oct 36, but since it can appear at any friendly-owned port, the rule shouldn't come into play as I can't imagine that the Insurgents would control no ports at that time (and if they somehow don't, the game would probably be over anyway).

  I think the problem here is that you are confusing these regular reinforcements (which can only be received by the side for which they are listed) with the CATF task force and naval repair points listed in the Conditional Reinforcements section, which may be received by whichever side controls the appropriate city at the appropriate time, unless destroyed on the ways.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Sep-03]

 

 

Q: What if either El Ferrol or La Corunya does not rise?  Per the Insurgent II Jan 37 disbanding instructions, the EF artillery appears to provide the Level 2 intrinsic CD for *both* El Ferrol and La Corunya.  If El Ferrol rebels and La Corunya does not, does the Insurgent side get intrinsic CD level 2, and the Loyalist side gets intrinsic CD level 2, or no intrinsic CD?  If La Corunya rebels and El Ferrol does not (I think this is what happened in our last game), is the answer the same as the previous question (sides reversed, of course)?

A: Once again, reinforcement activities apply only to the side for which they are listed.  If El Ferrol stays loyal, the 1-2-0 Art is *not* disbanded, so the entire entry in the OB is ignored.  If El Ferrol rebels and La Corunya stays loyal, the Art is disbanded but the Intrinsic Coast Defense of La Corunya isn't reduced.

  Note that this only applies if one or both of the cities stay Loyalist initially when using the Variable Start rule.  If one or the other changes hands during the course of play, the last paragraph of Rule 33B applies.

[DPS, Rules Judge, 17-Sep-03]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44J -- Variable French Assistance During First Quarter-Year of Game

 

Q:  We are using 44J and have decided to assume that French Assistance is at Increased Assistance during the first (abbreviated) quarter of the game, and that the I Oct 36 turn is the first dice roll for variable French assistance.  The game starts on the II Jul 36 turn, correct?  The French border is automatically open on the II Jun 36 turn -- that's Jun, not Jul, true?  The rules do not say what is the degree of French Assistance from the beginning of the game until the start of the next game quarter (I Oct 36 turn).

A:  During quarter-years in which "Sporadic Assistance" is in effect the status of the border (open or closed) is checked each turn.  Also, ARPs provided under "Substantial Assistance" arrive at the start of the first air cycle after the beginning of the quarter-year.  These two points then make it necessary to know what the level of French assistance is during the abbreviated quarter-year that begins the game (the II Jul 36 – II Sep 36 turns), as without that information, it is impossible to determine if ARPs should arrive I Sep 36 per "Substantial Assistance" and it is impossible to know whether or not the open status of the border on II Jul 36 at the start of the game is due to "Sporadic Assistance" -- meaning that the border status will have to be checked each turn from I Aug 36 to II Sep 36, or is due to "Limited or Substantial Assistance" -- in which case the border will automatically remain open during the II Jul 36 – II Sep 36 period.

    To fix the problem, amend the last paragraph of 44J to read (consider this official errata):  "When using this rule, France automatically provides 'Increased Assistance' during the Jul II 36 to Sep II 36 game turns."

[AEG, Developer, 08-Apr-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44J, 2nd paragraph, 3rd bullet -- Sporadic French Assistance Carries Over Into Subsequent Insurgent Player Turn

 

Q:  During Sporadic Assistance, the results of each turn's die roll are in effect during the Loyalist player turn as well as the subsequent Insurgent player turn of the next game turn, correct?

A:  Yes.  When Sporadic Assistance is in effect during a quarter-year, during each Loyalist initial phase during the quarter-year you check to see if the border is open or closed during that turn.  Once this check is made (and the French border's status adjusted accordingly) the status of the border then does not change until the next Loyalist initial phase.

[AEG, Developer, 08-Apr-04]

 

---------------------------

 

Rule 44J, 2nd paragraph -- Quarter-Year Boundary for French Assistance

 

Q:  The rule that the degree of French Assistance is determined during the Loyalist initial phase seems to shift the game quarter-year boundary by one-half game turn, e.g. the 2nd quarter of the game for variable French Assistance purposes runs from (including) the Loyalist I Oct 36 player turn through the Insurgent I Jan 37 player turn, correct?

A:  The "quarter-year" referred to in 44J refers to a "Loyalist quarter-year"; with each such quarter-year beginning in a Loyalist initial phase and continuing until the 6th following Loyalist initial phase.  So, yes, a quarter-year (in the sense of 44J) that begins at the start of the Loyalist I Oct 36 initial phase runs through the end of the Insurgent I Jan 37 player turn (with the next quarter-year beginning with the start of the immediately following Loyalist I Jan 37 player turn).

[AEG, Developer, 08-Apr-04]

 

 


Belli Ludi © Copyright Carlos A Pérez 2007
La propiedad intelectual, así como todos los derechos legales de ella derivados, de los artículos e ilustraciones firmados pertenecen exclusivamente a sus autores, y a sus editores si los hubiera.
The intellectual property and copyrights of signed articles and illustrations belong exclusively to their authors, and publishers if any.