The almost complete Second Front FAQ

Second Front was the most complex Europa game ever published, and this complexity together with some bad wording, a community accustomed to nitpicking,  some subtle but far-reaching design changes, and lastly some production errors required a succession of Errata, clarifications and rules questions answered.

This page was assemmbled with the help of many, first and foremost Luiz Cláudio S. Duarte, who did a lot of the work already, which we took and reformatted and added bits and pieces to. If you find something missing, it is our fault entirely.

<- Back to Second Front.

Clash of Titans: Long range artillery

Question:

Soviet long-range artillery in Leningrad’s center hex would like to add its combat strength to a combat in an adjacent hex. The rules (14B2) are silent on whether LR artillery can defend from afar, like naval gunfire support, or if it is limited to attacking? Rule 9A2 and 9A3 list ground support, defensive air support and naval gunfire support as things that can be added to a stack’s modified combat strength, but both are silent on long-range artillery.

Answer:

With Second Front rules as written, long-range artillery may only fire at 2-hex range when attacking. So, using RAW it is not legal to have long-range artillery fire at 2-hex range in defense of a stack being attacked.

However, argument can be made that Long-Range artillery should be allowed to fire at 2-hex range in defense. After all, there is nothing that would physically prohibit it; although long-range artillery usually takes longer to fire than regular artillery so its effectiveness for defense is probably less than it is for offense. Also, you can find some examples of long-range artillery firing at 2-hex range in the defense in WWII. Three examples:

1) Heavy coast artillery guns at western end of Mannerheim Line frequently fired inland into adjacent hex of line during Winter War to help stop Soviet attacks and were accounted as being very effective when doing this. (In game terms this is a 2-0 RG=2 Siege Art III)

2) NIMAP long-range artillery unit to East of Leningrad (Soviet artillery test range where several heavy long-range guns were installed in test mounts) fired on numerous occasions in defense of Soviet positions in adjacent hexes. (in game terms this is a 2-1-0 RG=2 Heavy Siege Art II in Soviet Navy colors)

3) Krasnaya Gora long-range artillery unit at north tip of Oranienbaum pocket fired frequently in defense of Soviet positions in next hex to the SE. (In game terms this is a 3-2-0 RG=2 Heavy Siege Art II)

The above examples , are why Total War rules allow long-range artillery to fire at 2-hex range in defense. When firing in offense, long-range artillery unit uses its attack strength (or combat strength if only has one strength). When firing in defense, long-range artillery unit unses its defense strength (or combat strength if has only one strength). And, no long-range artillery unit may fire at 2-hex range to defend against an overrun; it may only fire in this manner to defend against a regular combat.

Source:

Posted by Arthur E. Goodwin on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 04.08.2013 22:40.

Rule 20E: In what sequence can air missions be initated?

Question:
The initial phase step 11 has three activities that occur: 1) Cap, 2) harassment and 3) assign naval patrol. Since both sides can do some or all of the above in which order should one do it? The problem we’re having is that one side might want to see CAP before assigning Naval Patrol.

Answer:
If both players want to fly missions at the same time, roll a die, on a 1-3 the Allied player initiates, on 4-6 the Axis player. Alternate missions from that point on until one side can’t or doesn’t want to initiate a mission. Note that since a player could initiate a one air unit mission, thus forcing the other player to initiate a mission, it may well be impossible to “see CAP” before assigning certain missions. [TEM 59/60]

Source:
TEM 59/60

Is Caen really a bigger port than Cherbourg?

Question:
Is Caen really a bigger port than Cherbourg?

Answer:
Surprisingly, Caen is a more important port than Cherbourg. Cherbourg was a premier port for ocean liners in the pre-war period, but Caen was the heavy-duty cargo port of the area. This explains part of the Allies planning on capturing Caen early in the Normandy campaign, as they hoped to capture the port. In the event, the Germans blocked the British back from taking the port in the early days of the campaign, and then they wrecked the locks system that gave access to the port, so extensively that the port was rendered of little use for the remainder of the war.

Source:
[TEM 38/39]

 

British Infantry Division Cadres

Question:
Why do British infantry divisions form stronger cadres than divisions of equivalent strength from other nations?

Answer:

When the SF OB was almost finished it became clear that the US and British counters were very similar – too much so considering their differing characteristics. I suggested the change in cadre values in the British – not because of the ‘thin red line’ and all that rubbish, but rather that:

1. British infantry divisions had a formidable defensive capability that is not really reflected in their attack value (and simply splitting their attack/defense ratings did not work either) since they possessed:

a. very powerful anti-tank strength (at least twice that of an US division) especially after the introduction of towed and self-propelled 17 pounder; b. a strong MG battalion – the Vickers MMG being best in set piece attack and defense situations; c. a full ‘combat-motorized’ recon II – most useful as a last string emergency reserve (apart from its recon role).

2. British infantry formalized a ‘left out of battle’ structure in which at least 25% of men and almost all second in commands were not used in an attack. In Europa terms this meant that strong cadres remained in the division even after horrid losses.

Note that only British and Commonwealth infantry divisions get this benefit, and only after they convert to their highest rating, after getting machinegun, recon and AT assets.

Source:
[TEM 59/60]

German AT Bataillons

Question:
What sort of equipment difference is there between a German 1-10 mot AT 1I and a 1-2-10 mot AT II? They appear in the same time frame.

Answer:
Antitank and Tank Destroyers:
1-10 towed and early SP AT guns.
1-2-10 Nashorns.
2-1-10 Hetzers.
2-8 Elefants.
3-6 Jagdtigers (underequipped battalions; had sufficient Jagdtigers been available to fully equip a battalion, rating would be 3-4-6 or 4-6).
3-8 Jagdpanthers.
Source:
TEM 53

German AT Bataillons – development

Question:
I am guessing that, as illustrated above, the equipment is relative and changes over time without any player effort (a 1-10 AT II in 1939 is equipped with 37mm ATG, while the same unit in 1943 would have 5cm or 75mm… ?)

Answer:
Yes. Europa assumes all sides are incrementally upgrading their equipment throughout the war, so that a 1-10 AT II vs. a 2-1-10 Tk II in 1940 could be a 37mm vs. a Pz II/III, while in 1944 it could be a 75mm vs. a late-war Pz IV, etc. Thus, most evolutionary equipment changes are not shown (otherwise we’d probably need triple the number of counters!) but revolutionary equipment changes are (for example, the appearance of the Panther tank). 

Source:
TEM 53

German Alarm Units

Question:
Is there any game significance to Alarm units, as opposed to infantry, or is this purely for historical information?

Answer:
Purely historical information.

Source:
TEM 43/44

               

Port Fortification Stacking

Question:
The coastal defense table says ‘+ (something) for each port fortification” so apparently more than one port fortification may be placed in a hex? (Especially since we couldn’t find enough coastal ports for all Axis PFs in the setup for ETO scenario.)

Answer:
Only one Port Fortification may be in any one hex. Similarly, you may only have one fort counter per hex (and none in a hex with a Port Fortification.) I think you must be reading the Axis OB incorrectly, since there are actually not enough Port Forts available to put one in each Axis great, major or standard port that the Axis own in the West theater.

Source:
TEM 54

 

Invasion Reaction Rules

Question:
Where in the rules are Invasion Reaction air force units addressed? And, does this cause a -1 DRM to the Strat Air War die roll?

Answer:
1) Axis Order of Battle booklet, p. 15, under heading “Luftwaffe Alarm”. 2) Yes

Source:
TEM 53

 

V-Weapon Emplacements

Question:
The German OB for Jun I 44 note says: V-1 attacks may be made by “emplaced” Luftwaffe V-Weapons units. I have not seen any rule explaining how to “emplace” these units. Is the requirement to not move in Rule 43D considered “emplaced”? If so, why not say it?

Answer:
V-weapons may only fire if they don’t move in a player turn, If it really bugs you, delete the word “emplaced.” 

Source:
TEM 53

 

505 Pz II Return

Question:
As per the OB, the 505 Pz II “returns” to the West in Jun I 44, but is not mentioned previously.

Answer:
It should be an “Arrive” instead of a “Return.” (The Axis OB originally included April through June 1943, but these months were dropped in favor of the July 1943 start up. The 505th is in the West in April 1943 and goes east before the July 43 start-hence it is actually returning in June 44 in the context of the wider OB. This listing inadvertently didn’t get changed for the SF-only context.)

Source:
TEM 41

 

384 Inf XX

Question:
The 384 Inf XX is listed as `forming” in Oct II 43, but it is initially in the West on Jul I 43, and historically it went to the East Front about Oct II 43.

Answer:

The Oct II 43 West listing is missing a line. It should read:

West, Forming:
1 × 14-10 PzG XX 17 GvB (SS)

Withdraw to East:
1 × 5-7-6 Inf XX 384

 

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Luftwaffe Alarm Unit Deployment

Question:
Luftwaffe Alarm, Axis OB – Exactly how does this work?

Answer:
It works per Rule 26B, with the number of air units and air replacement points as listed on the Invasion Reaction lines of the Greater Germany Strategic Air OB. The Luftwaffe alarm, however, does not count against the fivetimes-per-year limit for calling up the strategic air assets. 

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Luftwaffe Alarm Units Withdrawal

Question:
When are Luftwaffe Alarm units withdrawn from play?

Answer:
Same as other call-ups of Axis Strat Air units — at the end of the player turn in which they were called up/made available. 

Source:
TEM 74

 

Polish Replacement Rates

Question:
Allied Apr I 44 Initial Forces: How is the Polish 13-10 armor upgrade accomplished with no Polish ETO inf RPs available?

Answer:
Looks like the Poles should have a 0.5 inf RP rate for Jul-Dec 43 in the ETO; with 1 Polish inf RP accumulated in the ETO for the Apr I 44 initial conditions.

 

Source:
TEM 41

 

British 52 XX switching forms

Question:
Can the British 52 XX switch between forms, that is, 6-8* Glider, 7-8 Mtn, or 8-8 Inf XX at will?

Answer:
NO! The 52nd can make each conversion only once during a game. It begins playas a 7-8 Mtn XX which can be converted into either the 6-8* Glider or the 8-8 Inf. In the same game, the 6-8* Glider XX (and its ex-organic infantry brigade) can be converted into the 8-8 Inf XX.

Note that once you have converted from the Mtn incarnation, you can never return to it; note that the Glider XX can only convert into the Inf XX and that you can not convert the Inf XX into anything at all.

This conversion is not like the SAS conversions, wherein the units involved in those conversions may go back and forth — that is, you can decide each game turn (as long as the involved units meet the requirements for conversion) which version of the unit you wish to use, either naval-commando or para-commando. But with the 52nd XX, it is a once a game choice for each incarnation. Basically, remember that the 52nd XX can never return to a version from which it has been converted.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Carrier Aircraft for CGs

Question:
Is there any info on the possible carrier aircraft that can be used (and when they can be) for the CGs in SF? The countersheet has many aircraft, especially for the British, but nothing in the OBs about when these extra aircraft can be used For example, a Corsair counter is there but nothing on when a CG could use it. Also, each CG can have 3 air groups but the on-map US CG comes with only 2.

Answer:
The game contains some counters that are not used in play; almost every Europa game includes extra counters for use with Grand Europa, or as replacement counters for other games, or for other purposes. In all cases, the OBs with the game, as modified by any published errata, limit the force pools of each side and which counters are and aren’t used in the playing of that game. So, to answer the above question, what may and may not be used is covered by the Allied OB, specifically the Conditional Reinforcements section. There are four separate sets of available Carrier Air Support OBs present and they detail which air units arrive and may be used with the CG Naval unit when it enters play. The fact that the US CG enters with only two air units simply reflects the historical situation and is not an OB error.

Source:
TEM 53

 

2nd SAS Para Cmdo II ETO Transfer

Question:
Shouldn’t the note following the Mar II 44 transfer to ETO of the 2 SAS Para Cmdo II refer to the 2 SAS?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Rule 3A3: RE equivalents for transport purposes

Question:
What is the RE equivalent for transport purposes (both naval and air) of a unit transporting one resource point? Is it the RE size of the unit plus one or only the RE size of the unit if it is a division (so the resource point is less than half of the RE size of the unit) or what?

Answer:
Ground units may not carry resource points while being transported by naval or air transport, they may only carry resource points overland. Resource points and units are counted separately when shipped as naval or air cargo.

Source:
TEM 49

Rule 3G: Checking Isolation

Question:
Wasn’t there a Second Front ruling where you pointed out that isolation was only checked at the start of the turn, whereas out-of-supply was checked twice, before movement and before combat?

Answer:
No, this is backwards. Isolation is checked more than once per turn, it specifically says so in the isolation rules. Supply is judged only during initial phases and that supply condition prevails trhoughout that player turn, regardless of changes to the local situation. It has always been so.

Source:
TEM 67 and TEM 76

 

Rule 3A3: Doubling RE Sizes for Port Capacities

Question:
Is the RE size of a c/m or cavalry unit doubled for port capacity purposes or not? For example, can a c/m division disembark in a minor port?

Answer:
No, RE size is not doubled for port capacity, it is only doubled for transport, that is, naval transport or rail movement. So, yes, a c/m XX can disembark at a minor port.

Source:
TEM 49

 

Rule 6, Administrative Movement

Question:
If using normal movement, unit A moved along a path, could unit B then administrative move along that same path, assuming no enemy ZoCs along path?

Answer:
Correct, for administrative movement the hex merely needs to be friendly owned at the moment that the admin movement occurs. For example, you can capture “admin paths” with friendly units using normal movement and then immediately (that is, in the phase of capture) use those captured hexes for admin movement, since they satisfy the requirements of admin movement, that is, that the hex be friendly owned, etc.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 7A5: Railroad units

Question:
Rule 7A5 first paragraph says “A unit may not use rail movement to enter or leave a hex in which the rail line is broken. ” However rule 14A4 allows RR engineers to repair rail lines as if construction engineers. Rule 14A] (construction engineers) last paragraph suggests that construction engineers must spend 4 MPs in the hex to remove a hit from the rail line. How can a RR Engineer enter a broken rail line hex in order to repair it?

Answer:
I think you’re confusing railroad engineers (engineers with railroad repair abilities) with rail-only units (units that can only move by rail). The RR engineer simply moves into the hex using normal movement. All RR engineers in SF (except for one Indian brigade) have 6 MPs printed on the unit counter; they move like any other units. Note that they do not have a movement rating of “R”, but perhaps you were thinking that they were rail only units? Nope, only units with a movement rating of “R” are rail only. Please see Rule 14F.1.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 7: Decreasing the Axis Rail Network Capacity

Question:
Are the only ways to permanently decrease Axis rail capacity, a) through the strategic air war effects table, and b) loss of ownership of all marshaling yards on a rail net?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 9: Attacker Retreat Result

Question:
If a hex has 12 REs and six 6 REs are attacking and roll an attacker retreat do all units have to retreat or just the six units that attacked?

Answer:
Only units making an attack may be affected by the results of that attack; uninvolved phasing units are not affected even if other units in their hex are participating in an attack.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 9: Attacker Retreat when in Overstack

Question:
We’re using the advanced rule 43. C 2, “Overstacking. ” If the attacking units of the hex roll an attacker retreat do the overstack have to retreat?

Answer:
No.
However, those units, the overstacked ones, are in big trouble since they have no defense strength throughout the following enemy player turn, making them easy meat for any counter-attack.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 9C: DH result and Zero-Strength Units

Question:
If a combat result is DH (assume the survivors can retreat to a hex not in an enemy ZOC), and the defending stack contains one or more zero strength units and/or position AA units, how does the DH result affect these zero-strength units?

Answer:
Since they have no strength to contribute to the defense, nor lose, they are not counted when considering strength point losses and therefore could not be taken as strength point losses. Zero strength point units are not affected by DH results, in so far as losses are considered; they must retreat, of course.

Followup Question:
Does the same principle hold for other combat results such as HX and AH?

Followup Answer:
Yes. Zero strength units contribute nothing to the numerical value of the units involved in the combat and half of nothing is still nothing.

Source:
TEM 76

 

Rule 9F: Combat Result affecting units already retreated

Question:
A 2-6 cadre is forced to retreat onto a 5-6 XX. The 5-6 is then attacked, the result is EX. Does the attacker take 5 or 7 points of losses?

Answer:
See rule 9F1, “Retreats”. Since the previously retreated cadre “contributes nothing to the defense” and “is ignored for exchange purposes”, the attacker would lose 5 strength points, the same as the defender lost, not counting strength points which are ignored.

Source:
TEM 76

 

Rule 10: AEC/ATEC incabable units

Question:
Units covered by Rule 12D neither “have” nor are “capable” of AEC/ATEC and therefore ATEC cannot be used if one is attacked by such units. Is this statement correct?

Answer:

The units are counted as having “no capability for AEC/ATEC capabilities”; so in the case of loss of AEC through lack of supply, their participation in an attack would not trigger the use of ATEC.

Note that for both weather and terrain, re: ATEC, the rules say that ATEC may be used if the attacking units are capable of ½ or more AEC, even if they cannot employ it in this specific instance. So a tank brigade attacking into a swamp is still capable of AEC, it just can’t employ it to advantage; ATEC may still be used.

In poor weather when AEC is reduced or negated, the same applies, the units with AEC are still capable of AEC, they just can’t use it, fully, or only at reduced effectiveness, and ATEC is triggered.

However, supply restrictions differ in that they instruct you to treat the units as having no capability, this is quite differente than treating them as AEC capable but ignoring that capability, as is the case with weather and terrain effects.

Treat a unit for which lack of supply has restricted the use of AEC/ATEC as being incapable of any armor effects. It has no capability, and thus cannot trigger the use of ATEC, nor interfere with the use of AECD.

Source:
TEM 76

 

Rule 10H:Voluntary Reduction of AECA/AECD/ATEC?

Question:
May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat engineer proportion in order to avoid “Required Losses?”

Answer:
No.

Source:
TEM 38/39

 

Rule 11: NGS and Support

Question:
Does NGS make units supported? The rule about NGS would seem to imply so (“each point of NGS counts as 1/4 for purpose of artillery and support”, but I would like an explicit statement. If it makes units supported, is there some minimum requirement for NGS points?

Answer:
Yes, per Rule 33A, each naval strength point is treated as 1/4 RE of artillery for purposes of Rules 11 and 14B. Since one RE of artillery will support all units stacked with it, you require 4 points of NGS, 1 REs worth of artillery, to provide support.

Now for some further thoughts on this…

As an unofficial option, allow NGS to support units, even if the naval units are not stacked with the units, if the NGS fire can assist the combat. Because of the two hex range, it is possible for naval units to fire NGS into hexes that they could not enter through movement, but it seems strange to require them to abide by a strict reading of Rule 11, in that they should have to be stacked with the units they are supporting.

In a similar unofficial manner, exempt NGS from the “being stacked with…” requirements of Rule 14B, that is, naval units firing NGS defensively do not have to be stacked with the units they are supporting. RE requirements, for all cases, are still in effect (one defending RE may only be assisted by four points of NGS at full strength; any excess NGS would add a total of one factor, regardless of the total present). Example: Two Inf lll are invading a beach and have 10 points of NGS. As each point of NGS is 1/4 of an RE, per Rule 14B 8 points of NGS (2-REs worth) have full effect and the remaining 2 points of NGS have a strength of 1 (so the 10 points of NGS provide 9 attack strength points). Since there is more than one REs of field artillery equivalents present, the ground units are supported.

The difference between this option and RAW is that these units will be supported regardless of the location of the naval units firing the NGS.

Source:
TEM 54

 

Rule 12: How long does a turn out of Supply last?

Question:
Does a turn out of supply in SF consists of two player turns?

Answer:
A turn out of supply in SF is one game turn, consisting of an Axis player turn followed by an Allied player turn.

Example: An Italian unit is put out of supply during the Jul I 43 Allied player turn. When supply is checked during the initial phase of the Axis Jul II turn, that Italian unit is noted as being out of supply and gets a U-1 marker (I use red for Axis turns).

During the Allied Jul II player turn the unit remains out of supply.

The Italian unit has now spent one turn out of supply (Axis and Allied player turns). If, during the Axis Initial phase of Aug 1, the Italian unit is still unsupplied at that time, it will be marked with a U-2 marker and is affected by all effects of being U-2’d from that instant on, until it is no longer unsupplied, is eliminated or (during the Axis Aug II initial phase) is marked with a U-3 marker for remaining out of supply.

Source:
TEM 59/60

Rule 12: Are ground units on ships in supply?

Question:
Are ground units on ships in supply?

Answer:
The regular supply rules govern the supply of ground units, even when they are embarked on board ships. Note that in some cases units will become unsupplied when on board ships. For example, a unit embarks upon a NT and ends its turn at sea. In the next player turn, the unit becomes out of supply, since there is no way it can trace a supply line to a supply source. If the NT is in port, however, then an embarked unit on board may be able to trace supply, per Rule 12.

If this seems a bit odd, it works this way to prevent game abuses, such as embarking units on ships to establish a permanently-in-supply “floating reserve” or other silly things.

Source:
TEM 38/39

 

Rule 12: Tracing Supply for Units loaded on Naval Units

Question:
If units start a turn loaded on transports in port, are they in supply? This is significant, because if the answer is yes, then Allied troops can start the game loaded in transports for a turn 1 invasion of southern France (the extra 30 NMPs are needed.)

Answer:
Units embarked upon ships trace supply by the normal rules, so if they are in a port hex and the NT/LC is in port (not at sea in the hex) then, yes, they are in supply. Note also that for your first turn invasion, the units and NT/LCs they are embarked upon could be set up in the North Africa Holding box at start, they needn’t be deployed at separate ports on the map. Also note that since they are already embarked, port capacity is not an issue; all of your NT/LCs, along with anyone they are transporting, could be placed, for example, at Bougie during the initial phase and carry out their invasion from there. The fact that Bougie is only a minor port is immaterial. Note also that any units embarked upon NT/LC could remain in the North Africa Holding Box, or any on-map port, and remain in supply from turn to turn, indefinitely.

Source:
TEM 49

 

Rule 12C: Drawing Supply from the Ruhr

Question:
Can German units in the Ruhr cities draw supply from the cities themselves or must the the cities of the Ruhr be connected by rail to another najor city in Germany?

Answer:
Per rule 3E2 a combination of adjacent full and/or partial city hexes is considered a conurbation and thereforeone city for game purposes. So you must be able to trace a rail connection from the Ruhr to another major city in Germany for the Ruhr to be a source of supply. Note that the supply rules specify major cities and not major city hexes.

Source:
TEM 66

 

Rule 12C2: Naval Element of tracing Supply

Question:
The final sentence of this rule seems to contradict the previous one. If in order to function as a limited supply source a standard or minor port must trace a naval element supply line to a major or great port, what does the last sentence of this rule mean when it states,”…supply line may be traced from a minor or standard port.”?

Answer:
The last sentence allows you to trace a naval supply line from a standard/minor port; it has nothing to do with tracing the line to a major/great port. Instead, see Rule 12B4, which governs naval supply lines and says you have to trace from a major/great port. 12B4/12C1 is the general case, allowing both sides to get full regular supply via naval supply lines. 12C2 is the special case for the Allies, allowing them to get limited regular supply by using ports that don’t make the cut for 12B4/12C1.

Source:
TEM 38/39

 

Rule 13: Providing NGS as Support during Overruns

Question:
For purposes of support can a player consider NGS as providing support to units being overrun, without taking into account the NGS points?

Answer:
Per Rule 33A, TFs may only provide NGS during a combat phase. Therefore, NGS does not affect overruns, since they occur in the movement and exploitation phases.

Source:
TEM 49

 

Rule 14A1: Blowing up Ports

Question:
Is there anything to prevent the Axis player from running around with their engineers and damaging every port in sight?

Answer:
See Optional Rule 44B3.

Source:
TEM 38/39

 

Rule 14A1: Combining Construction Units

Question:
Can four construction units build a 12-capacity airfield in the same hex at the same time? Each unit builds a 3- capacity airfield.

Answer:

No, Rule 14A1 states that you can’t build a permanent airfield in a hex that contains a permanent airfield. This includes a permanent airfield under construction, so once you start build a permanent airfield in a hex you cannot start building others there. Also note that augmenting a permanent airfield is a different concept than building a permanent airfield even though both use very similar procedures. For clarity, when the rule says “A construction unit may augment (increase) the capacity of an existing permanent airfield”, “existing” is meant to mean that the airfield has completed construction.

Also note that this answer does mean you cannot build two or more forts in the same hex at the same time.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14A1: Augmenting of existing Airfields

Question:
In a hex that has a 3-capacity airfield can three construction units each augment the airfield at the same time? In is way the 3-capacity airfield goes from a capacity of 3 to 12 in one construction cycle.

Answer:
No, Rule 14A1 states that engineers can augment an existing airfields capacity by 3. In your example, the engineers are clearly augmenting the airfield by more than 3 (by 9, in fact) and this is illegal. No matter how many engineers are present, they may only augment an airfield’s capacity by 3 in anyone turn.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14A1: Repairing during Exploitation Phase

Question:
Can c/m construction units repair ports, airfields and rail lines in the exploitation phase?

Answer:
No. “Repair” activities are described under 14A1 “Construction” and are thus construction tasks. Rule 14A1d prohibits c/m construction units from using construction abilities in the exploitation phase.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14B: Limited use of NGS for Support

Question:
Since each point of NGS is treated as a 1/4 RE field artillery unit, does this mean that NGS is limited by the number of REs participating in the combat?

Example: A British TF is supporting a single British 3-8 Infantry Brigade. Four of the sixteen strength points may be added to the combat due to the one RE non-artillery unit participating, and the remaining twelve strength points are in excess and thus have a total strength of one. Thus the total combat strength of this force is eight. Is this correct?

Answer:
Yes. Rule 33A defines NGS and explicitly says it uses Rule 14B for the purposes of artillery.

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Rule 14B1: Long Range Artillery

Question:
If a long-range siege artillery unit fires from two hexes in such a way that the “line of sight” crosses the vertex between two hexsides, one of which is an improved fortified hexside and the other of which is not, then is the artillery’s strength doubled?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 14F1: Do Rail-Only Units use Rail Cap?

Question:
Do rail-only units use rail cap to move? To retreat? Shouldn’t Rule 14F1 mention this? Is it mentioned elsewhere?

Answer:

Rail Movement: Everything that moves by rail in a friendly movement phase uses rail capacity. This includes units that can only move by rail. If these units were an exception, the rule would mention it.

Retreating: Retreats occur during combat phases, while rail movement and thus rail capacity expenditure occur in friendly movment phases. Thus, rail capacity is not an issue.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14H4: Example of Coastal Raid

Question:
Could you please give an example of example of how Coastal Defenses fire at commandos carrying out coastal raids?

Answer:
The commando arrives in the hex, the CD fires once against the NT/LC (you should move adjacent at night for maximum protection), and then you resolve the commando attack immediately when the commando “arrives” (not lands) in the hex.

So the commando, moving in the first naval move step (for example) faces one round of CD and then resolves the attack. It must still spend the 90 MPs to disembark, as do any other units arriving later (but during the same naval movement step) if they want to invade, and face CD if any still survives.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14H4: Coastal Raid and Coastal Defense Fire

Question:
A marine commando unit is landing in a coastal defense hex and is attempting a coastal raid. Is the coastal raid attempt resolved before the CD fires any shot, or does the CD get to fire a shot when the naval unit transporting the commando enters the hex and before it lands the commando?

Answer:
Amend Rule 14H4 (Third paragraph, first sentence) to read:

Immediately when a raiding unit enters the hex, prior to landing in the hex, resolve the effects of the raid

Note: This is an official amendment to the rules and replaces any previous answers that might hve appeared. Note also that this change means that the CD will not fire at the marine commando in its hex prior to the CD rais attempt being resolved. Note also that if the marine commando did not land in the hex, no raid could be conducted, which is why the rule says “prior to landing in the hex”. (This is to stop people from gleefully running up and down the coast with embarked marine commandos, raiding CD without ever disembarking!)

Source:
TEM 66

 

Rule 14J: Treatment of Movement Counters in Combat

Question:
If a movement counter is not carrying a unit is it treated as a 0-strength unit for combat purposes (e.g., not included in AEC/ATEC computations)?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 38/39

 

Rule 14J: RE Equivalent of Transport Counter carrying unit

Question:
When a transport counter (3 REs capacity) is carrying an infantry division, is it treated as having a 5 RE size for naval transport purposes or as having a 2 RE size (thinking the assets and men of the division are aboard of the truck and so are not occupying space on the ship or LVT)?

Answer:
A Transport counter is a separate unit and must be transported as a separate cargo load. So, using your example, the Inf XX would count for 3 REs and the transport counter would count for 2 REs (I RE, but doubled for being c/m). They are not considered to be a single unit.

Source:
TEM 49

 

Rule 14J: ATEC/AEC effects of Transport Counters

Question:
Are units being carried by transport counters considered to be ATEC/AEC neutral? I checked in the UIC and I don’t see anything listed. This would be important if you wanted to form armored corps that contained motorized infantry units.

Answer:
See Rule 14I which details how movement counters work. Note that transport counters may not carry units during a combat phase, thus they have no effect upon AEC/ATEC calculations during combat phases.

LVTs and APCs may carry units during combat phases and their individual effects upon AEC/ATEC are clearly listed in the rules; that is: units carried by APCs are considered combat/motorized and mechanized and units carried by LVTs are considered combat/motorized.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14J: Character of Transport Counters

Question:
I am curious though, why the LVT and APC counters make units combat/motorized, but the transport counters do not. This does seem to create a problem for the Americans in 1943, since they cannot form large stacks of full AEC/ATEC units.

Answer:
Transport counters represent trucks, with which the units are not used to co-operating regularly and mostly serve to get the units to the battlefield; think of a transport counter as a bus. APCs and LVT represent armored vehicles — “defrocked Priests”, Kangaroos, and the like for APCs, and Buffaloes for the LVTs. Units were meant to operate on the battlefield closely with these vehicles, hence the AEC/ATEC effects. And considering the number of c/m sub-divisional units and armored divisions running around, I have never found any of my opponents not being able to form large c/m stacks with the Allies…

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 14J, Use of transport Counters during Exploitation Phase

Question:
The Allied player aims to execute some overrun in the exploitation phase after an amphibious landing, using a transport counter. Rule 14J requires the units to be stacked with the counter at the start of the phase, while the counter can disembark from the LC not before the start of the naval subphase of the exploitation phase. Does this mean that the allied player cannot use the counter to motorize the units already on the beach (those that executed the amphibious landing)?

Answer:
Correct. If the transport counter is on the LCs and the unit is on the beaches, they are not really stacked together and the transport counter may NOT motorize that unit. []

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 14J: Stacking Transport Counters and Units on LC

Question:
What if the counter is on the LC with the units it wants to motorize? And what if the counter (and eventually the unit it wants to motorize) is on AT and still requires to be transferred to the LC for disembarking on the beach?

Answer:
In these cases, the unit/s and transport counters are stacked together and could move as one unit. The unit would pay c/m costs for disembarking and could move from the beach if it has sufficient MPs.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 14J1: Can transport counters carry units during the combat phase?

Question:
Can transport counters carry units during the combat phase?

Answer:
No.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 14J2: LTVs and Narrow Straits

Question:
May LVTs and the units they carry treat narrow straits hexsides as river hexsides, as per Rule 14J2? Background to Question: Such a crossing was part of the historical battle of Walcheren Island.

Answer:
The rules as written don’t grant any special ability to LVTs for narrow straits hexsides. This was done for simplicity. Unlike LVTs’ ability on lake and major river hexsides, in the case of narrow straits hexsides, sea conditions come into play.

You can use the following option for LVTs: Under calm and rough sea conditions, an LVT may treat narrow straits hexsides as river hexsides. Under stormy sea conditions, it cannot do so.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rules 14J2 and 14J3: If a unit being carried by an LVT or APC counter is eliminated in the combat phase, is the carrying LVT/APC eliminated as well?

Question:
If a unit being carried by an LVT or APC counter is eliminated in the combat phase, is the carrying LVT/APC eliminated as well?

Answer:
Yes, as they are treated as a single unit.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 14J3: Increasing Combat Strength by APC for loss purposes

Question:
Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 when determining losses, or is the APC treated as a separate unit with a strength of 1?

Answer:
Neither, actually. The 1-strength point increase is a strength modifier (similar to the way siege artillery is doubled against fortresses), but losses are determined using printed strengths only, and the LVT/APC counters do not have a printed strength. Example: A 3-8 Inf X carried by an APC would attack with a strength of 4. If eliminated, both the 3-8 Inf X and the APC would be removed from play and would count as a loss of 3 attack strength points.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 14J3: Combat Strength of multiple APC counters

Question:
Suppose two 3-8 infantry brigades, each carried by an APC counter, participate in an attack. Would their attack strength be 7 or 8?

Answer:
The bonus applies for each and every APC counter, regardless of the presence or absence of other APCs in the hex/attack. Thus, their attack strength would be 4 each, for a total of 8.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 14J3: Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 for purposes of overrun?

Question:
Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 for purposes of overrun?

Answer:
Rule 13 says “Overrun odds are computed in the same way that combat odds are…” Hence, the +1 attack bonus does apply for overruns.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 14J3: If units carried by an APC are attacked, is their total combat strength increased by 1?

Question:
If units carried by an APC are attacked, is their total combat strength increased by 1?

Answer:
The rule specifically covers attack, not defense, and so the bonus does not apply for defense.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 15: How do the 14-8 incarnations of the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne XX’s enter play?

Question:
How do the 14-8 incarnations of the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne XX’s enter play? Their conversions are not mentioned in the SF OB.

Answer:
The Allied Unit Breakdown Chart details what is needed to assemble a 14-8 airborne division, that is, the specific unit breakdowns for the division and any one non-divisional 3-5 Para III. You can make this assembly anytime such components are available. Since the first 35 Para III arrives in Dec II 43, that is the first turn such an assembly could be made. Note that US airborne divisions use specific breakdown counters and that such divisions may only be built up to a 14-8 using those specific components, and any one additional non-specific 3-5 Para III.

Source:
TEM 66

Rule 15C1: May French divisions use French Metropolitan breakdown counters?

Question:
May French divisions use French Metropolitan breakdown counters, regardless of which French `force” they actually belong to (Colonial 8-8 Inf XX breaks down into Metropolitan regiments and a Metropolitan HQ)? This does have play significance, as the Afrique and Colonial forces did participate in AIL.

Answer:
Yes, any French division may use the French Metro breakdown counters.

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Rule 15C1: replacement of French Metropolitan Units

Question:
Am I correct, then, that the replacement points needed to replace “Metropolitan” breakdowns are governed by the parent unit, and not by the breakdown counter itself?

Answer:
Yes. Using Metropolitan breakdown counters is for convenience and does not actually change which French force the broken-down unit belongs to.

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

Rule 15E: Losses of attached Panzer Batallions

Question:
If a panzer division with an attached Panther (or Panzer IV) battalion suffers losses in combat, is the battalion considered to be a separate unit from the division for loss purposes?

Answer:
Here’s how it works: if a 15-10 panzer division with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached is reduced to cadre, the division would count as 19 for loss purposes and you would be left with an 11-8 panzer cadre (a 7-8 panzer cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached).

If a 7-8 panzer cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached suffers losses in combat, the cadre would count as 11 for loss purposes, and both the 7-8 cadre and the 4-2-10 Panther battalion would enter the replacement pool.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 15E: If you attach a Panzer IV battalion does it add 4 or 2 to the strength of the panzer division?

Question:
If you attach a Panzer IV battalion does it add 4 or 2 to the strength of the panzer division?

Answer:
“While attached, the battalion is considered to be part of the division: it contributes its strength to the division but neither counts against stacking nor increases the RE size of the division.” Since the strength of the Panzer IV battalion is 2, it would add 2 to the strength of the panzer division.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 15E: Detaching Panzer IV Batallions

Question:
What strength Pz XX can detach the Pz IV Bn, and does such a Division become PzGren just as if it detached a Panther Bn? Should there be a (-2 PzG) marker to reflect this detachment?

Answer:
The single Pz IV detachment in the game enters play already detached. The SF rules allow you to operate it independently or to attach it to a panzer division. Thus the question about what type of panzer XX it can detach from is immaterial, because the game does not allow you to do this. The Pz IV detachment operates in a similar manner as a Panther Bn (again per the SF rules), thus a 16-10 Pz XX with a 2-1-10 Panther Bn attached would be treated as a 18-10 Pz XX.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

Rule 15E: Can a detached Panther battalion be attached to a plain old Panzergrenadier XX, thus making it a Panzer XX?

Question:
Can a detached Panther battalion be attached to a plain old Panzergrenadier XX, thus making it a Panzer XX?

Answer:
Rule 15E allows a detached panzer battalion only to be attached to a panzer division, and not to a panzergrenadier division.

This covers all the historical cases I can think of off-hand, although I would not be surprised to hear about exceptions to this. I note that a panzer division had a panzer regiment headquarters, capable of controlling several panzer battalions. A panzergrenadier division, having only one panzer battalion, did not have a panzer regiment headquarters and thus on paper was less able to handle multiple panzer battalions. In reality, however, the German’s practice of cross-attaching units and forming battle groups (Kampfgruppen) probably meant that a panzergrenadier division could competently manage a second panzer battalion. So, if you want to add this to the game as a house rule (and your opponent agrees), go ahead.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 16D: Who gets Priority if both Players want to initiate an Air Mission

Question:
I can imagine situations where both sides will want to initiate an air mission at the same time (e.g., one side wants to bomb a port to prevent a landing, the other wants to bomb the bombers which want to bomb the port before they can leave base). Who gets priority?

Answer:
If both sides simultaneously want to initiate an air operation, then choose at random which side gets to initiate the air op. The easiest way is to roll one die: 1–3 means the Allied player initiates; 4–6 the Axis player. (Use this in cases only when both sides truly wanted to initiate an air op. For example, if one player announces an air op and the other player lets him start moving air units unchallenged, then the second player can’t decide later that he really wanted to start an air op, too.) At the end of the air op, the other player may now initiate an air op, if he still wishes to do so. Continuing alternating air ops between the two sides until at least one of the players no longer wants to initiate an air op.

It’s also been reported that both players want to fly air ops at the same time, but they want the other side to go first (for example, so that they can see where enemy CAP is going). Follow the same procedure as above: randomly select one player to initiate an air op, and then alternate air ops between the two sides until at least one player is done.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 17: Can a fighter scramble ftom an airbase that has a capacity that has been reduced to zero?

Question:
Can a fighter scramble from an airbase that has a capacity that has been reduced to zero?

Answer:
No. WitD Rule 17.A (airbases, Capacity) says specifically:

“Exception: Air units may not take off from or land at an airbase if its capacity is currently zero.” SF goes so far as to say “may not use” which covers a lot of ground.

One has to be careful about remembering this provision, when getting used to the new air on demand system, where base capacity has less effect upon initiating missions from a base, since capacity is normally most important for operative/ inoperative considerations. But the rule is clear, no use, that is, taking off or landing at a base with zero capacity. This prevents multi-leg transfers and staging as well, of course.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 17D: If an intrinsic airfield (a city hex, for instance) is reduced to zero capacity, can it be abandoned?

Question:
If an intrinsic airfield (a city hex, for instance) is reduced to zero capacity, can it be abandoned? If it can, can it be rebuilt normally?

Answer:
No, the intrinsic capacity of a city is not an “airfield”, it is intrinsic capacity, so the abandonment rules [which specify airfields] do not apply to intrinsic capacities. Moreover, the cited rule even specifies which types MAY be abandoned, ie permanent and temporary. The intrinsic capacity of a hex is neither of the types specified so the rule does not apply.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 17: Abandoning Airfields

Question:
Suppose there is a 6-capacity permanent airfield in a major city, for a total airbase capacity of 12. This airbase takes 6 hits of damage. May the owning player assign all six hits to the permanent airfield, and then abandon it?

Answer:
Yes

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 20: Air Missions during Initial Phase

Question:
Can patrol attacks and interception missions be flown during the initial phase? I would assume they can because of three factors: (1) all air missions use the standard air operation sequence that allows for patrol attack interception; (2.) both patrol attack mission and intercept mission both state that “Fighters mayfly patrol attacks interception missions during any air operation initiated by the enemy player “, (3.) how else would you patroll intercept planes flying CAP Harassment / Naval Patrol during the initial phase, so you must be able to fly patrol/ interception. Is this correct?

Answer:
Yes. The rules say nothing about phases because the phase in which an air operation occurs has no effect upon whether or not it can be patrolled or intercepted. Rule 20C. states that you can initiate an interception mission during any air operation initiated by the enemy player, regardless of particular phase.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 20E: Switching Missions from CAP

Question:
The rules state that planes already flying CAP (during initial phase) can switch their missions during the movement phase so I know they are not allowed to do anything (patrol intercept) during initial phase while the enem yplayer is flying his CAP or any bombing mission. Is this correct?

Answer:
No. A mission force on CAP may always react to an enemy mission force that occupies or passes through the CAP hex. Rule 20E says that the owning player may (but is not required to) convert the CAP mission to Patrol / Interception / Escort during “the mission movement step of a subsequent air operation”. CAP may be switched to another allowable mission at any time during the player turn, without regards to particular phase.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 14J3: Can a unit be carried by several APC counters, and thus receive more than a +1 bonus?

Question:
Can a unit be carried by several APC counters, and thus receive more than a +1 bonus?

Answer:
No. Note the phrase “carried by an APC counter” in the rule. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20E: Patrol Attack against CAP

Question:
During movement phase a friendly plane flying CAP (since the initial phase) could patrol intercept an enemy plane that has just (during the movement phase) flown a CAP mission into the same hex as the friendly CAP mission. Is this correct?

Answer:
Yes. The plane(s) on CAP may (but are not required to) react to any enemy mission force that enters their hex, including an enemy CAP mission. Note that in your example any of the friendly air units that do patrol or intercept have then finished their mission and return to base. The enemy air units that survive this encounter remain in the hex to perform their CAP mission (that is, the friendly air units have completed their mission but the enemy air units have not).

Source:
TEM 59/60

Rule 20E: Assembling a Mission Force for CAP

Question:
Flying a CAP mission or any mission in general may contain as many planes as the player wants as long as they are all flying to the same target hex, correct??

Answer:
Yes. But remember that not all the friendly air units in a particular hex need be part of the same mission force and that depending upon player choice, not all air units present need to participate in any one mission. For example, imagine a hex with 10 phasing fighters on CAP. The phasing player now flies a bombing mission to the hex with two bombers. The phasing player may switch any, all, or none of his CAP air units to escorts for that air mission. Note that this occurs before the nonphasing player flies any patrol attack or interception missions against the bombing mission.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 20E: During the initial phase when phasing and non-phasing players fly their CAP missions, who flies first?

Question:
During the initial phase when phasing and non-phasing players fly their CAP missions, who flies first?

Answer:
Here’s how it works (text taken from WitD 16D):
One player, the initiating player, announces that he is initiating a specific air operation. Should both sides wish to initiate an air operation at the same time, the phasing player first initiates an air operation, and, when that operation is over, the non-phasing player then may initiate an air operation (he may decide not to do so – for example, the outcome of the phasing player’s air operation may have removed the reason for the nonphasing player to initiate an air operation). Continue to alternate air operations between the two sides until both sides no longer wish to initiate air operations at the same time.

Source:
TEM 59/60

Rule 20F2: Which hexes may ground units be dropped into?

Question:
(Rule 20F2 and 24) Page 26, Rule 20F2 says ground units may air drop in any hex except prohibited, mountain, wooded-swamp, or forest. Page 35, Rule 24 says units and supplies may air drop in any land hexes. Which is correct?

Answer:
Rule 20F2 is correct; Rule 24’s “may air drop in any land hexes, including hexes occupied by enemy units” is intended to let you know that you can drop in enemy occupied hexes, but I see how you misinterpreted the rule the way you did. Perhaps the rule should remove the “any” or even add a rules back-reference: “may air drop in land hexes (per Rule 20F2), including hexes occupied by enemy units.”

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20G: How does Bad Weather halve the bombing strength or air units?

Question:
Bombing strengths of air units are halved in poor weather. ls the bombing strengths halved for units bombing in a weather zone with poor weather (because the weather makes bombing more difficult in the hex)? Or, is the bombing strengths halved for air units that initiate its bombing mission from an airbase in a weather zone with poor weather (because the airplanes can’t make as many takeoffs during these two weeks due to the poor weather)? or is the bombing strength halved in both cases?

Answer:
Air unit bombing strengths are halved when bombing land targets present in target hexes in weather zones with poor weather; air unit bombing strengths are halved when bombing naval targets present in target hexes in sea zones with rough and stormy sea conditions. The location of the target is all that matters. Regardless of the weather present at the air unit’s base, it will be halved if the target hex of the mission is in a weather zone with poor weather.

For example, assume Mud in the D weather zone and Calm seas in the Mediterranean. An air unit bombing the city of Genoa, say its port capacity, would have its bombing factors halved, due to the Mud weather.

Another air unit, bombing enemy ships in the Genoa hex, either at sea or in port, would not be halved, since it is attacking a naval target and the sea conditions are Calm.

Source:
TEM 50

 

Rule 20G1a: Can Marshalling YArds in Ports be Strategically bombed?

Question:
Rule 20G1a Strat Bombing Rail Marshalling Yards says “Only a limited number of hits are allowed per yard in a player turn: 1 per dot city and 2 per major-city hex.” That seems to leave out the marshalling yards in ports (regardless of city size) ” mentioned in rule 7A. Am I missing something, or are these port marshalling yards illegal targets? If not, what limit of hits on them, and is that limit cumulative with the one on dot/major city hexes?

Answer:
The one hit per dot city limit should be one hit per marshalling yard in a non-major city. In other words, you can get two hits per major city hex and one hit per other city hex (note that all ports are also cities of some size).

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 20G2b: How and when is GS commited to battle?

Question:
At what point is a phasing player using air for GS committed to battle? Here is example of a problem: A phasing player sends 30 air units for GS. The phasing player has 20 REs in hexes adjacent to the hex being attacked, but is not using all 20 REs in the battle of course the Allies don’t know that. After AA 20 air units are left. My question: Is the attacking player required to use 20 REs of ground units or can he use any number of units and ignore all the extra GS in the battle? If a battle is lost or if I wish to try and deceive my opponent can I use 1 unit and make a 1 to 4 odds attack?

Answer:
First of all, combat is not mandatory, so any number of air units could be flown on GS and this would not “force” an attack, in and of itself.

However, once the phasing player initiates combat resolution for a particular hex, then combat resolution must proceed.

Any units that fire AA are automatically included in the attack, since firing AA is, per earlier rulings on this, part of resolving combat. Beyond this, however, there are no requirements that anyone attack. So yes, if you decide to begin the combat resolution for a particular attack, you are free to declare that of the x number of units available to participate, only one will do so, and if so, then GS calculations are governed by what attacks, and not by what is available to attack.

To be quite clear, the number of air units flown on a mission such as DAS and/or GS has nothing to do with how many may participate; one is always able to fly as many air units as desired and possible, the limitations are only in effect once the combat is to be resolved. Even flying the GS mission doesn’t mandate combat, as the rules make plainly clear (last paragraph, 20G.2.b).

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

 

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20G2b: Does the limit mean total number of Air Units that may be committed for GS per RE or the maximum number that counts?

Question:
Does the limit mean total number of Air Units that may be committed for GS per RE or the maximum number that counts?

For example, I am attacking with three REs of ground units (one panzer division). I have committed 8 air units to GS. Per the rules, 3 air units provide GS, the 5 others don’t contribute any SPs. The defender now fires AA and turns back one unit. May the attacker “call in” one of the surplus 5 units instead of the one that was turned back?

Answer:
First of all, combat is not mandatory, so any number of air units could be flown on GS and this would not “force” an attack, in and of itself.

However, once the phasing player initiates combat resolution for a particular hex, then combat resolution must proceed.

Any units that fire AA are automatically included in the attack, since firing AA is, per earlier rulings on this, part of resolving combat. Beyond this, however, there are no requirements that anyone attack. So yes, if you decide to begin the combat resolution for a particular attack, you are free to declare that of the x number of units available to participate, only one will do so, and if so, then GS calculations are governed by what attacks, and not by what is available to attack.

To be quite clear, the number of air units flown on a mission such as DAS and/or GS has nothing to do with how many may participate; one is always able to fly as many air units as desired and possible, the limitations are only in effect once the combat is to be resolved. Even flying the GS mission doesn’t mandate combat, as the rules make plainly clear (last paragraph, 20G.2.b).

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

 

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20G2b: Limits to the numbers or air units providing GS

Question:
Does the limit mean total number of units that may be committed per RE or the maximum number that counts?

For example, I am attacking with three REs of ground units (one panzer division). I have committed 8 air units to GS. Per the rules, 3 air units provide GS, the 5 others don’t contribute any SPs. The defender now fires AA and turns back one unit. May the attacker “call in” one of the surplus 5 units instead of the one that was turned back?

Answer:

This shows why the sequence of play and various activities is so important. The air units can not provide GS until combat is resolved and combat isn’t resolved until after AA has fired during the GS air operation.

You can fly as many air units as you want for a GS air operation. Some may be lost through air to air combat, others through AA fire. You don’t have any limitations upon the number of air units that can fly the GS mission, only upon how many can effectively aid the attacking units.

After all air to air combat and AA fire, the air mission is carried out, that is, the bombing strength is added into the combat strength of the units participating in the combat. The limitations of numbers of air units participating in the ground combat isnot figured until the ground combat is resolved. So, in your example above, the single panzer division an be aided by up to three air units. Regardless of how many air units began or participated in the air operation, three may assist the ground unit in its attack.

Please note the sequence, the air units are not limited in number until the ground combat resolution, and that resolution takes place after all air to air combat and AA fire in that air operation. []

Source:
TEM 67

 

Rule 20G2c: The sequence of Firing AA at DAS missions

Question:
There is a problem involving firing AA at DAS due to the new sequencing. The rules specify that AA is fired during the AA fire step of the air operation (including DAS air operations), and not (as used to be the case with DAS) just prior to ground combat resolution against the hex. This forces the phasing player to decide immediately upon the first DAS mission arriving in the hex if he is going to attack the hex (and with which units), so that he can fire his AA at the enemy air units. If such fire binds the phasing player to attack the DAS hex (and presumably it does), the enemy could theoretically continue to pile many other DAS missions into the hex to the point where the impending attack would become suicidal.

Answer:
I see your point. I do not want to delay the AA fire, but until I can figure out a way to make this work, use the old sequencing. Modify the appropriate section of Rule 20G2c as follows:

“Each DAS operation follows the standard air sequence, until the AA fire step is reached. At this point the mission is suspended until the players are to resolve the ground combat in the hex.

When the players are to resolve ground combat in a hex containing a DAS operation, the remainder of the air operation occurs in conjunction with the ground combat, in this sequence:

  1. When ready to resolve the combat, the attacking player declares the attack, indicating the attacking units.
  2. The AA fire step occurs, per Rule 22B1.
  3. The DAS mission resolution step occurs.”

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20G2d: May an Air Unit aborted during an Harassment Mission become operational in the next initial phase?

Question:
An Allied air unit flies a harassment mission during the Axis player turn but never makes it (aborted or killed by flak or fighters). Example: During the Axis Jul II 43 player turn, a USAAF p-400 participates in an air operation flying harassment mission against Messina (26:3823); during the AA fire step it is aborted, and does not participate in the mission resolution step. During the initial phase of the Allied Jul II 43 player turn it is replaced. May the P-400 become operational during the Allied Jul II 43 player turn initial phase? Or is the P-400 inoperative under Rule 20G2d last paragraph, “an air unit which flies a harassment mission during a player turn does not become operative at the start of the next player turn”? Under the Master Sequence of Play Summary air units are replaced (step 6) before air units become operative (step 8).

Answer:
The air unit may become operational. Once it was aborted (or eliminated) it was no longer flying a harassment mission, it was out of play. No air unit “carries” over any status from previous turns when replaced/rebuilt from a replacement pool.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rules 20G2g & 20G2h: Allocation of Naval Losses

Question:
Losses to Naval Units: Are these allocated after each air attack, or after all air attacks in a player turn?

Answer:
Rule 20G2g defines how this happens for both 20G2g & h: “For each air operation, resolve all bombing attacks of air units flying this mission before applying any hits achieved. (Keep track of the total number of hits achieved.) Apply the hits after all air units on this mission [naval units in port bombing] have finished bombing.” This means you do it on a per-air-operation basis, applying all hits (losses) to the naval units once all bombing attacks in the operation are over.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20G2h: Is an air unit assigned to a naval patrol mission susceptible to being damaged from an airbase tactical bombing attack, or are they flying?

Question:
Is an air unit assigned to a naval patrol mission susceptible to being damaged from an airbase tactical bombing attack, or are they flying (that is, on a mission)?

Answer:
Air units assigned to naval patrol missions remain at their airbase until they fly a mission, so yes, they can be bombed on the ground. They might not fly any mission at all that player turn, so it would be a sick trick to allow air units to avoid being bombed at base simply by having them declare that they were on naval patrol.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 20G2h: Patrol Attacks against Air Units flying Naval Patrol

Question:
If any planes from an airbase with enemy CAP overhead leave for a Naval Patrol bombing mission they can be patrol attacked by the enemy fighters. Does this occur if the contact roll is unsuccessful? We think yes since the force went inoperative.

Answer:
Yes, since the naval patrol air units have to fly to the target hex before they are able to roll on the contact table. It happens in the hex with the CAP fighters and the airbase, when the mission force begins moving to get to the target hex. [TEM 74]

Notes on Naval Patrol mission [Errata2, Errata4]:

  1. Only one attack force from any given airbase may attempt contact against a given naval group in a given hex. Naval groups which do not leave a hex (such as those debarking at a beach) are not subject to another contact attempt from the same airbase in the same player-turn.
  2. Aircraft on CAP can not switch to escort Naval Patrols. Escorts for Naval Patrols must originate at the same base, and be part of the same movement group which made the successful contact roll.

 

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 20g2i: CD Bombing Mission and Allocation of Hits

Question:
Are only multiples of two bombing hits are implemented as CD strength point damage, and odd bombing hits resulting from this mission are not being carried over from operation to operation?

Answer:
The basic point is that it takes two hits on the bombing table to apply a “hit” to the CD, and there is nothing specifically saying that the total of bombing hits used to arrive at the number of CD hits is divided, so to speak, by individual air operations.

Therefore the number of CD hits applied due to air bombing is based upon the total number of bombing hits achieved in a player turn. Simply keep a side record of the number of bombing hits achieved in all of the CD bombing missions you fly and apply one CD hit for every multiple of two bombing hits you achieve.

Of course, any “half hits”, that is, any bombing hits not divisible by two, are ignored, once the final tally is arrived at. For example, suppose after 7 air missions (and moving on to a phase wherein they can no longer initiate such missions), the Allies have achieved 5 bombing hits on a particular CD. This would inflict two CD hits on the CD and the remaining bombing hit would have no effect.

Source:
TEM 73

Rule 21: Returning Air units to Base

Question:
Suppose that a plane takes off from an airbase with a CAP mission over it, is patrol attacked and gets an R result. Where can that plane return to? Does it have to go back to the base it started from? Is this true of all R results?

Answer:
The air unit “returns” to any friendly airbase within mission range, with a capacity greater than 0 — just like any other return result. Air units are never required to return to any particular airbase, not even the one they initiated the mission from.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 21: Intercepting Cap over an Airbase

Question:
The Allies are flying a CAP mission to cover an airbase with heavy flak (irrelevant but the reason why this is happening). German fighters are in range to intercept. How is this handled?

Answer:

The CAP mission is a mission, so if the Axis want to intercept it, it is handled as any other interception. In this case, there is no escort for the mission force. The entire mission force consists of the CAP mission air units.

Let us assume that there are 12 Allied air units on CAP and the Axis intercept with six air units. Randomly select six of the CAP air units and pair each one off with a randomly selected interceptor. Since there is no escort, there is no screen to be attacked or bypassed. These six air to air combats are resolved. All of the surviving interceptors are returned to base once the combat is completed and the surviving CAP air units remain in the target hex with the other, unengaged CAP air units.

Note that the CAP air units, whether engaged or not, have not completed their mission yet and so none of them not affected by combat would be returned to base at this time. Let’s assume that the Axis achieved 1× K, 1× A and 1× R in the air to air combat and 3× no effect. Since 12 air units were part of the mission, we would end that interception with nine Allied air units on that CAP mission still over the target hex.

Note that just as a bomber doesn’t lose its mission ability by being intercepted (unless affected by the air to air combat), neither does a CAP air unit; it may defend itself against the interception, and still remain in the hex, and carry out its mission.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 22: Intrinsic AA firing at Port Bombing Mission

Question:
It seems to me that the intrinsic AA of ports cannot fire at air units bombing ships in the port (“all non naval unit AA in the hex”), but the port intrinsic AA may fire at air units bombing any airfields in the hex. Is this correct? Should there be any changes when dealing with Soviet River flotillas?

Answer:
Since the intrinsic AA is not generated by a naval unit, it may certainy fire against air units flying the naval units in port mission. The rules say that all non-naval unit AA may fire, as may the single naval unit with the greatest AA strength. Intrinsic AA is non-naval unit AA, as is the AA strength of any unit with AA or any static AA in the hex. River flotillas are “in general… treated as ground combat units”. So AA from river flotillas would also be considered as non-naval unit AA.

Source:
TEM 73

Rule 22: Is there any standard rule for firing AA against air units making a Harassment mission?

Question:
Is there any standard rule for firing AA against air units making a Harassment mission?

Answer:
Per Rule 20G2d, Harassment is a bombing mission. Per Rule 22B 1, the enemy player may fire AA against air units flying bombing missions. Harassment is not listed in Rule 22B1 as being one of the exceptions to the general rule on firing AA. Therefore, the standard rules apply, and any friendly units, except for naval units, may fire at any enemy air units flying a harassment mission in the hex the friendly units occupy. Advanced rules 43B1 and 43B2 simply modify the standard rules concerning AA fire versus this particular mission.

Source:
TEM 50

 

Rule 22: Firing AA against GS or DAS mission

Question:
When firing AA against air units flying GS or DAS missions, does the AA unit fire only against those air units effectively supporting the attack or against all air units in the hex making GS or DAS mission (even those not considered for combat ratio calculations)?

Answer:
AA fire is resolved against all enemy air units flying GS/DAS missions in the hex. After AA fire is resolved, the owning player may decide which air units will participate in the combat resolution, up to the limits imposed by RE considerations.

Source:
TEM 50

Rule 22: Is intrinsic AA cumulative for individual units?

Question:
Is intrinsic AA cumulative? For example, a 20-10 SS Arm XX would have 3 points (1 pt for unit strength, 1 for SS, 1 for Axis C/M). I say yes, but we want to make sure.

Answer:
No, intrinsic AA for units is not cumulative for the individual unit; if the unit satisfies any of the conditions listed, then it has one point of light AA, period. Intrinsic AA from map features is cumulative, but the rules say this specifically so that is not a problem. Since the rules do not say unit-based intrinsic AA is cumulative, we can assume it is not. Note also that in the example to Rule 22A.3, the British infantry division is listed as having one point of intrinsic AA; note well that this could easily be a 9-8 or stronger British division, but the note ignores that issue. Obviously then, the division is getting its one point of AA by virtue of being an Allied division, the strength of the unit is ignored. Therefore, we can conclude that satisfying one condition grants the unit the AA, but satisfying more than one condition does not increase the AA strength of the unit.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 22: Is a player required to use AA against air units?

Question:
Is a player required to use AA against air units? Rule 22, page 32 states, ” Air units may undergo enemy antiaircraft fire when they fly certain missions. ” The word may seems to imply that AA is optional.

Answer:
See Rule 22B.2, first bullet: “Total the AA strength eligible to fire at the target air unit’. The word eligible here would seem to indicate it is an all or nothing affair; if you choose to not resolve the AA attack then no AA fires, but if you choose to resolve the AA attack then all “eligible” AA must fire. So it would appear that while making the AA attack is optional, who participates in that attack, if made, is not optional.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 22: When is AA fire against DAS resolved?

Question:
When is AA fire against DAS resolved? Rule 20.G.2.cpart 3 says “Each DAS operation follows the standard air sequence, until the mission resolution step is reached. ” That step (#5) occurs after the AA Fire step (#4), so that means that AA fire should be resolved when the mission is flown. However, this is impossible, because at this point no one knows whether the hex will be attacked, much less what the AA strength of the attacking units will be.

Answer:
Resolve AA fire versus GS and DAS during the mission resolution step. Fire AA for individual combats immediately before resolving the individual combat.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 22: Are position AA counters “ground units” for purposes of supply?

Question:
Are position AA counters “ground units” for purposes of supply? In both SF and WitD position AA units are defined as having “neither a printed combat strength nor a unit size… Position AA units function somewhat differently than do regular combat units.” Therefore, are position AA values affected by being out of supply?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 67

 

Rule 22: Are intrinsic AA values affected by being out of supply?

Question:
Are intrinsic AA values affected by being out of supply?

Answer:
Intrinsic map features are not units, therefore they are not affected by supply; intrinsic AA strengths of units are affected by supply, since they are a component of the unit, which is affected by supply.

The supply rules specify that they affect the abilities of units in movement and combat; there is no mention of it affecting the abilities of map features.

Source:
TEM 67

 

Rule 20G2d: When are harassment hits determined? Beginning of the movement phase?

Question:
When are harassment hits determined? Beginning of the movement phase?

Answer:
Determine harassment hits when the mission is resolved during the initial phase.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

 

Rule 23A1: Fighters Jettisoning their Bombs

Question:
You have mentioned that fighters on ground support missions that jettison their bombs when intercepted do not become escorts. Scorched Earth Rule 24A states the fighter is treated as if it were flying an escort mission. Is this a Second Front rule?

Answer:
Yes this is a SF rule, or more correctly a rule that goes along with the other rules associated with the “new” air rules.

It is an important change. Under the new rules, if the owning player uses the fighter as part of the mission force, then it is stuck as part of the mission force. It can get its regular air combat ratings back by discarding its bomb load, but it can not switch from the mission force to the escort screen by doing so.

One look at the Allied OB and the TB ratings of Allied fighters should illustrate why the change was needed and apporpriate. Without it, Allied players would never bother to fly escort, they would always carry a bomb load and only jettison it if they had to — that is simply wrong and not the way tactical air forces operated, for the most part. Interceptors and dedicated escorts did not routinely carry full loads of bombs.

Older games, like SE, use different rules for dividing up combat and for controlling who is and who isn’t in the escort screen. However, to those who want to use the “new” air rules in old games, this is certainly one nuance it is especially important to remember to incorporate.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 23A2: Taking out enemy Fighters

Question:
It seems almost impossible to take out enemy fighters if they don’t want to fight, since even inoperative ones can scramble. This seems too generous; fighters certainly did get caught on the ground from time to time; it is actually easier to overrun them with tanks! Perhaps they should have to make some kind of escape die roll in order to scramble?

Answer:
Inoperative fighters must be able to scramble. Otherwise, players would resort to the ahistorical tactic of waiting for enemy fighters to become inoperative and then immediately flying to bomb their airbases.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 23B: If I would read the SF or FWtBT staging and transfer rules, what would I discover?

Question:
If I would read the SF or FWtBT staging and transfer rules, what would I discover?

Answer:
Per the SF and FWtBT RAW, staging consists of flying one single-leg transfer mission prior to initiating another mission, and per the transfer rules, a single leg of a transfer mission uses three times the air units printed range. So… an air unit may stage to a friendly airbase within three times its printed range and then initiate another mission.

Source:
TEM 50

 

Rule 23B: Staging as a Mission

Question:
Rule 23.B, Staging, states the initiating players units fly a “1-legged transfer mission”. The transfer rules state that transfer missions occur only in the movement and exploitation phase. I assume that this restriction does not apply to staging, otherwise the prohibition against staging of DAS missions would not be necessary. Is this correct?

Answer:
Staging is not a “mission” in itself Staging is a separate concept from transfers and while it operates similarly to the transfer mission, it is not exactly the same. The staging rules detail any restrictions upon this mission and staging may be performed during combat phases.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 23B: Staging Escort Missions

Question:
Staging is not allowed for DAS missions. However, the RAW allows a fighter flying escort for a DAS mission may stage, since escort is a different mission from DAS. Was this intended?

Answer:
Yes. Escorting fighters may stage prior to escorting a DAS mission.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 23C: Transport Units laying Mines

Question:
Rule 20F3 clearly says transports may air transport, but not lay mines. Rule 23C (3rd bullet) says a transport may fly extended range minelaying missions. Which is correct? (Laying mines is a transport mission which only B and HB types can perform, but so why not say ” a bomber may fly extended range minelaying missions”?)

Answer:

In essence, a B or HB laying mines is acting as a transport and thus 23C is technically correct, but I see your point. Note also that the second bullet of 23C covers this situation implicitly, since aerial minelaying is one of “most bombing missions”, in that it is not explicitly stated as a mission wherein air units may not fly extended range, in the specific mission rules. Since the rules do not disallow extended range aerial minelaying missions, it follows that the rules do allow them.

Note also that transports may carry mines at extended range, as a transport mission, so the third bullet of 23C is correct as well.

Source:
TEM 53

 

Rule 23C: Patrol Attack on Transfer Missions

Question:
An air unit is doing a transfer mission using triple range. It is patrol attacked and returned to base. Does it return to base using triple range, or just normal range?

Answer:
Triple range, which means it may well “return” to its desired, destination airbase. It is very difficult to interfere effectively with enemy transfer missions.

Source:
TEM 66

 

Rule 23G: Why are there NA air units if no tactical bombing missions can be flown at night?

Question:
Why are there NA air units if no tactical bombing missions can be flown at night?

Answer:
Obviously, type NA air units can fly transfer missions at night without fear of crash landing! Actually, if we ever allow (some) tactical bombing missions at night, then these air units are already rated and will automatically retrofit. Don’t hold your breath waiting for night tac bombing, however. The case for this having any appreciable effect at Europa scale is rather tenuous. Still, someone someday may marshal enough data to convince me otherwise. [TEM 38/39, Errata1]

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Note:
Modify the success table die roll by +2 for day air units checking for crash landing after flying night air missions. (Source: TEM 59/60)
 

Rule 23G: Cargo Transport Aborted by Night Landing

Question:
What happens to the cargo of a transport aborted when making a night landing at the intended mission hex? Does it end up at the mission hex, mission origination hex, dead pile, or somewhere else?

Answer:
I assume you mean when the air transport is aborted for landing at night? In that case, the cargo is at the airbase where the air transport landed.

Abort results never eliminate cargo. The cargo could not be at the mission origination hex, since the air unit may not return there. Therefore, the cargo is at the destination hex. It is delivered before the roll for crash landing is made.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 23G: Night Landing during Staging Missions

Question:
When making a night transport mission involving staging how many times does a transport roll for night landing? For the staging? For the mission hex? For the landing upon return?

Answer:
It rolls every time it lands at an airbase at night. Staging happens during the mission movement step of an air op, and you have to declare night or day at the START of an air op. If the air op is declared as night, then so is the mission movement step of that air op, which is when staging happens. Since one may not stage during day time if one is flying a night air mission, the air unit would roll for crash landing following its one leg transfer mission, again when it landed at the mission hex, and again when it landed at the airbase chosen during the air return step. cf SF 23.G which states that a day air unit “may crash land whenever it lands at an airbase…” “Whenever” means at any time that it lands at an airbase – and per 23.B a staging air unit lands at the staging airbase, per 20.A.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 23H10: Aborting a Code X Air Unit

Question:
If I understand this rule correctly, then a code X air unit which suffers an “A” result in combat is considered aborted and not eliminated. Is that correct?

Answer:
The unit would suffer a “double abort” (once in combat and once per Rule 23H10), but in SF this still equates to an “abort” and not an “eliminated” as in some other Europa games.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 23I: Capacity of North Africa or Britain Holding Boxes

Question:
Can any number of air operations (with an unlimited number of air units) originate from the same airbase and/or all-land clear terrain hex in the North Africa or Britain holding boxes?

Answer:
Yes. airbase capacity does not affect the number of missions that may be initiated from an airbase. Since the entire off-map box is an unlimited capacity airbase, all air units therein become operative during initial phases; then they may fly missions from any hex that qualifies as being part of the off-map holding box, evenif, say, all units take off and return to the same single hex.

Source:
TEM 71

 

Rule 23I: How many Air units can fly Naval Patrol from a Reference City?

Question:
The issue arose whether an unlimited number of naval patrol units (the Allies have about 30 assigned) can fly from Bizerte, a reference city.

The Allies claim that any number of air units can fly from this airbase, even though it has a capacity of one and naval patrol units are not supposed to stage. They also claim that they can make an unlimited number of contact attempts against the same hex from this airbase, even though only one stack per airbase is allowed to make a contact attemp against the same hex. I gather from your ruling above that Bizerte, by being part of the holding box, does not have to abide by the usual restrictions on staging and airbases with regard to naval patrol missions.

Answer:
This is close, but not completely correct. The off-map holding box is considered an airbase, a single airbase; therefore the Allies may make one contact attempt from that single airbase. The fact that the holding box has an unlimited capacity doesn’t change the fact that is considered a single airbase, and only one naval patrol mission can be flown from any airbase.

So the Allies can make one contact attempt from the holding box, and have that mission, of as many air units as are available, initiate that mission from any valid airbase/hex of the holding box.

To make multiple contact attempts would not be allowed since the naval patrol rules are specific that only one mission can be initiated from any single airbase. The off-map holding box rules plainly state that the holding box is considered an airbase, not a bunch of airbases but a single, discrete airbase, albeit with unlimited capacity.

To allow the Allies to attempt multiple contacts from the holding box, which is considered the air unit’s airbase, goes against the naval patrol bombing limitations on initiating missions from s single airbase. Thet would be in direct contravention of the rules regarding naval patrol missions.

While the Allies do get a bonus from using the holding box, in that the number of air units on the naval patrol mission can be artificially above the normal maximum of 12, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t claim that more than one naval patrol can be initiated from this single airbase.

Source:
TEM 71

 

Rule 23I: Can Air Units leave Garrison Boxes?

Question:
Rule 23I2 states that Allied air units may enter and leave garrison boxes. Rule 37E1 says that the Allied player “must maintain garrisons in certain districts or pay a penalty”. Does this mean that the Allied player can voluntarily exit air units (for instance, the 20 fighters from the Britain garrison) and then later return them to the garrison again? If yes, when is the penalty implemented?

Answer:
Yes, you can choose to have air units leave a garrison. They may do so during a friendly initial phase, simply move the air unit from the garrison box to the associated holding box. This occurs when you do replacement/reinforcement activities. Note that you check required garrisons before replacement and reinforcement activities. So, if you remove one or more air units from a garrison, you will be short that many air units from the garrison at the beginning of your next friendly initial phase. When you check required garrisons, you will be penalized one ARP per air unit missing from the harrison at that time. You will be unable to have any air units enter that garrison before the penalty is assessed, due to the sequence of play.

Source:
TEM 73

 

Rule 23J: May the Allied anti-shipping forces fly transfer missions?

Question:
May the Allied anti-shipping forces fly transfer missions?

Answer:
No, Rule 23J states explicitly that these air units “may only fly naval patrol bombing missions”, and transfer missions are not naval patrol bombing missions. Note that the naval units in port mission is not a naval patrol bombing mission, either.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 24: The Para Invasion ploy

Question:
Why should the Allies ever bother to plan a conventional amphibious landing? Here is what you do: Plan an air drop for one para unit in a coastal hex. If the coastal hex is unoccupied, or only lightly defended at the beginning of your next turn, proceed with the operation. In this way the Allied player can plan a large number of invasions per turn using only one air droppable unit per invasion site and then choose which one to execute after seeing the exact positioning of Axis units.

Answer:
This is how it works. If the Axis leaves important areas underdefended, it pays the price. By the way, it pays to have fort counters in all minor ports, even ungarrisoned ones, just to get the extra -1 DRM on the Parachute Disruption table. It may be useful to point out here that even if the parachute battalion does grab the hex, it only owns the beach there in the following exploitation phase, not immediately. It only owns the port there for purposes of naval transport if the hex is still Allied-owned in the next Allied initial phase.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 24: The Sudden Death ploy

Question:
The Allied player plans an invasion of the Berlin hex containing the German government. This invasion has about 20 percent chance of success each time the Allied player is willing to risk one 1-8 unit (4 VP). Disruption occurs on a die roll of 3 or less if using a glider. AA strength of 7, capture government on a die roll of 3 to 6. If the German government is captured, the Axis surrenders (Rule 38A2).

Answer:
This is incorrect! The Axis surrenders if “The Axis Player owns six or fewer major cities in 1939 Germany; andThe German government has been relocated outside Berlin or captured at any time in the game.” Note theand there, you must fulfill both conditions to force Axis surrender.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 24: The Missing Garrison ploy

Question:
The problem with the Sudden Death ploy is that garrison units cannot appear at a city if an enemy air unit air dropped in the hex has gained onwership of the hex. This ploy can be used in many other ways: the Allied player could drop units on Bucharest, Budapest or Rome attempting to capture the governments of these countries. The Allied player could attempt to take any city, regardless of the size of its garrison.

Answer:
Note, however, that you activate the garrison immediately upon the entry of the first enemy unit in the region. Also, if the air-droppable unit was disrupted, garrison forces could appear in the same hex with them. Note also that the utility of this ploy was based upon the faulty rules interpretation that simply capturing a capital caused a nation to surrender; this is not so. None of the Axis nations that appear in Clash of Titans (nor Second Front for that matter) will surrender due to the loss of their capital unless other conditions have been fulfilled as well. Besides, having one battalion of on-map forces defending your capital is probably not too much to ask of a player, if it is at risk of being captures by such a daring raid.

Source:
TEM 74

 

Rule 24B1: Disrupted Airborne Unit getting Ownership of Air Base

Question:
An Allied airborne unit lands in an unoccupied Axis-owned hex that contains an airbase and becomes disrupted when dropping in the hex. Therefore, the Allied player is unable to use the airbase there. May Axis air units continue to operate from the airbase?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 24B1: Disrupted Airborne Unit getting Ownership of port

Question:
Suppose an air unit drops disrupted into a hex containing a port. May Axis naval units continue to use the port? If so, may Axis naval transports land ground units at the port? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of in-hex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

Answer:
They may use the port there, but ground units may not be disembarked at the port. Rule 6 lists “In general, a unit may not enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit. Exceptions to this are covered in the appropriate rules.” Note that the naval transport rules do not list this as an exception.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

 

 

Rule 24B1: Disrupted Airborne Unit getting Ownership of city

Question:
An Allied airborne unit lands in an unoccupied Axis-owned hex that contains an city and becomes disrupted when dropping in the hex. May Axis reinforcements/replacements appear in the city in the Axis initial phase? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of in-hex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
Errata published at http://www.hmsgrd.com/Files/Europa/Second Front/Second Front.pdf

Rule 24B1: Getting Ownership of hexes by Airdrop

Question:
“An undisrupted airborne units gains immediate ownership of the hex it drops in” Situation: 82nd Airborne is planned to drop on hex A, 101st Airborne is planned to drop on hex B. Hex A has an airfield in it. The 82nd starts dropping its regiments; the first dropped does not disrupt and now owns the airfield. Can the further units of the 82nd be flown in as cargo and not dropped?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 59/60

Rule 24B1: Can airborne units be flown in as cargo right after an airfield was captured?

Question:
Can airborne units be flown in as cargo right after an airfield was captured?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 24B1: Use of captured Air Fields and Cancelling Special Ops

Question:
If an Air Drop Operation is planned targeting an airfield, but the first unit dropped already gains ownership of the airfield, can the successive operations then be cancelled and the remaining units simply be flown in as cargo?

Answer:
Yes.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 24B1: Can a units that has a special OP planned do other moves after having its op cancelled?

Question:
Can a units that has a special OP planned do other moves after having its op cancelled?

 

Answer:
When a special operation is planned for a unit it allows that unit to participate in special operations; it does not interfere with the unit doing something else, per se. Actions by the unit may cancel its ability to participate in the special operation, but it is not limited to only doing that special operation with regards to actions that do not require pre-planning.

So in all your examples, the fact that the 101st Airborne has a special operation planned for it does not interfere with its ability to be moved by air transport to a friendly owned airbase. Of course, its special operation must be cancelled if it can no longer fulfill the requirements for that rule after the air transport to the newly captured airbase, but this cancellation could take place after it had moved to the airbase; perhaps it is now in a ZoC, or perhaps there are no air transports based there (after staging) to provide air transport for the units.

The important concept to remember is that having a special operation planned for a unit is an enhancement of its abilities; it does not deny the unit the ability to perform any other actions normally allowed. Note that units are not prohibited from performing actions that can cancel the special operation; the special operation is simply cancelled if the unit does these things or if it is no longer able to meet the requirements of the rules regarding planning (Rule 24C).

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 24C: Cancelling parts of a Special Operation

Question:
In planning an airborne operation, such as an eight-regiment drop, may various components of a special operation be postponed or canceled without having to scrap the entire operation?

Answer:
A strict reading of the planning rule reveals that each unit is planned separately and thus can be postponed or canceled by itself.

Source:
TEM67

 

Rule 24C: Does an Attack on a LC cancel its ability to participate in a SpecOps?

Question:
When planning Allied airborne and amphibious operations “an operation may not be planned for a unit that is in an enemy ZOC at that time. Once an op is planned for a unit, it must be cancelled if the unit is in an enemy ZOC, attacks, or is attacked at any time between the planning and the execution of the operation” (Rule 24C). Since amphibious planning capacity is based on LCs, not ground units, do attacks on LCs cancel operations? Example: an LC has an operation planned for Apr II 44. It moves to disembark cargo at a friendly beach on Apr I 44 and comes under attack by Axis air units. Does this cancel the planned operation (or does the ground unit have to be attacked to cancel the op)?

Answer:
Per Rule 3, a naval unit is not a unit, so no rules referring to units apply to naval units. Each initial phase, you may plan amphibious landings for as many units as you have LCs, as well as for any or all intrinsically amphibious units. Since an LC is not a unit, the rule you quoted does not refer to an LC. As long as the LC is neither sunk nor damaged, it may participate in the invasion.

Source:
TEM 66

 

Rule 24E: Forming up of Air-Transported Divisions

Question:
If an Allied airborne HQ is air transported to an airbase in its airborne mode, without heavy equipment, may it form its division if all other components are in the hex? Can it provide support to all units in the hex?

Answer:
Yes. A sentence is missing from Rule 24E. The rule is repeated below, with the missing sentence added (it’s the one in italics).

E. Allied Airborne HQs

The HQ of an Allied airborne division has two sides: an airborne HQ side and a parachute HQ side:

  • The airborne HQ can be carried in a regular transport mission, as a 1-RE unit without heavy equipment. It is not air droppable.
  • The parachute HQ can be dropped in an air drop mission, as a 1-RE unit without heavy equipment. This HQ is marked with the self-supported dot, which indicates that it may only provide support to 1 RE of units. It cannot provide support at all if disrupted.

The Allied player may not use a parachute HQ to assemble a broken down airborne division: only the airborne HQ side may he used to reassemble the division.

A player may freely convert the HQ between its parachute and airborne sides during his initial phase, provided the HQ can trace a supply line to a regular source of supply.

Source:
TEM 43/44