First this from Charles Meyer: "I hate to be the one to give you a bapbsin of fire, but I disagree with your 12-10 panzer and 2-1-10 assault gun battalion forced to retreat through zones example in TEN #9. The rules state that units retreat, not stacks. To further substantiate my belief I refer to rule 14. H. 1 paragraph 3. I acknowledge that this is a special rule for commandos, but it is the only example given of how units retreat. This is a game-maker or game-breaker."

As I've said before, there are an awful lot of folks out there confused about proper play of Europa games. I myself once thought as Chades did until John Astell straightened me out. In fact, this question was taken from my own personal Q&A file specifically because I suspected there were some who misunderstood the way retreats work. My answer was reconfirmed with John before publication and is the correct Europa interpretation. Charles is right when he says that 'units retreat, not stacks.' Out the key is that the units all retreat simultaneously. The exception is the special case covered in Rule 14.H.1, paragraph 3, which should not to be applied to regular retreat mechanics.

An important point: All *Rules Court" articles are reviewed by John Astell. This should provide a larger degree of confidence than if the rulings appearing in this column were solely my own judgments. This is not to say that all rulings which appear here are 100% cast in stone or will not be reexamined if necessary. In fact, there are several past rulings under appeal review even now. And the "rail upgrade by construction engineer" judgment in TEN #5 is a prime example where after further review a ruling was overturned. But by letting John review answers prior to publication, such should be kept to a minimum. And in the above case, "the play stands."

Another item to note: John Astell clarifies elsewhere in this issue exactly what constitutes "official Europa." This supercedes anything I might have said or implied in the past. Be sure to read it!

Now on to some judicial philosophy. In my capacity as Rules Magistrate there is one important service I can provide to the Europa player community. This service is to generate as much consistency as possible when interpreting the exisfing rules. In order to do this I must establish concrete guidelines for answering certain groups of questions.

Rather than just answering a specific queston, I should address the problem which generated the question from the perspective of the entire system, if at all possible. Proper execution in this regard will not create new rules, but rather will fill in with mortar any cracks that might exist in the current rules set. An example or two will demonstrate what I mean:

A reader might ask the SE question, "Does a truck unit count in the calculation of AEC/ ATEC?" Now I could just say "No" and go on to the next question. But what prompted this question in the first place? It must be the special characteristics of trucks as outlined in rule 14I that are confusing the player. Trucks do not count against stacking (implying 0 REs), but are 3 REs in size for transportation purposes. Which characteristic applies when trying to follow the covenants of Rule 10C? A proper answer should expand on this specific case to include units other than trucks which are treated similarly.

A more usefull answer would be, "No, units which do not have a stacking value are not included in AEC/ATEC calculations." This answer not only responds to the specific question at hand, but gives players a firm guideline to apply to similar cases which arise, such as, "Do position AA units count in AEC/ATEC calculations?"

Having laid this foundation, one can then build on it further by applying this same logic to other combat calculations involving REs, for instance, winterization. Again, "Units which do not have a stacking value are not included in winterization calculations." And so on.

Here's another case: the rules do not say so explicitly, but they strongly imply that combat occurs within the hex occupied by the defender. Just to cite two examples to support this theory, (1) the battle is affected by the terrain type contained in the defender's hex (Rule 9H), and (2) "the stacking limit of a hex is also the limit on the number of units that may attack that hex from an adjacent hex." (Rule 813). Now add to this the second sentence of Rule 9 which states '...no unit may attack into or across terrain prohibited to that unit.' The marriage of these two concepts leads one to draw the following cowusion: "A unit may only attack a hex into which it may move." This seems perfectly logical; if combat occurs within the defenders hex, the attackers would have to "move into" that hex in order to initiate a battle in the first place.

However, one does not have to look far to find exceptions to this "truism". Consider, for instance, a river flotilla (RF) unit. Reading the combat example in Rule 28E, fifth paragraph, one finds a clear exception to my nice little theory. Here, a RF and a 4-6 rifle division in 4A:2204 attack an Axis unit in 4A:2205. The example says, "If the attack succeeds, the division, but not the RF could advance after combat." The reason the RF can not advance is that 4A:2205 is a hex into which it is not allowed to move. But yet it may attack this hex. Faced with this inconsistency in my theory, should I throw it out the door?

NO! I should look at all the exceptions to see if there is a rationale for the inconsistencies. And most importantly, I should make rulings so as to limit these excepbons to those cases explicitly stated in the rules.

Are there other exceptions? Yes, there is the case of naval gunfire support, where a ship fires into inland hexes which it may not enter, and there is the case of RR artillery units, which may fire into a hex which does not contain a rail line, and therefore is terrain prohibited to them. The rules specifically allow this and so these specific excepbons are okay. Is there a trend here? The RFs, ships, and RR artillery are all units which deliver long-range artillery fire (although the RFs are somewhat gray in this regard). However, there clearly is logic here, after all. These units' firepower can be delivered into the defender's hex without the units themselves needing to be physically present.

In other cases, I should dig in my heels and hold to the concept outlined above, namely, that a unit may not attack a hex into which it may not move. Consistent application of this interpretation should be applied and reinforced. Can a Rumanian unit in the C weather zone attack an adjacent Soviet unit in the B weather zone? Can a partisan unit attack an adjacent position AA unit which is outside its operational area? Can a cavalry unit attack an adjacard enemy unit in the arctic from zone B? Is it allowed to attack Finnish units in Anland while Finland is neutral? The answer to all of these questions is "No" because of where Europa combat occurs. Again, here is a solid concept players may use to resolve many questions which arise without having to write "Rules Court."

On to this issue's Q&A.

Europa Basic Concepts

In an HX or EX situation, if the larger sized force is required to reduce a division to cadre, must this cadre retreat like those of the smaller sized force? If so, who retreats first? (Rule 9C)

Careful reading of the HX and EX results indicates that the instructions for implemenbrig HX and EX results are split into two parts: the first part describes what the side with the lower printed combat strength (or the defender if both sides are equal) must do, while the latter pail describes what the player with the larger size force subsequently must do. Notice that only units in the smaller sized force which are reduced to cadre must retreat. The attacker's cadres not only don't have to retreat, but they may advance, if desired.

I'm still confused about the correct amount of movement points consumed in overruns, in TEN #5, this question was asked: "Does an overrunning unit have to pay the MP oost for leaving the ZOC of an enemy unit (in an adjacent hex) even if the overrunning unit does not advance into the overrun hex?" The answer given was, "Yes, it must pay all the MP costs, whether it advances or not." Does this mean an overrunning unit has to pay movement point costs to return from the overrun hex if it decides not to advance? (Rule 13)

No, it would not have to pay MPs to return from the overrun hex if it did not advance into the hex in the first place. Only those MP costs required to enter the hex are paid. An example, to clarify. Suppose in clear weather a 12-10 German Parizer division wishes to overrun an adjacent Soviet unsupported 1-8 motorcycle regiment in a woods hex, behind an unbridged minor river, and that to enter the hex the Panzer division would have to move through the ZOC of a Soviet division. The Panzer XX would spend 6 MPS to perform the overrun: 2 MPS for the woods, 2 MPs for moving through ZOC, 1 MP for the minor river hexside, and 1 MP for the 12-1 overrun. He would then decide whether to advance into the hex or not. Regardless of the decision to advance, the unit would only pay 6 MPs total for the overrun and still have 4 MPs left with which to move from whichever hex it then occupied.

Scorched Earth

Do position AA or truck units affect AEC/ATEC calculations? (Rule 10C)

No, units which do not have a slacking value are not included in AEC/ATEC calculations. The same is true for winterization, engineer, and other combat calculations involving REs.

May position AA and truck units advance after combat? (Rule 9F2)

Yes, if specifically included in the attack. (Note that this might subject them to retreat or even loss.)

When using the random Finnish War Aims rule, suppose a two is drawn, which causes Finland to remain neutral. If the Russians later invade Finland or violate Finnish air space, what does lhe war level escalate to? (Rule 39C)

Violation of neutral air space or invasion of a neutral country with ground forces is not allowed by either side within the framework of SE See Rule 31B.

Do the restrictions placed on units using admin. movement apply only to the admin. movement part of a unit's movement, or to all movement it does that turn if it does any admin. movernerd? For example, suppose a unit moves through three friendly-owned hexes using admin. movement; could it then switch to regular movement and begin moving through enemy-owned hexes using regular movement rate in the same turn? (Rule 6B)

This is not allowed per the SE rules as written. Note that a c/m unit can move admin. in the movement phase and then enter enemy-owned hexes, perform overruns, etc., during the exploitation phase. Be advised that a revision to the admin. rule is being tested in Second Front to allow something akin to what you cite above.

When the engineering rules require a unit to be "in supply" to build a fort, a permanent airfield, or to regauge a rail line, may the building unit draw supply from either trucks or supply points, or must it come from a regular source of supply? (Rule 14A1)

Either case would suffice; if only regular supply mere required, the rules would have stated this.

When the Axis regains control of Bessarabia, do the airbases of the region gain intrinsic AA as described in Rule 22A1?

Rule 32A2 specifies Bessarabia becomes part of Rumania for all game cases, so the answer is yes.

When an NKVD political unit is present in a defending stack, on what CRT results is the NKVD unit eliminated? (Rule 14G)

Assuming the attacker has the greater printed strength, the NKVD is eliminated on a result of HX, EX, DR (which per Rule 14G becomes an EX), and DE. Note that on a DH result the NKVD unit may be chosen as part of the defender's losses, but need not be; ie., NKVD political units do not fall under the 'Required Losses' Rule 9J.

May the Soviet player position units in such a way that they may simultaneously serve in both the Turkish and Iranian garrisons? (Rule 31 H)

A Soviet unit may only be counted as part of one gwison. Therefore a total of 45 REs is required to properly garrison/occupy this border region, until released.

May the special replacements generated by isolated Soviet losses which are used to recruit partisan units be accumulated? (Rule 40C2)

No, they must be spent in the following Soviet initial phase, as implied by the fact that fractional brigades are rounded down. This is important for play purposes, as to allow partisans to be accumulated opens the door for a number of abuses and ahistorical uses of the partisan units. (Such as the infamous "Partisan Insurrection/Offensive' - we have to look at this further in a 'Sick Picks' feature.)

Exactly how long does it take for German Eastern troop conditional reinforcements to arrive, four turns or four initial phases? To be specific, assume Kaurias is captured on Jun II 41; does the reinforcement arrive on Sep I 41 (4 turns later) or Aug II 41 (4 initial phases later)? (Axis OB, page 2)

The reinforcement arrives on Sep I 41, four turns later.

May the Soviet 3rd Rifle Brigade in the Baltic MD reserves deploy in either of the two small Baltic islands?

No, the OB dearly indicates that it must be deployed on either Hiiumaa or Saaremaa Island. The names of the other two islands, by the way, areas follows: 1B:1015 = Muhu and 1B0715 = Vormsi.

Our group is having difficulty interpreting the Unit Identification Chart. What is the correct AEC/ATEC rating for German Panzergrenadier units - 'Full, Full, Full' or '1/2, 1/2, Full'?

The text directly to the right of a given unit symbol lists lhe various names used to describe that symbol. For example, the oval 'tread' symbol (first on the list) represents a Tank, Armored, or Panzer unit. The multiple names reflect the fact that various nations used different nomenclature to describe what was basically the same unit type: the Soviets called them Tank units, the Axis Allies, armored, and the Germans, Panzers. The semicolon after the word "Panzer" indicates that the next line of text, 'Parachute-Panzer', applies only to the second symbol on the list, the Parachute-Panzer symbol. Only the German name for this unit type is listed since Germany was the only nation in the game SE to field such a formation.

The first line of text for the third symbol on the chart reads 'Light Tank, Light Armored, and ends with a comma. The comma indicates that the word on the next line, "Reconnaissance", is merely a third name to describe that same symbol. Notice the locafion of the symbol BETWEEN the two lines of text to further denote that all three words apply to the same symbol.

In addition to the symbols and their names, the chart also lists the AEC/ATEC ratings for the vatious unit types. These ratings are based on nationality and in some cases the time frame of the war, and apply to all unit types contained within that section of the chart. For instance, the ratings for German units in the first section - 'Full, Full, Full' - apply to all German units bearing either the Panzer or Parachute-Panzer symbol.

The AECA, AECO, and A TEC ratings for a Panzergrenadier unit are found in the third section of the chart. Since this is a German unit, its ratings would be those listed in the 'All Others row, namely, "1/2, 1/2, Full." Of the units bearing that particular symbol, only Soviet Corps (which the USSR referred to as 'Mechanized) are rated 'Full, Full, Full.'

Clarification

As stated in A.E. Goodwin's "Touring the Europa Seashore' article in TEN #10, when using Rude 39A, a causeway may be captured, demolished, and repaired in the same manner as a bridge across a major river. People who sent this question to GDW previously may have received an incorrect answer.