Despite the varied tastes and divergent interests of the Europa community, devotees subscribe to Europa periodicals for one basic reason: to enhance their enjoyment and understanding of the series. To this end, one of the most important services of the Literature is to provide instruction on proper play of Europa games. This entails not only furnishing useful advice on strategy and tactics to improve the reader's competitive play, but also defining proper game procedures - in other words, the Europa Literature should serve as an authoritative source of information to clarify and illustrate the existing body of rules.

Publishing errata sheets and "Rules Court" decisions are two prescribed methods of fulfilling this obligation. Likewise, articles such as this issue's "Rails Through the Russias", penned by designer John Astell, serve not only to give a behind-thescenes glimpse at how rules are derived, but also to provide official remedy to rules' problems when needed.

Many times the lessons taught are subtle; they may consist of small clues, quietly tucked away inside the various articles. Or they may take broader form, as in the case of Ben Knight's sage advice that "when a rules problem exists, the simplest solution is almost always the best."

An important part of my job as editor is to insure that these pages illuminate and inform, and to root out that which may mislead. In my new capacity as Europa Rules Doctor (Ben Knight having taken down his shingle) I have an even more direct responsibility for dispensing correct data on Europa games.

Fortunately, I can consult John Astell, Ben Knight, and many other topnotch players for input and advice. And I have myself compiled an extensive body of rules research and Q&A over the last 10 years. However, even after a decade of intense study, I am constantly reminded that there are many of Europa's secrets I have yet to uncover.

When I read an Europa article of any kind I constantly evaluate it for conformity with my own play experience. I scrutinize the author's assertions and ask myself if his opinions conform with my own understanding of the situation. In the process I have learned many things which escaped me when reading through the rules. For instance, I was long under the mistaken impression that in the event of an HX result at 1:2 odds, the attacker would always lose his entire force and the defender would eliminate units so that his total strength loss at least equaled half the total strength loss of his opponent. I construed this from the definition of HX, which refers to "the side with the lower combat strength" and "the weaker side". I inferred that if the attacker could obtain only 1:2 odds, then logically he would always be "the weaker side".

Then along came "How to Break Tobruk" in ETO # 25. In this article, Ben Knight outlines an inspired scheme for cracking the Tobruk fortress by using 31 Guastatori Italian Assault Engineer Battalion, two Italian infantry divisions and nine artillery regiments to attack the garrison at 1:2 (+1) odds. Ben goes on to explain that although many of the attacking artillery units will not be supported, if an HX can be obtained, the defender will have to lose his entire force since the attacking Axis force sports the most PRINTED strength.

Aha! A revelation! I had previously read the WinD clarifications on the subject in ETO # 12, but 1:2 odds were not mentioned at that time. I was thus able to absorb John Astell's answers to Ben's questions in that issue and still not see the light as I was thinking in terms of an attack on Tobruk at 1:1 odds or greater. I understood the utilization of printed strength in paying for losses, but never realized this also determined "the side with the lower combat strength" in HX and EX results.

I am by nature a doubting Thomas, so I immediately ripped off a letter to John Astell asking if "How to Break Tobruk" had interpreted the 1:2 situation correctly. The answer was, of course, yes. I now understand that Ben's correct interpretation is derived from the first paragraph on Losses (Rule 9D). What had confused me was when "combat resolution" ended and "combat losses" started. If the word "PRINTED" had appeared somewhere in the definitions of HX and EX in Rule 9C, the misconception on my part would have been avoided. But no amount of reading the rules or even evaluating specific questions and answers on the subject had sufficed to enlighten me on this rather basic point.

Only through Ben's article was I able to see the proper context which opened my eyes. Furthermore, by being published and subjected to public scrutiny (i.e. withstanding my challenge), Ben's interpretation now stands as Europa Law, just as firmly as any errata clarification or official rules decision.

Another situation along these lines arose recently in a a postal match in which I am taking part. The Soviet team raised several questions about how to properly resolve a complex 7:1 (-6) battle. Most of the points were resolved through examination of A. E. Goodwin's article, "Five to One Abused" from ETO # 28. This article addressed almost verbatim the situation which had arisen in the postal game and since it had withstood the test of fire, it stood as an authoritative discourse on the subject.

The point is this: If a play interpretation appears in an Europa periodical and is not subsequently repudiated in the next issue or two, you can depend on several things: first, an editor who has logged untold Europa hours and been exposed to a wide variety of playing styles and rules interpretations agrees with it; secondly, John Astell, who closely follows the Europa Literature, has probably looked it over and agrees with it; and last but certainly not least, thousands of eagle-eyed and exacting Europists rave turned it inside out and agree with it. At that point, you can take it to the bank.