Although the Law of Reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an understanding of their own.

This issue "Rules Court" will handle some appeals.

John Astell

Your answer that more than one commando modifier is allowed per attack [IEU 5, p. 14] surprised me, but I agree, that's the way the rule reads. However, the rule itself is probably wrong, as I think the Germans getting a +4 modifier by ganging the Brandenburgers is bad for the game (watch out, Stalingrad! Here come the Brandenburgers - more powerful than a pack of assault engineers) and is bad history, to boot. Looks like there should be a max +1 for surprise attacks per combat.

I felt the 67% failure rate for each commando attempt would in practice limit the modifier, but +4 is indeed possible - and, as you point out, undesirable. Therefore, I retract my previous answer and fully support your ruling that SE 14H2 should limit the surprise attack modifier to + 1. Three options suggest themselves:

1) only one commando unit per attack may attempt the surprise attack;

2) any number of commando units in a given attack may attempt surprise separately (this is announced before rolling for any), but the maximum modifier is still +1 even if two or more commando units are successful, and

3) each "extra" commando unit participating in the surprise attack provides a +1 modifier on the Success Table (i.e., similar to how each extra partisan RE provides a +1 modifier to sabotage operations).

Of these three options, the first is simplest and encourages a wider deployment of commando units, which probably reflects history best. In our recent phone conversation, you expressed the same idea; the more commando units operating in a given area (like a hex), the more conspicuous they would be, and thus more likely to spoil any attempts at surprise; in other words, commando units should be spread out along a front rather than grouped together (indeed, their small unit size suggests this). Therefore, only one commando unit per attack may attempt a surprise attack. Other commando units may participate in the attack as normal, but such units do not increase the chance for surprise nor are they eliminated by an F* result on the Success Table - only the one commando unit actually making the surprise attack is affected by that. An important point for readers to absorb from this discussion is that, when a rules problem exists, the simplest solution is almost always the best.

Jim Broshot

I'd like to start a debate about the Trento Division. I see your "Rules Court" opinion on p. 15 of TEN 5 that it should be rated as a 5-8 Inf XX 102 [as given in the game] rather than as a 5-8 Mot XX 102, and John Astell told me the same thing some time ago. It is my understanding that you and he state that its motor transport was stripped for supply purposes. I have never been able to find any authority for this, except in SPI's Campaign for North Africa (and its status as a 2-3-4 in Afrika Ko= rather than a 3-46). It had the same T/O as Trieste (5-8 Mot XX 101) and surely if things were going well for the Axis it could be remotorized. John Astell told me that its motorized status in GDW's Crusader was probably a mistake. In any event, can you direct me to some source for this information other than a game? (At the very least 2 x 58 Mot XX 101 and 102 should be 3 RE rather than 2 RE.)

My answer came indirectly from John: see "Torch: Errata and Notes, 27 August 1987, Note 1, superscript 1: "Officially a motorized division, Trento was stripped of its motor transport upon arrival in Africa and did not regain it." I believe Frank Chadwick discovered this information. Perhaps he or another informed reader can point you towards a source documenting the treatment of Trento's transports in Tripolitania.

Regarding the 3 RE vs. 2 RE plea, this is chrome for home bREwers. I assume your suggestion is based on the fact that these two divisions each had a Bersaglieri regiment in addition to two infantry regiments, whereas the normal Italian infantry division hadjust two infantry regiments. The arguments against the 3 RE size are:

1) it requires a special rule,
2) the Axis infantry replacement rate presumably reflects the 2 RE view,
3) these two divisions could no longer use minor (2 RE) ports like Derna (which in this case makes them as odd, if not odder, than the 3 RE British 4th Mixed Division [11-9-6],
4) it weakens the effectiveness of these divisions in AEC, A TEC, and combat engineer calculations (though it strengthens their ability to support artillery REs),
5) it requires more Axis supply step fractions to nourish these divisions in combat,
6) it gives the Allied player an extra victory point each time one of these divisions is destroyed, and
7) it raises the question of whether the Italian armored divisions should be 3 RE instead of 2 RE, thus posing even more problems.

These arguments indicate that, for game's sake, it is better to let sleeping divs lie (about their REs). Certainly no sane Axis player would willfully adopt the 3 RE view in competitive play without first extracting some compensation from the Allied player - like allowing the Trento Division to be motorized.

A. E Goodwin

You sure dropped a bombshell in TEN 5. Your ruling in that issue's "Rules Court" that construction units may regauge railways by spending resource points (via the mechanics of SE rule 38C2) has very serious implications. Under the wording of that rule it would then be legal for a player to stretch ten or twelve construction units out along a rail line and regauge the entire stretch in one turn providing he had the necessary RPs. This ploy essentially solves all the German supply problems during the initial invasion period. Care to reconsider your stand on this one?

Thanks! Arthur. I should have known you Guderians would take a map if I surrendered a hex. Rule 38C2 logically implies that if construction units can upgrade roads to railroads, they can also regauge railroads. John affirmed my interpretation at the time, but he has since re-laid the rule entirely. See John's article on the subject elsewhere in this issue.

Gary Stagliano

I read with interest your official ruling on the air sequence of play [TEN 5, p. 14], and I strongly object to Step 4. Declaring all attacks before the flak fires is not stated or implied anywhere in the rules. Surely, given the two week scale of the game turn, units would not continue to bomb destroyed targets.

I've clarified the Air Phase Sequence (5E Rule 16C) as follows:

During Step 1, the phasing player announces the genera mission of each air unit (and whether it is a day or night mission) at the moment the air unit takes off The general missions are Escort (20C), Transfer (20D), Transport (20E), and Bombing (20F). Note that the phasing player does not have to decide or announce the specific type of bombing mission at this time.

During Step 2, the nonphasing player launches air units on Interception (20A) and Scramble (20B) missions.

During Step 3, AIr Combat Resolution, the phasing player either abandons air operations in an intercepted hex or accepts air combat (21). Fighters flying bomber missions may switch to escort per Rule 24A.

During Step 4, Mission Resolution, the phasing player decides and announces the exact target of each bombing unit prior to all AA fire in the hex. After all AA fire in the hex, the phasing player resolves his missions. Per Rule 20F, surviving air units bombing the same target may attack individually or combine their strengths.

I derived the clarification of Step 1 from the way the Patrol Attacks rule (19) interacts with Fighters on Bombing Missions (24A) and Night Alr Operations (24F), and also from the way interception range (20A) affects Transfers (20D). In other words, the non-phasing player needs to know certain information at the moment of take-off J . n order for these rules to work. My clarification simply states what that information has to be.

Similarly, my clarification of Step 4 does not challenge or alter any rules, but is made necessary by them - and it is the simplest interpretation possible. Rule 22B, Antiaircraft Resolution, requires AA to fire during Step 4 "before air units perform their missions." Does this mean before each air unit or before B11 air units in the hex perform their missions? I believe it is the latter. That same rule (22B) specifies that AA may not fire during Step 4 at air units flying defensive support missions in the hex (this situation would occur if the phasing player flew defensive support to a hex he hoped to advance into); likewise, that rule specifies which AA in a hex may fire at air units bombing naval units (case b of the second paragraph). These special cases imply - indeed require - that the non-phasing player must be told the exact mission of the air units before AA fire.

Furthermore, as Bill Stone noted in TEN # 5 "EXchange" Rule 20F2a (bombing Air Units on the ground) stipulates that "At each airbase the phasing player must specify the target of his bombing air units before resolving any bombing attacks there." And Rule 20F2h (bombing Naval Units) says, "The phasing player must specify the targets of his bombing air units before resolving any bombing attacks when two or more naval units are present in the target hex. Thus the phasing player must not only announce the exact mission (port, factory, replacement city, rail yard, oilfield, air unit, airbase, ground support, defensive support, harassment, rail line, naval unit, or bridge), but the exact target within that mission (when two or more targets are present) before AA fire. In fact, the wording of 20F2a and h above refutes your statement that "units would not continue to bomb destroyed targets."

For example, if two air units bomb a naval unit separately, and the first bombing attack sinks it, then the second bombing attack would be aimed at a "destroyed" target. It may appear that the second air unit has bombed a sunken ship, but actually it has bombed a sinking ship (after all, the ship fired AA at both air units). The obvious intent of the rule is to force the phasing player to commit his air units prior to leaming any AA or bombing results. It would make no sense to have the phasing player announce his bombing attacks on air units and naval units prior to AA fire without also announcing his other bombing attacks. Therefore, given that AA fires "before air units perform their missions," and given that the nonphasing player must be told the exact missions of an air unit to determine which, if any, AA may fire at it, and given that the phasing player in some cases "must specify the targets of his bombing air units before resolving any bombing attacks," it logically follows that during Step 4 the phasing player must announce the exact target of his bombing air units prior to all AA fire in the hex.

This is the simplest clarification possible; it supports all the existing rules without need for exceptions or special cases. If it causes the phasing player to nervously sweat a little more when making his bombing decisions, so much the better: the thrill of wargaming comes from sweating and worrying over uncertainties, not from banking on sure things.