Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Official FAQ Update - work in progress
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Fri, 03 August 2007 14:16
you are correct. i think it was more of a sloppy answer just trying to repsond to the 2 options given. the correct firing for an Infantry using the Firefight card would be 0, 3, 2. I will make a note of it when I update the FAQ.
      
boersma8
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 182
Registered:
February 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 04 August 2007 09:36
ColtsFan76 wrote on Fri, 03 August 2007 14:16

you are correct. i think it was more of a sloppy answer just trying to repsond to the 2 options given. the correct firing for an Infantry using the Firefight card would be 0, 3, 2. I will make a note of it when I update the FAQ.


That's what I figured, thanks!
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2164
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 09 August 2007 22:28
Has anyone brought up the Artillery Bombard card?

More than 1 opponent I have played has made both attacks from a given arty unit before the first set of roll results were applied. This could make a difference if a retreat flag(s) are rolled in this first set of rolls.

I never had a problem understanding the intent of this card (treating all attacks as separate sets of rolls). But perhaps this card needs to be clarified on the FAQ.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 09 August 2007 22:48
tank commander wrote on Thu, 09 August 2007 15:28

Has anyone brought up the Artillery Bombard card?

More than 1 opponent I have played has made both attacks from a given arty unit before the first set of roll results were applied. This could make a difference if a retreat flag(s) are rolled in this first set of rolls.

I never had a problem understanding the intent of this card (treating all attacks as separate sets of rolls). But perhaps this card needs to be clarified on the FAQ.

Good point. Not only are the attacks completely separate, but one unit is to make both attacks before moving to the next unit.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 13 August 2007 22:28
Armor from town to town: http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=69642
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 27 August 2007 03:53
I've got some rules questions that I haven't seen elsewhere:

1. When you put sandbags on a hex with a bunker, does that give an additional battle dice reduction and protection against flags? Technically, the rules say that sandbags' protections are non-cumulative only for "terrain," and bunkers are listed as an obstacle -- but it seems logical that bunkers should be treated as terrain for this purpose.

2. For purposes of an Artillery Bombard card, is a battleship considered artillery?

3. Under the Japanese rules, in an Overlord scenario, if you roll a die to try to order a piece without playing a card, and you roll a flag, do you have to retreat a unit, or is that flag ignored?

Sam
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1363
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 27 August 2007 05:08
#1... bunkers are obstacles... and a sub set of terrain... thus Sandbags do nothing to help a bunker... unless... it's not your bunker to claim! if you place an infantry unit on an enemy bunker, it is treated as an open hex. sucks for them right? well you can play dig in on them and give them the sand bags. thats really the only way...

#2 Yep... ships fall under arty rules. blast away.

#3 DAMN good question!!! But the die role reflects orders given not combat damage. Miss read orders to move to the wrong location and so on. They ignore the first flag under fire, but that die is not fired at them, and they are selected by the controler not the enemy. So no they can not ignore that flag.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 27 August 2007 05:52
Thanks, M.R.

By the way, my son found another creative use for sandbags on his bunker: As one of the four ordered units, it was allowed to take shots at me on that turn.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 27 August 2007 15:15
sam1812 wrote on Sun, 26 August 2007 22:52

Thanks, M.R.

By the way, my son found another creative use for sandbags on his bunker: As one of the four ordered units, it was allowed to take shots at me on that turn.

Unfortunately, when you play "Dig-in" the only orders you give are putting up the sandbags. Those 4 INF can't move and can't battle. They spend their whole turn digging in.

It's my least favorite card in the game although it does have its uses at the right time.
      
CptJack
Member
Cadet

Posts: 64
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 08 September 2007 18:16
Could someone please tell me if DoW has given definitive answers to the following questions regarding movement using "Behind Enemy Lines"? (If it's there, I missed it.)

1. Does moving from one cave hex to another cave hex equal one hex?

2. Can a unit use an otherwise uncrossable river hex? (i.e., presumedly using assault boats)

Thanks!
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 09 September 2007 05:25
CptJack wrote on Sat, 08 September 2007 11:16

Could someone please tell me if DoW has given definitive answers to the following questions regarding movement using "Behind Enemy Lines"? (If it's there, I missed it.)

1. Does moving from one cave hex to another cave hex equal one hex?

I do not know if this has ever been asked and it is a good question. i think it would be too powerful to move across the board and then still be able to move 2 hexes. I would guess the restriction that moving through caves takes up your entire movement would still be applicable under BEL. I'll include it on my list of questions next go around if someone doesn't answer it by then.

Quote:

2. Can a unit use an otherwise uncrossable river hex? (i.e., presumedly using assault boats)

Thanks!

This is out there already. Impassable terrain always remains impassable - whether you use BEL or are retreating.

[Updated on: Sun, 09 September 2007 05:26]

      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 10 September 2007 14:53
ColtsFan76 wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 05:25


i think it would be too powerful to move across the board and then still be able to move 2 hexes. I would guess the restriction that moving through caves takes up your entire movement would still be applicable under BEL.


I think that Richard Borg and DoW would have mentioned it the rules to the PT expansion if the card needed a new wording (again!)
      
raistlin_majere
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 159
Registered:
January 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 15:30
ColtsFan76 wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 06:25

CptJack wrote on Sat, 08 September 2007 11:16

Could someone please tell me if DoW has given definitive answers to the following questions regarding movement using "Behind Enemy Lines"? (If it's there, I missed it.)

1. Does moving from one cave hex to another cave hex equal one hex?

I do not know if this has ever been asked and it is a good question. i think it would be too powerful to move across the board and then still be able to move 2 hexes. I would guess the restriction that moving through caves takes up your entire movement would still be applicable under BEL. I'll include it on my list of questions next go around if someone doesn't answer it by then.


I think that the Cave rule answers this one and all the three moves are spent. Only Japanese Infantry may use a Cave network to move from any Cave hex it occupies onto any other empty Cave hex as its entire movement for the turn. The unit may still battle. I think that the real question is whether the unit is still able to move the additional three hex move after the shooting and what about possible take ground?
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 16:42
raistlin_majere wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:30

ColtsFan76 wrote on Sun, 09 September 2007 06:25

CptJack wrote on Sat, 08 September 2007 11:16

Could someone please tell me if DoW has given definitive answers to the following questions regarding movement using "Behind Enemy Lines"? (If it's there, I missed it.)

1. Does moving from one cave hex to another cave hex equal one hex?

I do not know if this has ever been asked and it is a good question. i think it would be too powerful to move across the board and then still be able to move 2 hexes. I would guess the restriction that moving through caves takes up your entire movement would still be applicable under BEL. I'll include it on my list of questions next go around if someone doesn't answer it by then.


I think that the Cave rule answers this one and all the three moves are spent. Only Japanese Infantry may use a Cave network to move from any Cave hex it occupies onto any other empty Cave hex as its entire movement for the turn. The unit may still battle. I think that the real question is whether the unit is still able to move the additional three hex move after the shooting and what about possible take ground?

Well that's the question RM. Is the move considered a "terrain restriction" that is ignored by BEL? I don't think so.

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action. The 2nd movement is also independent of the first.

But I tend to think one could use the cave network for the first move (using up all the movement) battle and then move back through the cave network if one wishes.
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 17:32
Quote:

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action.


I don't think you could boil it down to that statement CF, there is terrain that will state 'must stop and may move no further that turn' which does in fact prevent Taking Ground.
      
raistlin_majere
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 159
Registered:
January 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 18:37
ColtsFan76 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 17:42


Well that's the question RM. Is the move considered a "terrain restriction" that is ignored by BEL? I don't think so.

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action. The 2nd movement is also independent of the first.

But I tend to think one could use the cave network for the first move (using up all the movement) battle and then move back through the cave network if one wishes.


Right. I guess I thought this through way too quickly. Actually now I think that the remaining two moves might be legal since only terrain restrictions are ignored but terrain effects are not i.e. the wormhole effect works but moving further is not prevented.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 18:39
Brummbär wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 10:32

Quote:

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action.


I don't think you could boil it down to that statement CF, there is terrain that will state 'must stop and may move no further that turn' which does in fact prevent Taking Ground.

Yes, you are correct. But if I recall correctly, while cave networks take up your entire movement, they do not prevent you from moving further on your turn. I was commenting only on the aspect of caves and BEL - not just BEL in general.

EDIT: Actually, re-reading the rules, I am not entirely sure on that either. It makes the statement that "Only Japanese Infantry may use a Cave network to move from any Cave hex it occupies onto any other empty Cave hex as its entire movement for the turn."

It is not the crystal clear format they have used in the past. (Which is typically "must stop and may not move further on that turn.") But the part I emphasized may restrict taking ground. If so, then you could not take ground after moving - ever - and I have been playing it wrong.

[Updated on: Tue, 11 September 2007 18:43]

      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 18:44
ColtsFan76 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 09:39

Brummbär wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 10:32

Quote:

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action.


I don't think you could boil it down to that statement CF, there is terrain that will state 'must stop and may move no further that turn' which does in fact prevent Taking Ground.

Yes, you are correct. But if I recall correctly, while cave networks take up your entire movement, they do not prevent you from moving further on your turn. I was commenting only on the aspect of caves and BEL - not just BEL in general.



Actually...that becomes a good FAQ...Can a unit which moved via a Cave network still take ground?

While I tend to agree with CF here in that there isn't anything saying it can't take ground...I also couldn't prove it either (and my wife wants proof!).

As for the original argument...I was trying to keep that straight for myself as well. I think this was brought about by another thread on the issue of taking ground and the logic that it wasn't part of the move made sense...but since, I have realised that a lot of terrain that just stops movement completely also applies to the taking of ground...just pointing out that, unfortunately, they aren't always connected (would make it nice and simple if they were).


      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 11 September 2007 18:50
raistlin_majere wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 09:37

ColtsFan76 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 17:42


Well that's the question RM. Is the move considered a "terrain restriction" that is ignored by BEL? I don't think so.

In any case, taking ground is still an acceptable move since it is not a "movement" but a battle action. The 2nd movement is also independent of the first.

But I tend to think one could use the cave network for the first move (using up all the movement) battle and then move back through the cave network if one wishes.


Right. I guess I thought this through way too quickly. Actually now I think that the remaining two moves might be legal since only terrain restrictions are ignored but terrain effects are not i.e. the wormhole effect works but moving further is not prevented.



Another BEL conundrum eh? No surprise! (Should have left the 'Terrain Restrictions apply' on the card and none of this would be applicable).

However, since it is the way it is...I'm not sure you could move through the cave network, battle and move again. Or even move further from the caves?! While the ruling on caves is that it takes the _entire_ move...the card does tend to overrule the terrain restriction. So the unit could, in theory, move through a cave network (assumed 1 hex of it's 3 for the card)...move 2 more hexes...battle...withdraw back to the safety of it's cave...then back through the network!

Wow! Now that's a Behind Enemy Lines!!
      
CptJack
Member
Cadet

Posts: 64
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 13 September 2007 17:59
While using the search function in this forum I came upon Eric's answers to "BEL/Ambush" questions which might not have been included in this thread previously:

http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=20905#msg_20905

Also, out of curiosity, has anyone witnessed the playing of a BEL, followed by an Ambush, followed by a Counter-Attack (maybe even followed by a second Counter-Attack)? If so, how did it affect the outcome of the game?

A new question: If player A's close assault is interrupted by player B's Ambush, and then player B attempts a close assault during his own next turn, can player A, prior to B's close assault, then play a Counter-Attack to simulate the Ambush that B played on the previous turn?


("The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI)

      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 13 September 2007 21:05
Thanks for the link. I am pretty sure I have read that thread but not quite sure it pertains to the "new" issues we are having with BEL. Not sure of the exact switch but the actual wording on the BEL card was changed to reflect Richard's intent.

Regardless, the issue at hand is if the limitation of moving through the cave network a "terrain restriction" and if then BEL ignores it. So it is less a question on what is acceptable with BEL and more a question of how are cave networks supposed to function.

In regards to your BEL->Ambush->CA->CA. I don't think I have yet seen a BEL->Ambush combo. At least not one that knocked the BEL unit back any. I think I have seen Their Finest Hour->CA->CA a couple of times though. That's always fun.

In regards to CA - you can only counter a card that your opponent played on his turn. Ambush is a card your opponent plays on your turn so can never counter-attack an Ambush.
      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1407
Registered:
October 2006
  Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 15 September 2007 05:20
The way that I understand the PT rules, the cave movement is your WHOLE movement. In other words, you may move from ANY cave hex to ANY cave hex and that's it. As far as taking ground, I have always assumed that you could. Taking ground is not movement, but part of combat. At least thats the way I think of it. It's like armor assault, except that you don't get to fire again. But think of it that way. But would you want to move out of the cover of the caves? It might depend on what kind of cover you might be moving in to.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 15 September 2007 08:05
I've got another question:

If I want to order two units to attack the same enemy unit, and my first attacker rolls flags, which happens first -- the retreat or my second attack?

On page 8 of the rules, it appears that the 4 Combat Procedure steps are to be performed for each attacking unit, in sequence. ("Battles are checked and resolved sequentially, one ordered unit at a time.... You must announce and resolve one unit's battle entirely before beginning the next one.") Step 4 says, "Resolve Battle: Roll Battle dice and resolve resulting dice rolls."

But page 10 says, "After all hits have been resolved and casualties removed, retreats are resolved."
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 15 September 2007 08:08
sam1812 wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 01:05

I've got another question:

If I want to order two units to attack the same enemy unit, and my first attacker rolls flags, which happens first -- the retreat or my second attack?

On page 8 of the rules, it appears that the 4 Combat Procedure steps are to be performed for each attacking unit, in sequence. ("Battles are checked and resolved sequentially, one ordered unit at a time.... You must announce and resolve one unit's battle entirely before beginning the next one.") Step 4 says, "Resolve Battle: Roll Battle dice and resolve resulting dice rolls."

But page 10 says, "After all hits have been resolved and casualties removed, retreats are resolved."

The retreat happens first.

The rule you reference on Page 8 is correct. Each unit's battle is resolved entirely before going to the next battle.

Page 10 is also correct - however, it means all hits from that specific battle are resolved first. Then all the flags from that specific battle are resolved. Then you move to the next battle.

So it is possible that your first unit may cause the target to retreat and the target will not be within range for your second attacking unit. That is whay determining battles in the in the most efficient order is crucial.
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sat, 15 September 2007 17:54
50th wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 20:20

The way that I understand the PT rules, the cave movement is your WHOLE movement. In other words, you may move from ANY cave hex to ANY cave hex and that's it.


That's a bit of the catch though...the cave movement is a 'terrain restriction' which is something that is ignored by the card...and the cards tend to override the rules. While I would tend to agree with you, I have fought the logic war before and lost. So I'm not so sure on this one as a result.

50th wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 20:20

As far as taking ground, I have always assumed that you could. Taking ground is not movement, but part of combat.


Assuming can get you into conflict with the rules I've found. While again, I tend to agree with you here you have to be careful not to apply the 'taking ground is not part of movement'. There are plenty of cases where stopping movement does in fact prevent taking ground. So if moving in the cave network takes up the entire movement it could equally apply that it may move no further this turn and therefore taking ground is not applicable.

And that's why we find ourselves in the FAQ thread Smile
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 16 September 2007 04:16
As Brummbar said, we know what the rules say about the concepts we just don't know where Cave Netweorsk fall within the context of the rule. And this is because the language can be taken to read one of two ways.

This is how the movement is worded for movement on cave networks:
Quote:

Only Japanese Infantry may use a Cave network to move from any Cave hex it occupies onto any other empty Cave hex as its entire movement for the turn. The unit may still battle.


The part in question is in bold.

Interpretation #1 is that this means A) it uses up all of the Infantry's normal moves (1 or 2 hexes) and that B) you can't move from anywhere else onto the cave network first, nor can you move to anywhere else once you have used it. I think we can all agree that this is a legit interpretation. But is that all?

Interpretation #2 is that in addition to #1, because of the phrase "for the turn" that it is limiting the movement in the battle phase as well. The problem with this interpretation is that the standard text used to end a unit's move once and for all typically states something like this: "Movement: A unit that enters a Town hex must stop and may move no further on that turn."

There is no question (as it has been answered many times before) that a unit with the above restriction cannot move for any other reason, not even takign ground or armor overrun- both "combat movements."

Something ike railrodss offers this: "Armor and Artillery must stop when moving onto a Railroad Track hex." While they must stop, they do not have to stop for the rest of the turn. they are entitled to taking ground and armor overrun.

The problem is that the "movement restriction" of Cave Networks may only be in reference to Interpretation #1 since it does not have the very specific text associated with #2.

So the concept of not beig able to move is something that is firmly established, it is just a case of whether Cave Networks fall under that concept.

Next issue is if this is considered a "terrain restriction" or a "special terrain movement." Behind Enemy Lines (BEL) ignores terrain restrictions. Terrain that is impassable is also "restricted" but specifically not affected by BEL. This special movement associated with caves may or may not be a terrain restriction.

I have these questions down for the next Q&A I send to DOW. I have been hoping to hold off until the Air Pack rules go up so we can get those questions in as well.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 30 September 2007 12:55
Apologies if this has been dealt with before somewhere but I can't find it: is cavalry considered infantry for all game puposes, e.g. the above card play? I guess yes, but just seeking confirmation.
      
raistlin_majere
Senior Member
Leutnant

User Pages
Posts: 159
Registered:
January 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 01 October 2007 09:48
yangtze wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 13:55

Apologies if this has been dealt with before somewhere but I can't find it: is cavalry considered infantry for all game puposes, e.g. the above card play? I guess yes, but just seeking confirmation.


I don't know about all game purposes. I found the following phrase from the EF p.6 A Cavalry unit is ordered like a regular infantry unit. I guess this statement covers also hitting i.e. cavalry takes hit from infantry symbols and grenades.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2164
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Wed, 10 October 2007 22:45
I think here is one for Operation Grenade.

The special notes on this scenario are confusing. Mentioning boats (which work differently in at least one other scenario) may have been a bad idea. Or at least wording it differently might help.

The way it appears:

Special Rules:The River Roer is a Navigable River by Allied infantry units in boats. Play the river as a Ford (see p. 6)

could have been written:

Special Rules:
The River Roer is a Navigable River by Allied infantry units in boats. They treat the river as a Ford (see p. 6)

This would clearly state that river hexes are impassable to all units but the Allied Inf who may enter it at any time and may also retreat across it.

That is if that is the way it is supposed to be played.





      
chimera
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 6
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 28 October 2007 18:02
Hi, I'm new to the game and I'm having trouble with the following situtation: the friendly armor unit is in a town. It's firing at an enemy unit in an adjacent forest. Does it get both -2 penalty for the town AND -1 penalty for the forest (which renders the attack automatically futile) or only the former?

Another variation on this situation would be an infrantry unit on a hex with wire attacking an enemy unit in a forest with sandbags. If all penalties accumulate, the attack cannot be successful.

Please, help.
      
ANZAC_Trooper
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 126
Registered:
May 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 28 October 2007 18:52
chimera wrote on Sun, 28 October 2007 17:02

Hi, I'm new to the game and I'm having trouble with the following situtation: the friendly armor unit is in a town. It's firing at an enemy unit in an adjacent forest. Does it get both -2 penalty for the town AND -1 penalty for the forest (which renders the attack automatically futile) or only the former?

Another variation on this situation would be an infrantry unit on a hex with wire attacking an enemy unit in a forest with sandbags. If all penalties accumulate, the attack cannot be successful.

Please, help.


First question - Yes, although it is -2 for the forest as well. This has been discussed quite a lot on this forum apparently and the final word is ... Keep Armour Out of Towns Very Happy.

Second question - Penalties accumulate over different hexes but not on a single hex; so your example would be -1 for the wire and -1 and an ignore 1 flag for the forest with sandbags, and not -1 for the wire and -1 plus -1 and an ignore 1 flag for the forest with sandbags.
      
chimera
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 6
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 28 October 2007 19:55
thank you
      
ososnilknarf
Junior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 1
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Sun, 16 December 2007 21:34
Has the issue been brought up here yet concerning whether there is a battle dice reduction when firing from one hill hex to another unconnected hill hex?
I think the consensus is that the 2 unconnected hills are considered "at the same elevation" and therefore are covered in the rules as having no battle reduction.
But it should have a FAQ item as there is room for interpretation there.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 17 December 2007 10:34
I'm pretty sure that's been covered somewhere (just can't think where right now...), and the answer is as you describe.
      
decumanusmaximus
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 17 December 2007 22:24
I'm noticing this FAQ is almost a year in the making! Is there any end in sight ...
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Mon, 17 December 2007 23:15
decumanusmaximus wrote on Mon, 17 December 2007 15:24

I'm noticing this FAQ is almost a year in the making! Is there any end in sight ...

Wow, has a year really passed from August to December? I must have really been out of it!
      
decumanusmaximus
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 18 December 2007 04:34
Quote:

Wow, has a year really passed from August to December? I must have really been out of it!


Wonderfully sarcastic! I was going based on the first posting to this thread which started on Jan 2, 2007. Obviously I'm out of it!
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Tue, 18 December 2007 04:56
decumanusmaximus wrote on Mon, 17 December 2007 21:34

Quote:

Wow, has a year really passed from August to December? I must have really been out of it!


Wonderfully sarcastic! I was going based on the first posting to this thread which started on Jan 2, 2007. Obviously I'm out of it!

D'oh! I guess I should go back to page 1 before I comment. It really has been almost a year! Sorry! All sarcasm aside, I really have been out of it!

Alright, well here's the situation then. A lot of the questions that have come up - both on the old FAQ's and the current list of questions that hadn't been formatted yet - have been answered through the publication of the Air Pack.

So the thought, endorsed by DOW, is that we just start over with an FAQ 2.0 picking up with the new questions from the Air Pack forward and any previously unanswered questions. Because the Air Packs haven't seemed to gotten out to the majority of the public yet, I have delayed working on this any further for the time being. (That and I am way too busy - even almost too busy to play games as much anymore!)

But for those who don't get the Air Pack, the old FAQ will probably remain - just not get updated any more.
      
decumanusmaximus
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 20 December 2007 00:20
Hypothetically, if a person decided to combine all the Memoir '44 FAQs (base and expansion) as well as questions posed in the Memoir '44 forums in a single, complete and reworded "unofficial" FAQ that made some references to and quotes from the official Memoir '44 manuals, could that be made public, at no cost, without infringing on DOW copyright? Rolling Eyes
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3326
Registered:
February 2006
Re:Official FAQ Update - work in progress Thu, 20 December 2007 03:25
Yes. There is no DOW copyright on the FAQ that I know of. However, DOW just announced today a compendium to answer all questions on all cards released under the Air Pack. This will basically eliminate the need for an FAQ - though one will probably be made available for print out eventually.
      
Pages (9): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:Guadalcanal - Struggle for Henderson Airfield - New Campaign!
Next Topic:am trying to recall the name of a scenario
Goto Forum: