Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Europe Engulfed» Forums » Rules

Subject: 5.5, 6.85 and 6.86 Airborne rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Drummond McCunn
United States
Granite Bay
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
5.5 last sentence states that airborne that do not capture a fortress are eliminated.

6.86 states that airborne that do not capture Malta by final supply determination are eliminated.

6.85 state that attacking units must be withdrawn that do not capture a fortress by final supply subject to 5.5.

So, the question is timing of the destruction of airborne in a fortress which is not Malta.

From inference, I would think that the 6.86 final supply determination timing is the point where airborne are destroyed as other attacking units are required to be withdrawn.

However, 5.5 has a sentence before the airborne capture or die rule that refers to the use of an SA to airdrop the airborne. Arguably, the airborne must succeed in their airdrop or die before subsequent SAs can be spent for further rounds of assault. However, this would stand in conflict with 6.86 where the airborne last to the end of the turn.

I think preferably, the 5.5 last sentence should be in 6.85 which refers to combat and that the wording should match the wording of 6.86 for consistency by referring to the final supply determination phase.

To summarize, airborne have the entire turn to take an air-assaulted fortress and die during the mandatory withdrawal of a failed attack. (ie. They cannot survive the mandatory withdrawal).

Rick, can we get a ruling? Are we missing some other relevant rule that clarifies this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Young
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Airborne have the entire turn to try and clear the fortress, if it'snot cleared by the end of the turn, they die (assuming they were airdropped in and didn't walk in).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drummond McCunn
United States
Granite Bay
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
As always,

thanks for the game and the clarification.

Do you think you will survive Chris and I trying AE?

Need another playtester pair?

macdrum
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Young
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That would be up to the developer, John Foley.

You can ask him via e-mail:

johnfoley79@optonline.net
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drummond McCunn
United States
Granite Bay
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Oh, I thought the same folks from EE did Asia Engulfed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Young
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jesse & I designed and continue to tweak AE based on playtesting reports.

John Foley was assigned by GMT games to be in charge of playtesting and development.

Unless a game comes to them that they feel extremely confident that it is truly finished, GMT always assigns a developer. He is able to examine the game with an unbiased eye and point out potential problems to the designers, whi for some reason, GMT assumes have bias ;-). Playtesters report to him so that, again, he can review the playtest reports without bias and suggest further possible problems to the design team.

Often possible problems stem from a forgotten or misread rule, which prompts me to make the rule more plain and/or include an example.

It's all good!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.