Last Days of May, errata questions

[plloyd1010]

Scenario (Forty-)Two
    There are no French CYC counters. Should that be a CAV? If it is a CAV, should there be a cavalry leader?
    In the German objectives, shouldn't that read as more French and British steps?

Scenario (Forty-)Four
    Shouldn't the French leaders in the first reinforcement group be cavalry leaders?

[leonard]

I haven’t received the new Fall of France, yet. So, I can only refer to my original version.
Is scenario 42 the Gravelines scenario ? I made an error anyway when assuming there was a French Cyc unit in the countermix. Please replace by a standard INF unit.

Victory Conditions: I don’t have such an objective in my version of Gravelines.

Cavalry leaders : see 6.91 page 16. It helps to cut down the verbiage in the scenarios.

[plloyd1010]

Yes, it at Gravelines. 1st Panzer Div vs. the 272nd Demi-Brigade, 6th Green Howards and 3rd Royal Tank Regiment. There is no regular infantry in the scenario.

One of the German objectives is, "More French than German steps have been eliminated by the end of play..."

Would it be better to ask this on the APL support page?

[leonard]

I know there is no French regular infantry in the scenario but replacing the Cyc unit by an INF unit should be ok.
Regarding the VCs, it’s indeed up to Mike (but I can send out my version if you really want it).

[Blackcloud6]

I know there is no French regular infantry in the scenario but replacing the Cyc unit by an INF unit should be ok.

How about a MTC unit?  It does have more mobility than a CYC unit but it seems you intended the unit to have ore mobility than an INF unit.

[plloyd1010]

How about a MTC unit?  It does have more mobility than a CYC unit but it seems you intended the unit to have ore mobility than an INF unit.

In the FoF mix, that would be a DRG. That firepower is up a column from the other French infantry in that scenario. I'll wait to see what APL has to say about it.

[plloyd1010]

It's pretty much what Philippe said before, but now there is an official statement.
 >Scenario Forty-Two  There are no French CYC counters. Should that be a CAV? If it is a CAV, should there be a cavalry leader?
Use an INF.

>In the German objectives, shouldn't that read as more French and British steps?
It covers both, but unless there's a distinction needed our style has usually been to go with the player ID (French, in this case) rather than spell out multiple nationalities.
 
>Scenario Forty-Four  Shouldn't the French leaders in the first reinforcement group be cavalry leaders?
If you want them to be, per 6.91. This is a change from Third to Fourth Edition. Now the player designates who is a cavalry leader, unless the scenario rules overrule it.

[triangular_cube]

It's pretty much what Philippe said before, but now there is an official statement.
 >Scenario Forty-Two  There are no French CYC counters. Should that be a CAV? If it is a CAV, should there be a cavalry leader?
Use an INF.

>In the German objectives, shouldn't that read as more French and British steps?
It covers both, but unless there's a distinction needed our style has usually been to go with the player ID (French, in this case) rather than spell out multiple nationalities.
 
>Scenario Forty-Four  Shouldn't the French leaders in the first reinforcement group be cavalry leaders?
If you want them to be, per 6.91. This is a change from Third to Fourth Edition. Now the player designates who is a cavalry leader, unless the scenario rules overrule it.

Re: 6.91, its funny that he says that, because the rule was there in third (as 6.9), they just generally ignored it in that era.

[plloyd1010]

The HMG/Wagon portee that appears in scenario 4. Is it a 1-step unit like other portees, or a 2-step unit like the Taczanka?

[plloyd1010]

The HMG/Wagon portee that appears in scenario 4. Is it a 1-step unit like other portees, or a 2-step unit like the Taczanka?

Answer from APL: Two, matching the HMG unit.