The scenario in FoTB "Prelude to Breakout" calls out a "Ground Attack Air Support I" deck. I'm assuming this is supposed to read "Combined Air Support Deck I"? Because my box didn't come with anything called "Ground Attack Air Support I".

Also, am I reading the map right? There's only 2 command point locations, and they're on the opposite side of the board of the German starting position? The Germans won't be getting any command points for some time, which makes the decks of cards pretty much useless. I'm wondering if a command point marker has been omitted from the map?? Just so unusual to see nothing available to one side or the other right off the bat.

I'll check my play test notes and let FFG know and then they can take care of it

BJaffe01

i think there is a typo i sent FFG the info Today March 21st

BJaffe01

i have been looking at this scenario and looks like it would be a fun one to play.

Any chance Bill you could let us know on here what the mistakes are and what is missing. the possible erorrs in the published scenario that i can see

- as above "ground attack air support 1" ( combined air support deck1??)

-no command objectives on the german set up side

- the german command objective 2 on map 32a (is it ment to be a russian one? as there are no russian objectives at all only a blue one)

-8 german half tracks (only 6 with the base game)

please let us know Bill so we can get playing this one, as the published version stands it is unplayable (im not holding my breath for a quick release of errata from FFG)

Aussie_Digger said:

We used the combined air support deck 1 and the map exactly as it's set up in the book. We also used a pair of british halftracks from the DotF expansion to make up for the lack of German half tracks.

Even without German command objectives, you're not going to find this scenario very "fun". There is something very "wrong" about this scenario. Capture one objective within 10 turns. The Germans have just as many squads as the Soviets, they also have the 8 Halftracks and then have 5 pieces of Armor. Add to that, the Germans can use the Balkas to move half way up the map unseen. The Germans can take the bridge in 3 turns easily by just overwhelming the Soviets with their sheer numbers. The Germans have 21 pieces on the board that inflict damage on the Soviets, versus just 10 pieces for the Soviets. And there's very little protection for the Soviets (manmade or otherwise).

Give the scenario a try and see what you get. But what we played (3 times total) and what I've read around here, there's no way the Germans don't win in more than 4 turns unless you're playing it so ultra conservatively that it makes it ridiculous. In fact, it's shouldn't be a problem to win before the Soviets get their first reinforcement in at the end of Turn 3

well maybe there are other things missing from this scenario that we havent picked up on yet that might help it out....who knows (FFG)

I must admit im dissapointed in how many errors and oversights that have been published surely when an expansion is in development for a year everything should be 100% plenty of time to have staff and outsiders to pick up on errors.

I was looking forward to this expansion as i enjoy making my own scenarios (have picked up 2 copies) but it is good to play out the ones that come with the game aswell.

Also Scammer i posted something on the forum at BGG asking your thoughts on Shock and awe and why you thought it was a joke, as I played this one the other night with a friend and it came down to the last round and last roll of the dice.

Aussie_Digger said:

Sorry, haven't gotten over to BGG this week. The office has blocked it off for some ridiculous reason.

I looked back into my notes and Shock and Awe wasn't the joke. It was Meat Grinder. I had started my Meat Grinder notes on my Shock and Awe page and got them confused. Sorry for the confusion. Shock and Awe wasn't bad. Wasn't great, but wasn't bad. At least it seemed balanced. We plowed into Meat Grinder and the wheels fell off the wagon as it were.

Bill now that you have your copy are you able to tell us if there is anything missing / mistakes in the published version of the scenario?

well for sure the half tracks should be only 6. but i haven't looked at anything else just yet.

BJaffe01

Another thing (just illustrating lack of attention to detail) is that the Russians are given German concelament counters.

might be because DotF is only listed as coming with 3 soviet concelment markers (although both my sets came with 4) and the scenario requires 4.

Also id still like to see the points i listed earlier to be addressed, although Bill did comfirm that there are ment to be 6 halftracks not 8.

Also reading Scammer's post about the germans being able to win before soviet reinforcements arrive, I was looking at the Objective of the scenario and if just one word was changed in there the scenario would go out to 10 rounds and allow the upgunned T34's to do some damage:

Objective:

The Germans win if they control at least one victory hex by the end of round 10.

Change the word by to at

Aussie_Digger said:

Without having p0layed the scenario, but assuming that all observations made in this thread are correct, this would indeed seem like a great solution to me! (Or at least help towards solving the issues with this scenario).

Any chance we'll get a FAQ and errata any time soon?????????

Something else i'd like to clear up is under the special rules

* Snow terrain hexes reduce movement by one.

Dose this mean for every hex you move you lose a movement point, so in effect each hex costs an additional movement point? OR dose this mean reduce the units total movement value by 1

Aussie_Digger said:

I'm pretty sure they mean that each unit has one less movement point than it normally would. But you're right, it could certainly be interpreted the other way. It says snow terrain hexES, so yeah, the cost of the hex +1 would certainly also make sense. Then again, if that were what they meant it would have been much easier to put it like that: "For each snow hex entered expend one additional movement point". Man, you've got me doubting it too now! The latter certainly DOES make more SENSE! Now, how about that FAQ and errata????

Has anyone sent any questions directly to FFG????

Haha, i only came across this when i was working on a scenario of my own. I wanted to see what the other winter scenarios did for the snow trait and after reading it closer it came to mind. In my scenario im looking at making all snow hexes +1 movement.

If it is like you say, then maybe all units receive -1 to their movement values, should have been what was written under the scenario notes.

I have sent a few rules clarifications request off to FFG a while ago but I have not heard anything.

If the penalty was per hex than it would say that the MP cost of snow terrain hexes was INCREASED by 1 MP.

I would actually say that movement cost 2 in snow would make a perfect sence. If there is a half a meter of fresh snow, then unless you have skies and or spesific equipment/vehicles for snow, you are not going anywere fast. And road or no road doesnt realy matter much. But when that is said, I dont think thats what they ment.

Regardless, this scenario seems very very unbalanced to me even with the modified victory conditions. 2 tigers and 2 panthers should be able to take care of the AT guns without much cassulties. 3T34 is not going to beat the german armored forces.

well it dose give them more of a chance, and if the starting russian forces can inflict some loses then the 3 T34's will have a chance and remember they will have a firepower of 11 becase of the operations card. But again the other issues need to be fixed with this scenario too

beresford said:

But also if it was ment to take only one point form the units movement value, then it would say reduce units total movemnt value by 1. See the way it is written can be taken either way and there are better ways to write up which ever it is ment to be.

beresford said:

Well, I wouldn't count on that. It's not like the balka rules and the elite formations card are so unambiguously described...Whi knows what they mean...Are there clearer ways to put things? Absolutely! Is FFG renowned for putting things clearly and unambiguously? Absolutely not, I'm afraid...

Grand Stone said:

Well, that would be in CLEAR snow terrain. In woods, hills, marsh etc, it would be the terrain's cost +1, so the way you describe it, would not be correct either. See, it's very important to make things unambiguously clear.

Kingtiger said:

Yes, I agree 100%. But its difficult, and requiers some itterations. Its never going to be unambiguously clear the first time around. In other words, I expect more from a published game than from a quick comment on the forums But sometimes I wonder if they even try...

But anyway, my main point was that, although I like that snow terrain is given the snow-trait which can change according to the scenarios, I think they could have used it more. In some conditions I think that a movement cost : terrain cost +1 would be very fitting. And that would make for a completly different scenario. I'm not sure it this would balance this specific scenario, but it would sure help.

Aussie_Digger said:

If I remember this scenario correctly it says somewhere: mark one of these T34 with the increased firepower varriant. meaning you get 2 regular T34 and one with increased firepower.

yes you are right i did over look that.

Maybe another fix to balance things a bit, make the operations card effect all T34's