Since there are a lot of questions and problems with the latest expansion, why not start a FAQ/Errata list ourselves? Up until now there hasn't been official answer from up high on these issues, so why not put our collective gaming-obsessed heads together and come up with a few answers ourselves? That way we at least have something to refer new players to ... and it might even get things moving for an official list (copying is easier than writing everything themselves! ).

Remember, please stick to REAL mistakes, typo's, etc ... no discussion about unbalanced scenario's (real or not):

Scenario: Armored Maelstrom

Problem: There are not enough reinforcement-hexes for the Germans. During Round 2 they have to deploy 5 vehicles and have only 2 hexes to deploy them in for a maximum of 4 vehicles. According to the rules, reinforcements must be deployed during the round they are received or they will be lost.

Solution: Add 2 additional reinforcement-hexes in the 2 forest hexes on the edge of map 10A. This map was also used for the initial deployment of division 2 so it seems to be a logical choice. Adding those 2 hexes means the player also has the option of deploying in cover, which might come in handy.

Scenario: Prelude to Breakout

Problem: The Germans have 8 halftracks in their initial setup, but the game only comes with 6.

Solution: According to the scenario-designer, the Germans should only have 6 halftracks. Remove 1 halftrack from both divisions.

Problem: The scenario uses a strategy deck called "Ground Attack Air Support I" (shared), which does not exist.

Solution: Use the "Combined Air Support Deck I".

Question: How does snow terrain effect movement in this scenario?

Answer: It reduces the movement of every unit, not the movement cost of the terrain. This means a squad of regular infantry would have their movement reduced to 3 (instead of their normal movement 4).

Note:

- There have been complaints about balance issues with this scenario because it strongly favours the Germans.

- The allocation of the Command Points also seems to be strange, but there has been (AFAIK) no comment on this yet by the designer.

Scenario: Counterattack at Orel:

Problem: Serious balance issues, strongly favouring the Soviets.

Solution: According to the designer:

- The Soviet units should start off the map and enter during the first Round.

- The scenario was play-tested with AT-Guns being able to setup in a trench-hex and receiving the cover benefit of this as well.

- The German AT-Gun of division 1 (+ crew) should also be able to setup in the entrenchement on the hill on map 31B

Note: These changes are not enough the balance the scenario, for more information and/or possible changes, read the following thread:

- http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=7&efcid=1&efidt=467306

Optional Rule: Munition Specialization Tokens

Problem: The HE-round is listed on page 4 as an anti-vehicle round, but in the reference sheet on the back of the book it has no such restriction.

Solution: According to one of the scenario-designers and several players, this should have been an HE-AT round, which is a dedicated anti-vehicle round. The reference sheet entry should read: "attacks made against vehicles".

Optional: If both players prefer to have a specialized round against infantry, use it as a regular HE round and remove the vehicles-only restriction.

Problem: Due to the excessive drift-rule for the smoke round, the smoke might end up behind the vehicle shooting the round.

Solution: Limit the drift-distance to 1, no need to roll the red die.

Optional: Vehicles with an ammo token must use this token when they attack. Change this to "may use" to give the player more tactical choices.

Problem: Sabotage on combined strategy deck seems weird. Can the german triger their own sabotage? And what is the effect? Are the Russians or the Germans effected.

As to my knowledge, no comments have been given to this question.

Personal solution: if german plays a sabotage card, the german may draw from the combined strategy deck without trigering the effect of the card.

Grand Stone said:

So playing sabotage cards by the Rules As Written (RAW) allows a player to place a sabotage card on a shared strategy deck, trigger the card himself by drawing from the shared deck and resolve the effect on his opponent ... if the text on the sabotage card allows this (some have a very specific text)!

Personally I like this option, I can see why a Soviet player would want to be able to place an instant minefield at his own choosing and not wait for the German player to draw from that deck ... which he might never do. But I can see why putting in the restriction would be a good optional house-rule. Good one!

So ...

Optional: Only the opponent(s) of the player who placed a the sabotage card can trigger the card, when other player(s) draw from that deck the sabotage remains where it is.

So far all the answers seem to make perfect sense to me. If only FFG staff would take the trouble to at least confirm...

Scenario: Tank Fight at Prokhorovka

Problem: The scenario uses a strategy deck called "Ground Attack Air Support I" (shared), which does not exist.

Solution: Use the "Combined Air Support Deck I".

Problem: The scenario uses an operations card called "Elite Tankers", which does not exist.

Solution: Use the "Elite Tank Crew" operations card (base set).

Operations Card: Katyusha / Heavy Mortar / Nebelwerfer support

Problem: It is not made clear if you have to pay 4 command for 1) each attempt to play the support attack, 2) a succesful support attack, 3) just once for an attempted support attack every turn.

Solution: The only things that works roughly similar are the artillery support strategy cards. So the suggested solution is to pay the command cost to activate the operations card and place in in your play area. Once it is in your play area, you can attempt to establish contact once every round. After making a succesful attack, the operation cards returns to the HQ area and can be activated again by paying the command cost.

Note: Another thing to keep in mind is that option 1) would make the card useless, amd option 3) an absolute gamebreaker.

There is still a problem with the HE ammo as it is far more powerfull than the other types of ammo.

Grand Stone said:

Yes, quite a big difference. I think that a better choice would be make them anti-infantry only, but the discussion about it was quite clear ...

On the bright side: it's an optional rule both sides have to agree on and both sides can use it.

Anyway, my vote goes to an anti-infantry HE-round when the put up an official FAQ/Errata list!

Latro said:

I still feel it's intended to be option 3. I don't think it's a game breaker. After all the card is no stronger than a double mortar squad and 4 command is quite a few points that you cannot spend on initiative or other strategy cards.

Anyway, i guess that just means that despite our best efforts, we DO need an OFFICIAL FAQ after all...Only to houserule some things afterwards, but still.

If you mean the Katyusha support then I agree ... but those other two are quite nasty:

- Nebelwerfer gives you Area Attack (5) and Wide Blast Radius (5) ... that's a lot of killing power! (Just compare it to strategy cards for cost and effect!)

- The Heavy Mortar does a Suppressive Area Attack (6) or Area Attack (3) ... and needs no line of sight!

Latro said:

All versions of these cards can make sence, depending on wether the scenario was designed for those rules. I do agree that Nebelwerfer is kind of badass thing which can do a lot of damage, however, if the scenario was designed with the intension to be able to use the card once per turn for free, then its kind of okay.Take fore example the scenario "counterattack at Orel", if the german actually have 'FREE' use of that card once per turn, it would be a far better scenario than it is as written now.

Also, if you ask me, I do think that the no line of sight is strange. Its normaly not that big of a deal, as you normaly would like to strike the targets you can see anyway. However if you can use it to strike down mortar crews hiding behind line of sight, then thats kind of strange. For air power I can understand it, but for artellery???

I just made a comment such that this thread should not be forgotten.

Please, give us updated FAQs.

Latro said:

Are you sure this is not Ground Support deck 1?? could be either deck as the words of both decks are in this

Aussie_Digger said:

Since there is no official answer on this, it's just my best (educated) guess:

- Ground Support 1 is not a shared deck, Combined Air Support 1 is.

- Ground Support 1 is kinda useless in this scenario, Combined Air Support 1 can be very effective.

So my best hunch is that it's supposed to be the Combined Air Support 1 deck, but it's not official.

Latro said:

I played this and used the combine air support deck the other day, as i alos thought this would be the most likely one. althought FFG have been known to stuff a few things up in this expansion

Any deck can be a shared deck as other scenarios do this (such as winter tactics deck)

It shoul;d be the combined air support deck

BJaffe01