Two questions involving the "Special Rules" indicated in the "Crisis At Kasserine" scenario:

1) Do the U.S. half-track tank destoyers still retain their original inherent firepower against enemy infantry targets (range: 5; firepower: 4)? or not ( i.e ., that as a proper tank destroyer they conceivably lose the ability to attack enemy infantry)? (I'm assuming these half-track tank destoyers do retain the same firepower effects against enemy infantry as normal half-tracks)

2) Also, what does this special rule mean: "For attacking purposes only, units may use their longest range, regardless of target type."?

First, does this special rule mean to say that the German "recon" units may be targeted at long range? or not?

Second, is it saying that any given unit type now uses the longest range listed for it against BOTH infantry and vehicle targets ( e.g ., that an attacking infantry/elite infantry/leader unit now has a normal range of "4" against vehicles, scoring successes against vehicles, including tanks, at a range of "4" with "5's" and "6's")?

If this is not what it means, then what is it saying?

rhall60918 said:

For the first one, I agree, it retains its firepower versus infantry. That is also in line with the other AT guns, which also have range 5 and firepower 4 versus infantry.

The second special rule I do not understand myself. No idea what they mean. For now, I'll just ignore it.

rhall60918 said:

To me it sounds like you use the longest of their attacking ranges to attack any unit for example

a panzer IV attack at range 5 and FP 6 on inf and range 8 and FP 10 on vehicles so to me it sounds like you can use its range of 8 to still attack infnatry at normal range but use its vs inf FP

I mean, it sounds like INFANTERI has a range of 4 versus both tanks and infanteri. Which basicly means that ALL infanteri are anti-tank specialist. Which is just plain old stupid, and is an error which makes this scenario completly unplayable as written. Why? why? why? make such a stupid stuipd sentence and ruin a potentially good scenario