Great. All they have to do is rule that for purposes of unloading troops, ‘breaking the stacking limit’ can be checked at the moment of unloading instead of the end of the turn, if the acting player chooses to.

Although, they may have other intentions, like closing the unloading in an overloaded hex to gain an extra hex worth of movement loophole.

Well, that depends on how one interprets the rules.

My call would be that any of the previous ‘if ti breaks the stacking limit’ rules, like dismounting in an adjacent hex, continue to work as before (or at least there is the option to keep them working as before) even if technically now they do not break the stacking limit until the end of the turn.

I guess the question is: Is loading the 88 on a transport at the start of a scenario a desirable behavior or an exploit?

I agree though, that these new stacking rules need a whole lot of clarifications to work right. And since I have yet to see any read advantage to my gaming experience when using them, I am inclined to use the old rules for now.

Regarding the stacking rules.

I don’t think it is about remembering the order of the units. Or if it gets to be about that the player is doing something wrong. I think the only essential difference is that now you can temporarily overstack hexes as long as by the end of the turn the stacking limits are obeyed.

For example imagine two adjacent hexes with 3 infantry (speed 1) units in them. Before it was impossible to ‘exchange’ units between those hexes. Now you can.

Well, yes, but they should have done it with the re-launch of the ‘basic’ set (1939-1945). They re-printed the manual, made a new starter set and changed the map size. It was with the assumption that this new starter set and basic set would be the ‘norm’ for the foreseeable future that I invested in this game.

Beyond that, the completely inadequate official support for this game, the fact that I play mostly online so the actual physical minitures are not being used and some rethinking of my budget priorities already had me re-evaluating A&A Minis as a budgetary concern, so this is just enough to push me in this direction.

As for the game itself, I have not looked at the individual unit changes, but the change of the stacking limits makes this ‘new’ edition significantly different from the previous one.

Heh, I was on the fence of whether I should be buying any more A&A minis or not. Since it seems unlikely WotC will send me replacement cards for all of my cards that are now obsolete, even though I bought them in the last 6 months, I guess that makes the decision easy.

I will add to the complaints…

Still no Gallery or Database for the North Africa set. I am not sure if WotC is abandoning the game… it will sure save me money but I just got into it  :cry:

Here is another one I stumbled upon and on this one even taking the text literally is not too much help.

Superior Camouflage says: “While this unit has cover, enemy units can’t attack this unit at medium or long range.”

Bombardment says: “This unit can’t attack Aircraft. This unit’s attacks ignore cover.”

Can a unit with bombardment (or any other ‘ignores cover’ ability) attack a unit with superior camouflage at medium and long range?

In other words: Is a unit (in covering terrain) considered to still have cover when attacked by an attack that ignores cover?

Very interesting discussion!

I agree that when it comes to WotC games, the rules/abilities text is taken literally over any possible realism and with that said, it is clear that the defense bonus is tied to the attacking unit having the ability not actually using it.

Part of the reason why I posted is that sometimes errata comes out that reverses some of these decisions, makes an exception or outright changes the rule/ability text. It seems there is none at this point.

The Sideskirts ability reads: This unit gets +1/+1 defense against units have the close assault ability.

Does that mean that the +1/+1 defense applies even when a unit that has the close assault ability is not in the same hex (not using the close assaut ability but still -has- it).  :?

This issue came up yestarday during a game…

A Soldier is mounted on a Vehicle with Transport ability. Enemy Soldiers are in the very same hex, but no friendly Soldiers so there is room for the Soldier to dismount into the same hex as the Vehicle carying him.

The question is, does this dismount (or the reverse, if the Solder was in the hex and wanted to mount the Vehicle) give a Defensive Fire opportunity?

The rulebook says:

A unit provokes defensive fire when it moves from one hex adjacent to an enemy unit into another hex adjacent to that same enemy unit. The hex a unit is in counts as adjacent to that unit.

So, assuming my english does not fail me, dismounting on the same hex or mounting a vehicle (same hex by default) does not give a Defensive Fire opportunity.

Of course it is quite probable that when this rule was written, mounting and dismounting Vehicles was not taken into account, hence the wording, so I searched for any errata, FAQ or clarification regarding this. The only reference I was able to found was this:

I realize that Dismounting from a Transport into the same hex as the Transport itself doesn’t trigger Defensive Fire or a Movement Roll of any kind.

… in this thread. It is part of the question and not the answer, but the answer does not contradict it. In fact all subsequent discussion about DF clearly stipulates dismounting in an adjacent hex and not the one the transport is in. So, all my information points to a negative answer, regarding same hex dismounts drawing DF.

Does anyone have additional information, or a different opinion?