OVER THERE E-MAIL ERRATA

OVER THERE E-MAIL ERRATA

Copyright 2005, HMS/GRD Games. All Rights Reserved.Counters

The counters for the British Colonial 1-2-4/2-4 Irr Rifle [XX]s Afr/4LL, Afr/5LL, and Afr/6LL units are missing their unsupported indicators. These units (in both their 1-2-4 and 2-4 incarnations) are unsupported.

Maps

#1) Two minor map questions. in hex 4170, there is a river name given as "SSanga", with two capital "S's". Downstream, it is "Sangha" Is "SSanga" a misprint? #2) You mentioned that the city of Abeche is about 9 hexes by road from Fort Lamy on the Balkan Web map. Looking at the maps that I have, Fort Lamy is connected by road to Massakori on map CS, but doesn't appear to have any other road connection leading off-map.

AEG: #1) No it is not a misprint, the lower section of the river was known as the "Sangha" and the upper section was known as the "SSanga" (or at least that is how it is shown printed on the German WWI map of the area I used as a base for this). #2) Oops! I didn't check the printed maps when I answered you previously. I looked at my old playtest map and forgot that I had deleted the connection between Ft Lamy and Abeche (I deleted the connection when I found out that the "road" was actually a camel track until the late 1920s).

ChartsI cant find the North Pacific Sea Zone on the weather chart?

AEG: The entry on the weather chart of Zone HM that reads Mexico & Caribbean Sea should read Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and that portion of North Pacific on the Mexico Map.

The Aug I 14 British OB lists numerous units that are forming in the Home Army, but the only forming boxes on the British Isles game chart are for Ireland, Training & Replacement, and garrison; there is no Home Army forming box. What does one do with the forming Home Army units?

AEG: Yeah, a forming box is missing from the chart. I will amend the British Isles Game Chart and post the corrected version to the GRD games website shortly.

French OB

French OB lists the Noir/(#) Sen (Col) as 2-3-5 Rifle [X] but counters are printed as 2-3-4. The front of the counters show factors of 3-4-5. (Should we use the counter or OB factors?)AEG: Counter strength of 2-3-4 is correct for these units when they first enter play. Note: The Entente OB French Forces (I) booklet correctly refers to all of these units as 2-3-4s, while the Entente OB Africa OB booklet incorrectly lists them as 2-3-5s. Design Note: In MTV these were shown as 2-3-5 Rifle [X]s which lead to players immediately disbanding them all to get around the Hivernage (Winter Quarters) rule. The change to 4 MPs removed them from the category of disbandable units (since units with 4 MPs or less cannot voluntarily be disbanded), as well as showing that the French did not (until late 1918) quite consider the Senegalese units to be in the same class as the regular infantry.

The French 19 Rifle XX is in the OB in two locations at two different strengths. Once in the GAN and once in the Swiss Bdr Garrison. Any ideas as to where it actually belongs?AEG: The French OB in Over There for Feb I 17 is in error. In Swiss Border Garrison garrison section, the line that states 6x 6-10-5* Rifle XX 13, 17, 19, 43, 152, 170 contains a typo, the unit listed as 19 should be 18 instead. (Note that the 18th XX, not the 19th XX is transferred into the Swiss Border Garrison per conditional reinforcement event #37, and that the 18th XX is not otherwise listed in the Feb I 17 OB.)

The French 18th Rifle XX transfers to the Swiss border garrison per CR, but is not located in the garrison per the at start OB. Meanwhile, the 170th Rifle XX is in the garrison, but doesnt appear to be raised between Feb 16 & Feb 17, and is not part of the CR. Should the at start have the 18th in the garrison, with the 170th not yet in play?AEG: Both the 18th and 170th Rifle XXs should be in the Swiss Border Garrison on Feb I 17. After reviewing the histories of these units and the entries for them listed in the French OB in Over There, however, it appears that two entries regarding these units are not entirely accurate and should be changed as follows:

#1) Under Conditional Reinforcement #37F4 (which historically occurred Jan II 17), the line listed as:

4x 8-11-5* Rifle XX 13, 18, 21, 22 (mtv)

Should instead read:

3x 8-11-5* Rifle XX 13, 21, 22 (mtv)

1x 3-5-5* Rifle Cadre (8-11-5*) 18 (mtv)

1x 2-4-5* Rifle Cadre (6-9-5*) 71R (mtv)

#2) Under Regular Reinforcements for the West (France/West Germany) command for Jan II 17, the conversion entry which reads:

Convert: 1x 8-11-6* Chssr XX 43 (mtv), 2x 8-11-5* Rifle XX 13, 18 (mtv), 1x 6-9-5* Rifle XX 71R

(mtv), and 1x 4-5-5 Fld Art III 59C (mtv) to:

4x 6-10-5* Rifle XX 13, 18, 43, 170

Should instead read:

Convert 1x 8-11-6* Chssr XX 43 (mtv), 1x 8-11-5* Rifle XX 13, 1x 3-5-5* Rifle Cadre (8-11-5*) 18

(mtv), 1x 2-4-5* Rifle Cadre (6-9-5*) 71R (mtv), and 1x 4-5-5 Fld Art III 59C (mtv) to:

4x 6-10-5* Rifle XX 13, 18, 43, 170

As the French Swiss Border Garrison is a conditional reinforcement event, the units involved in the conversion listed above may or may not be in the garrison on the conversion date, thus the conversion does not specify that it takes place in the Swiss Border Garrison. As no specific locale for the conversion is listed, the conversion takes place wherever the units are at. If all of the units involved in the garrison are in the Swiss Border Garrison on Jan II 17 (which they historically were), then all of the resulting new units (including the 170th XX) remain as part of that garrison.

Design Note: The 13th and 18th XXs were 20% understrength, and the 71R XX was 40% understrength when they deployed to the Swiss border and if this is not accounted for the conversion is a very bad deal for the French (original conversion entry had 34 attack and 47 defense factors converting into units worth 24 attack and 40 defense factors; while the revised entry only requires 25 attack and 36 defense factors to be traded in).

French OB: There are two French Colonial Construction [X] with the designation of 2IC. The first, with a strength of 1-2-4, arrives Aug I 16 from Southeast Asia and is withdrawn on Jan I 19. The second, a 0-4, arrives from Southeast Asia on Oct I 17. Is there a printing error on the counters or the OB listing?AEG: No. The OB entries in Over There you refer to cover two entirely different units. The 1-2-4 Cons [X] 2IC, 4IC each represent about six battalions of Tirailleurs Indo-Chinois serving in France (mainly) as construction troops. However they were technically still rifle battalions and occasionally served in the front line as such. (The 1-2-4 Rifle [III] 1C (Salonika) and 3C (West) represent the battalions of this type consistently used only as rifle battalions and not as construction troops.) The 0-4 Cons [X] (and later 0-4 Cons [XX]) 1IC and 2IC represent the tens of thousands of unarmed Indochinese laborers used for general labor tasks (such as building new fortifications behind the front line).

There is also a 0-1-4 2IC Construction [III] listed as merging with the 41Mal/51IC MG III to flip the latter unit to a 4-8-5 MG [X]. Where does this come from?AEG: Per the Over There OB, the 1-2-4 Cons [X] 2IC and 4IC are withdrawn Apr II 18 (4IC) and Jan I 19 (2IC) representing the transfer of the bulk of these units to the motor transport service. However, in both cases only 5,000 of the 6,000 men represented by the 1-2-4 Cons [X] were transferred. Therefore, at the end of this process there were three battalions of these troops remaining in France (one leftover after the withdrawal of each 1-2-4 Cons [X] and another from the training command). It was these three battalions which were scheduled to become MG troops (as shown by the Apr II 19 conversion entry you refer to). However, the OB shortchanges the French player these 3 battalions during the period Jan I 19 to Apr II 19. To fix this modify the French OB as follows:

Jan I 19:

Instead of Withdrawing 1x 1-2-4 Cons [X] 2IC, Flip the 1-2-4 Cons [X] 2IC to its 0-1-4 Cons [III] 2IC side instead.

In the Oct 17 scenario, the Entente has taken back the RC at Lens. The OB makes no mention of resource centers being repaired or destroyed, so should the RC still be inoperative?AEG: The Allied-owned RC at Lens is operational at the start of the Oct I 17 scenario.

French OB: 10EA Static X doesnt appear to transfer along with the rest of French 10th Army in response to the Italian National Emergency, but it is not listed on the starting position OB, nor does it appear to go anywhere according to the main OB. Should it be included with the conditional #38 reinforcements?AEG: No. Although the French 10th Army HQ went to Italy, its rear area security assets for the most part did not, but instead remained in France. However, you are correct in that the 1-2-4* Static X 10EA unit is not listed anywhere on Feb I 18 it should be added to the GAN/GAR reserves for Feb I 18.

French OB: The French BriT Static XX is listed as still being in the Italian Border Garrison, but the OB has this withdrawing Mar I 18. Presume the by-month OB is correct?AEG: Yes. In the French OB listings for both Jul I 18 and Feb I 19 this unit should be deleted from the Italian Border Garrison listings (leaving no units at all in this garrison for those dates).

Id just like to confirm that the Lille Factory was destroyed when the Entente recaptured the city, and that by the beginning of the Feb 19 scenario both the Lens & Douai RCs have been rebuilt.AEG: This is correct. The base assumption for the scenario starting Feb I 19 is that the Germans fight a mobile battle in 1918 that results in their gradual retreat into Belgium. As part of that type of strategy Germany would have undoubtedly made a major effort to destroy the remaining factory complex at Lille and thus the scenario start assumes when the Entente roll for the factory following its capture that it is destroyed. The rebuilding of the coal RCs at Lens and Douai are also assumed to be a matter of priority for the Entente given the historical shortages the French faced in late 1918.

French OB: The 134L/334L Hv Art [X] is withdrawn twice in CR 26-4a. What gives?AEG: In the French OB, under CR 26-4a, under the withdrawal listed for item #19), the reference to 1x 9-12-4 Hv Art [X] 134L/334L should instead read:

1x 9-12-4 Hv Art [X]

132L/332L

Note that the reference to the 134L/334L unit in item #13) is correct.French OB Feb 19 scenario: 2-4-4 MG [III] 10CTr is in Jul 18 scenario, not in Feb 19 scenario?AEG: In the Feb I 19 initial forces section of the French OB, under the Group of Armies of the East (GAE), front line forces section, the entry "6x 2-4-4 MG [III] 11CTr thru 15CTr should instead read:

6x 2-4-4 MG [III] 10CTr thru 15CTr

The French OB, page 42, left column, Sep I 14, Arrive: 3-2-7 Hv Cav X 2Sp (Afr) is listed, as I typed, as unsupported. The 6Jan02 errata fixes the counters game as being (ot), but also notes the units as being self-supported. Should it be unsupported or self-supported?

AEG: Unsupported.

In the French OB, the 7th and 8th 25-4 Hv Art XXs arrive via reorganizations in Jan II 19 and Feb II 19, respectively. They also appear as "Full (Mainland France)" in Apr I 19. Should the reorganizations say "Forming", or is the Apr I 19 entry erroneous?

AEG: The Apr I 19 entry is erroneous; ignore it. (It is a fragment leftover from an earlier draft that I failed to delete).

In Aug 14 there are not enough NTs in Tunisia to ship the 45NA XX to Europe. How to handle?

AEG: From the manner in which your question is phrased, it appears that both transferring command [Africa (Northwest Africa)] and the arrival command [West (France/West Germany)] are under Entente control. If so, per Rule 16A1aa (transfers and arrivals), the transfer and arrival entries for the 45NA XX are ignored - it is up to the Entente player to arrange for the shipment of the 45NA XX to Europe. As there is only one 3-cap NT starting in Northwest Africa, the Entente must obviously move another NT from France to Africa before he can ship the 45NA XX to France (which is what historically occurred). As you point out, however, this is impossible to do in Aug 14 since Rule 37H2 limits movement from the European maps to the non-European maps except on the I turn of each month (and Aug 14 has no I turn since the European portion of the game begins Aug II 14). To fix this, allow movement between the European and non-European maps on the Aug II 14 turn.

In the Entente OB - French Forces (I) booklet under the Feb I 15 initial forces, is the listing under the GPE reserves for 1x 7-5-4 Hv Art III 1L a misprint for 6L? The 6L seems to have vanished, and the 1L has appeared. Also, whatever the ID, I think the unit should be (mtv).

AEG: The unit is correctly labeled as the 1L. Note that the 7-5-4 Hv Art III 6L is listed under the GAC reserves on Feb I 15. You are correct that the 1L is a (mtv) counter.

In the Entente OB - French Forces (I) booklet should both the following listings have the counters shown as "(mtv)"?: #1) page 42, Sep I 14, Full, 1x 7-5-4 Hv Art III 6L. #2) page 43, Nov I 14, Release from Lyon Fortress Garrison, 1x 1-3-2^ Static [XX] 3 AT.

AEG: Yes to both.

British OB

I have been punching out and arranging the British counters for the PBEM MTV game we are starting. Due to age, eyesight or whatever, I cannot find where these MTV British counters appear in the MTV OB or in the OT OB.

1x 3-4-5* Rifle [III] 29Br

1x 4-7-5* Rifle XX 37NA

1x 9-12-5 Rifle XX 54TAEG: None of these units are used in either MTV or OT. They are leftovers from an earlier version of the British OB, that did not get deleted from the manifest the counters were printed from.

The Brit SE & SW Trng [XX] are located in the at start Feb 17 scenario OB twice, in the Great Britain Trng & Repl Garrison and in the Mainland France Trng & Repl Garrison. I believe the Great Britain entry is in error.AEG: The entry listing these two units in the Great Britain Trng & Repl Forces Garrison on Feb I 17 is correct; it is the entry listing these two units in the Mainland France Trng & Repl Forces Garrison which is wrong. Both of these units remain in Britain until Jul I 17 when they transfer to the Mainland France Trng & Repl Forces Garrison (as correctly listed for that date in the Regular Reinforcements section of the British OB). Design Note: Significant British training first moved to France in the late spring of 1916 (May I 16 5-8-5* Trng [XX] Etap shows up in France), and are followed in summer of 1917 by redeployment of large sections of British training command from Britain to France (shown by Jul I 17 transfer to France of 2x 5-8-4* Trng [XX] SE, SW).

British OB Jan I 16 West (British Isles/North Sea): 1x 6-2-2 Hv Siege Art [II] RMA/HBr (RN). Should this be 15A or 15B?AEG: No. 6-2-2 Hv Siege Art [II] RMA/HBr (RN) is correct for OT. In MTV there were 2x 6-2-2 Hv Siege Art [II] RMHBr/15A, RMHBr/15B which in OT (in order to save counter space) were consolidated into a single counter that enters play Jan I 16 as a 6-2-2 Hv Siege Art [II] RMA/HBr (RN) and then Aug II 16 Converts/Flips to 12-4-2 Hv Siege Art [III] RMA/HBr (RN).

British OB Jan II 17 West (France/West Germany): Linked I #2C 1x 4-3-7* Hv Cav XX 1 (Can). Counter shows X, which is correct?AEG: The XX is a typo. The unit is a X as shown correctly on the counter and everyplace else in the OB where the unit is referenced.

British OB: The scrapped section of the Jul I 18 at start OB indicates that the 5d Can Rifle XX was scrapped. I believe this should read 5 Can Rifle; please confirm?AEG: In the British OB listing for Jul I 18, the d in the 5d unit ID is a typo. The unit should be referred to as:

1x 5-8-5* Rifle XX5 (mtv)

(Can)

British OB: The 214 Lt Inf X was released in Apr 18 per the British emergency conditional reinforcement, hence it did not go to Russia. However, it does not show up in the Jul I 18 at start OB. Should it and if so, where?AEG: The British 3-5-6* Lt Rifle X 214 (be) unit should be listed in the Disbanded/Scrapped Feb I Jun II 18 section of the British Jul I 18 OB.

British OB Feb 19 Scenario: The BEF Reserves are listed as being in or adjacent to 0526. This is the same hex as in the Jul 18 scenario, and hence a few hexes from the front. Is this distance intended?AEG: The OB listing for the British Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (France/West Germany) Command should specify that the Reserves deploy within 3 hexes of GW2:0723.

The 6Jan02 errata for the Entente OB-British Forces describes the missing mine barrage upgrade information as happening during the winter 1917-18, but specifies two of the three events as happening in JAN 17. Should these listings be for JAN 18?

AEG: Jan I 18 is the correct date.

Italian OB

The air orders of battle for Italy called for the withdrawal of a Cau G3 on Mar I 17, but the only one received had been withdrawn on Sep 16.AEG: The Sep 16 withdrawal should be ignored, the Mar 17 withdrawal date is correct. Thus, the Italian Cau G3 air unit is received Nov 15 and withdraws Mar 17.

Similar question, this time for the Italian 35C 2-5 Fld Art III. In reserves in Jun 15 scenario, missing from at start in Feb 16 scenario, no apparent OB transfer/delete/etc.AEG: The Italian OB in Over There for Feb I 16 is in error, under the Isonzo Front Reserves, the entry 1x 2-5 Fld Art III 15C (mtv) should read 2x 2-5 Fld Art III 15C, 35C (mtv) instead. The 35C regiment remains in play until Nov II 16 when it is used to help form the new Italian 51st Rifle XX.

Italian OB: 15-18g Mtn Fld Art III, in Trentino Front forces in Feb I 17, missing Oct I 17.

105c/7-12g Hv Art III, ditto.

NT-2, at Taranto or Adriatic holding box in Feb I 17, missing in Oct I 17.

AEG: Italian 3-7 Mtn Fld Art III 15-18g being listed as part of the Feb I 17 initial Italian forces is in error. The unit was removed from play Jul II 16 as part of the formation of the Italian 35th Mtn XX.

An entry regarding the Italian 4-6-5 Hv Art III 105c/7-12g unit is missing from Italian OB. The unit should transfer to the South (Balkans) Jun I 17 (at the same time as the 1-2-5 Rifle [X] 1RGF transfers to Balkans).

The Italian NT-2 naval unit transfers to South (Balkans) Jun I 17.

Im trying to find an Over There counter, but it seems to be lost. The counter is the Italian Bike [X] 1-2G/RBC which is listed in the regular reinforcements of Jan II 16. Is it me or is the counter missing from the game?AEG: This is part of a bigger problem with the Over There Italian OB. That OB refers to both 2x 3-4-7 Bike [X] 1-2/Bg, 3-4/Bg AND 2x 3-4-7 Bike [X] 1-2G/RBC, 1-2G/RBC but in reality there should only be two Italian Bike [X] counters in the game (the 1-2/Bg and 3-4/Bg ones for which there are counters provided in Over There). Going back to my research notes shows that I originally had them labeled as 1-2G/RBC, 3-4G/RBC (as they represent the 1st 4th Grupos of R? (cant read my pencil note here) Bersaglieri Ciclisti that originally were in the Italian cavalry XXs and only later became independent) but then changed the IDs to 1-2/Bg, 3-4Bg when I was told the original IDs would not fit on the counters. It appears I then failed to completely update the Italian OB to reflect the new counter IDs. I then compounded the problem by failing to delete these units from the Aug II 14 setup (I initially had thought them to always be independent of the Cavalry and only later found out they were not independent until 1916). To fix these problems, the Over There Italian OB should be modified as follows:

Aug II 14, Feb I 15, and Jun I 15 initial forces:

Delete the 2x 3-4-7 Bike [X] 1-2/Bg, 3-4/Bg counters (the units they represent are still in the Cav XXs

at this time.

Feb I 16 initial forces:

Change 2x 3-4-7 Bike [X] 1-2/Bg, 3-4Bg to: 1x 3-4-7 Bike [X] 1-2/Bg (the remaining Bike unit will not

go independent of the Cav until Mar/May 16 as listed in the regular reinforcements section).

Regular Reinforcements: Mar II 16, May II 16, and Jun II 18:

The references to the 1-2G/RBC and 3-4G/RBC Bike units under these dates should instead refer to

The 1-2/Bg and 3-4/Bg bike units instead.

Italian OB Initial Forces Feb I 16 Isonzo Front: On or adjacent to Front Line +1-5 Elite Rifle X. OB says 5 but 6 IDs given, which is correct?AEG: The 5x is a typo. The correct listing should be: 6x +1-5 Elite Rifle X Aos, Cun, Pie, Reg, Re, Sas (mtv).

Italian OB Initial Forces Feb I 18 Reserves within 4 hexes Legnago: 2x 8-6-7* Hv Cav XX but 4 IDs given, which is correct?AEG: The 2x is a typo. The correct listing should be: 4x 8-6-7* Hv Cav XX 1Fri, 2Ven, 3Lom, 4Pie

Italian OB Initial Forces Jul I 18 French Forces on Front Line Hex GW2:4313: 2x Rifle XXX HQ but only 1 ID given, which is correct?AEG: The 2x is a typo. The correct listing should be: 1x Rifle XXX HQ 12

Italian OB Initial Forces Jul I 18 Reserves: 1x 0-6 Mot Trnspt [II] but 2 IDs given, which is correct?AEG: The 1x is a typo. The correct listing should be: 2x 0-6 Mot Trnspt [II] 1, 2

French/Italian OBs: Conditional Reinforcement 38) Italian National Emergency: Italian National Will 1st Falls to One +1. French OB booklet lists 1x 12-6 Fld Art [XX] 1Por transferring, but Italian OB booklet lists 1x 12-6 Fld Art [XX] 12Por as arriving, which is correct?AEG: The French OB is correct. The 12-6 Fld Art [XX] 1Por (not 12Por) is the unit that transfers to Italy. (The 12Por unit does not enter play until much later.) This means 12Por needs to be changed to 1Por in 3 places in the Italian OB.

#1) Under Conditional Reinforcement 38a) Italian National Will 1st Falls to One +1 (Nov I 17) when the 1Por (not the 12Por) unit arrives in Italy from France.

#2) Under Conditional Reinforcement 38i) Italian National Will 1st Falls to One +11 (Apr I 18) when the 1Por (not the 12Por) unit transfers from Italy back to France.

#3) Under the Feb I 18 Initial Forces when the 1Por (not the 12Por) unit is assigned to the Reserves within 4 hexes of Legnago (GW2:4515).

Italian OB, Jul 18 scenario: The Ven 3-W Fld Art [III] converts to 7-W on the Jun II turn, but this is not reflected in the at start OB for Jul 18?AEG: Correct. Under the Jul I 18 Italian Initial Forces (Regina Marina section, at Venezia (GW2:4611)), the reference to 1x 3-W Fld Art [III] (AA=1) Ven should instead be a reference to 1x 7-W Fld Art [X] (AA=2) Ven.

Italian OB Feb 19 Scenario: The Puglie X is listed as something that should be deleted from the Jul 18 scenario for the Feb 19 scenario, but it is not listed in the Jul 18 scenario, and does not in fact arrive until Aug 18 when the 17 Rifle XX breaks down/withdraws.AEG: In the OB listings for the Italian Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (Italy/West Germany) Command, Delete from Reserves section, the entry for 1x 2-3-5 Rifle X Puglie (bw) should be ignored entirely.

Italian OB Feb 19 Scenario: The Italian 77 Mtn Inf XX is listed in the at start forces, per the change/add/delete section, yet it does not arrive until Mar II 19 per the regular OB.AEG: In the OB listings for the Italian Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (Italy/West Austria) Command, Add to Front Line Forces section, the entry 2x 11-8* Mtn Inf XX 77, 80 should instead read as follows:

1x 11-8* Mtn Inf XX80

Aug I 14 Italian OOB has: 6x 0-1-6 Ber III 4, 7,10bis/16, 1C/14, 2C/15 (mtv). Should there be 5x or is there a missing ID?AEG: In the Italian OB booklet in Over There, under the Aug II 14 Initial Forces, West (Italy/West Austria) command, Italian forces, Esercito Italiano: Anywhere in Italy section, the entry 6x 0-1-6 Ber III 4, 7, 10bis, 1C/14, 2C/15 (mtv) should instead read:

5x 0-1-6 Ber III4, 7, 10bis, 1C/14, 2C/15 (mtv)

There is still a problem with 3-4Bg. This is created as 1-2-7 [III] 3-4Bg in Mar II 16 by converting Hv Cav XX 2Ven and again as 1-2-7 [III] 3-4Bg in May II 16 by converting Hv Cav XX 1Fri. Should the 2nd conversion change the 1-2-7 [III] 3-4Bg to 3-4-7 [X]?AEG: Regular Reinforcements section of the Italian OB in Over There, under May II 16, the entry listed as:

Reorganize: 1x 6-4-7* Hv Cav XX 1Fri (mtv) (1 Man Pt) to:

1x 1-2-7 Bike [III]3-4G/RBC

1x 4-6-5* Rifle XX1CA (mtv)

should instead read:

Reorganize/Flip: 1x 6-4-7* Hv Cav XX 1Fri (mtv) & 1x 1-2-7 Bike [III] 3-4Bg (1 Man Pt) to:

1x 3-4-7 Bike [X]3-4Bg

1x 4-6-5* Rifle XX1CA (mtv)

What happened to the Italian BB Andrea Doria? She was in MTV, finishing at Spezia on May I 15, but was deleted from the OT OB. Conte de Cavour (Spezia Apr I l5) and Caio Duilio (Castellamare May I 15) made the cut.

AEG: It appears I accidentally deleted it from the OB. It should appear May I 15 - Receive (La Spezia - GW2:4821): 5 Hv Naval Strength Pts (BB-2).Does Italy lose morale points for losses incurred by it before it joins the war? The Sanussi will kill some Italian regulars in 1914 and I don't recall seeing any rule that would make those losses not count, but then I am not absolutely positive.AEG: The rules as written don't say anything specific either way. If you read the morale rules literally they would seem to imply that, yes, the Italians should lose morale pts for their losses to the Sanussi prior to Italian entry into WWI (because the rules make no exception for losses taken by a neutral prior to its entry into the war). However, the Italian OB booklet IMPLIES that the losses taken due to Sanussi attacks in 1914-15 prior to Italian entry into the war are not counted because it lists the same starting Italian morale for both Aug II 14, Feb I 15, and Jun I 15. Looking back at my notes, I think this issue came up once during playtest and we just decided to ignore it -- since, in game terms, it amounts to a difference of 1 morale pt. However, the losses probably should count in the game (the Sanussi revolt being a minor embarrassment to the Italians at the time). So... if you want to track this, I would recommend that you consider: 1) the Italian OB booklet amended to state that the starting Italian morale for Feb I 15 and Jun I 15 to be "149" vice "150", and 2) a clarification added to the rules that even neutral nations lose morale pts due to combat losses while they are neutral (such as losses that Italy or Portugal might take in Africa due to native rebellions or Sanussi attacks prior to their nation's official entrance into the greater European War). Note: Historically the Italians suffered about 10,000 losses to the Sanussi in Libya in 1914-15. In game terms this translates into the loss of the following units: 1x 2-1-7 Hv Cav [X] Libia 1x 2-3-5 Rifle [X] 4Tri 1x 1-2-5 Rifle X AS/RCTCS (Col)And, of course, the 3000 man 2-3-5* Rifle X Lib/RCTCT (Col) unit defected to the Sanussi.The loss of the three Xs means that overall Italy loses 1 morale pt for losing 3 REs of forces. Also note that the Entente Africa OB correctly shows only the 2-1-7 Hv Cav [X] still in the replacement pool in Feb 15. The Italians, in game terms, having used the total of 3 Italian Regular Man Pts and 1.5 Italian Colonial Man Pts that arrive in Libya Sep14-Jan15 (per the Production schedule at the end of the Entente Africa OB booklet) to rebuild the 2-3-5 Rifle X and the 1-2-5 Col Rifle X.

US OB

I did notice one small errata of no real significance whatsoever. Newport News in is Virginia, right next to Norfolk. Newport is in Rhode Island, home of the Naval War College.AEG: Jason is correctWhat the Entente OB American Forces Booklet in Over There should say is that:

#1 The various listings for the Narr (Narragansett Bay) coast artillery unit in the Initial Forces sections of the OB should refer to Newport, Rhode Island instead of to Newport News.

#2 In the regular reinforcements section of the OB (Page 17), the listings under Jul I 16 and Jan I 18 which have naval units appearing at Newport News, Rhode Island should refer instead to Newport News, Virginia.

This error also carried over into the rules. Accordingly, the 2nd bullet to Rule 41BBB7 (American Major Naval Bases and Shipyards) in the Over There Game-Specific Rules Booklet should read as follows:

Shipyards: San Francisco (North California Holding Box), Norfolk (Mid Atlantic USA Holding Box), New York City (North Atlantic USA Holding Box), and Boston (New England Holding Box). Special: New York City counts as two shipyards.

Note that the Norfolk shipyard includes both the naval shipyard at Norfolk and the facilities at Newport News.

US OB: 1-2-6 Lt Rifle/Amphib Lt Rifle III 5 (USMC) is missing.AEG: Yes, it should have been in the counter mix as it is in France from Jun II Oct II 17 before being absorbed in the 4th Marine X (which does have a counter in Over There).

Hv Siege Art [II] 16A/30CABr is listed as 8-2-R in the OB book but the counter is printed as 8-2-5. (Again, should we use the counter or OB factors?)AEG: The OB is correct. This unit should have a movement rating of R (matching the other side of the counter where at regimental strength it is a 16-4-R).

American OB Dominican Republic Garrison: 1x 1-2-6 Amph Lt Rifle III 5 (USMC). Cannot find counter?AEG: No counter is provided for this unit in OT. However, the notation (?) should have followed the unit ID.

American OB Regular Reinforcements Nov II 14: Arrive from Caribbean-Assign to USA Garrison: 1x 3-4-6 Amph Lt Rifle X 2 (USMC). Cannot find counter? Initial forces lists the ID for this unit as 1 X, not 2 X, which is correct?AEG: The 2 in this listing is a typo. The unit referred to here should be 1x 3-4-6 Amph Lt Rifle X 1 (?) (USMC), matching the correct listing for both the Aug II 14 and Feb I 15 scenario setups.

American OB Mobilization M+56 (Aug II 19): Full (USA Garrison)-Transfer to West (France/West Germany): 1x 2-3-4 Repl Cadre (5-8-4) 106 (dr). When arrives in France next turn shows as 1x 5-8-4 106(c). Which is correct, cadre or division?AEG: 2-3-4 Repl Cadre (5-8-4) 106(c) (dr) should arrive in France Sep I 19, not the 5-8-4 Repl XX cited the XX does not miraculously gain strength during the boat trip over!!

American OB Feb 19 Scenario: The 0-2-5 RR Eng [X] 17-19 is listed twice in the anywhere in mainland France part of the OB.AEG: The OB listing for the American Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (France/West Germany) Command GQG Reserves: Anywhere in Mainland France should read:

7x 0-2-5 RR Eng [X]

11-13, 14-16, 17-19, 21+22, 31+32, 35-46b, 47-58b, 59-72b

American OB Feb 19 Scenario: Should Pershing not be available as an at start available leader?AEG: The OB listing for the American Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (France/West Germany) Command is missing the following entry (it should be the first entry listed for the command):

Available Leader:

Pershing(0/0/1)

American OB Feb 19 Scenario: All the 2-3-6 Mtd Rifle [X]s are listed as Mtn Rifle?AEG: The OB listings for the American Feb I 19 starting forces in the West (France/West Germany) Command, Group of American Armies in France: AEF Front Line Forces contains a typo:

The entry:

4x 2-3-6 Mtn Rifle [X]2, 3, 6, 15

Should read instead:

4x 2-3-6 Mtd Rifle [X]2, 3, 6, 15

There appear to be two American OB errata entries (for p33 M+51 and P44 M+55) in which the original entry is the same as the change in the errata. Are these errata spurious or is there a typo in them?

AEG: The errata has the Man/Equ Pt costs reversed. What the errata should say is: Page 33, right column: M+51 (Jun I 19), West (France/West Germany): The note here should read 8 Man Pts & 3 Equ Pts (instead of 9 Man Pts & 2 Equ Pts). Page 34, right column: M+55 (Aug I 19), West (France/West Germany): The note here should read 8 Man Pts & 3 Equ Pts (instead of 10 Man Pts & 11 Equ Pts).I dont understand CR 72e Tension +13 (Oct I 16). Does this mean the six mobilized XXs should flip to cadre and stay in the Mexican Border Garrison? Should six more XXs, at cadre strength, be moved to the Mexican Border Garrison?

AEG: The entry should read:

e) Tension +13 (Oct I 16)

NORTH AMERICA (USA):

American:

Demobilize/Flip to cadre strengthSwitch from Mexico Border Garrison to USA Garrison:

6x rifle XXsNote: This entry covers the historical demobilization and transfer back to their home stations of much of the national guard previously called up after Pancho Villas raid. Note also that the wording of CR #73 (2nd Mexican-American War) means that even if the 6 rifle XXs are demobilized per CR #72e that they will remobilize per CR #73b if/when war occurs.Im confused about the CR #73a War +0. War will start during the CP initial phase. Say the CP rolls for war to start during the CP Nov 16 player turn. The next Entente player turn is in Dec 16. In this case is Dec 16 War +0 or War +1?

AEG: War +0 would be Dec 16, War +1 would be Jan 17.

German OB

Both a fort and an improved fort are listed in hex 1125. Which is correct?AEG: In OT, in the German OB booklet, under Oct I 17 Initial Forces, hex GW2:1125 should contain an improved fort (not a fort).

The Prussian 51st XXX is listed as being is Strasbourg, hex 2417. Strasbourg is not his hex. Is the hex number of the city correct?AEG: The city is correct.

German OB: Mar I 17 and Sep I 17 both have 1x 16-8-5 Foot Art [X] 9+9R assembling from same components. Which is correct?AEG: Both dates are correct. What is missing is the entry when the 9R III (briefly) transfer back East. Missing is:

Jul I 17

Transfer (Rail) to East (East Austria/South Russia):

1x 9-10-5 Foot Art III9R (be)

There is a similar problem re: the 8-10-5 Foot Art III 13, which is listed as arriving from East both on Mar I 17 and Sep I 17 also. Again what is missing:

Jul I 17:

Transfer (Rail) to East (East Austria/South Russia):

1x 8-10-5 Foot Art III13 (mtv)

Note: The Sep I 17 entry that says the 13th regiment arrives from Romania is correct. While in the East, the unit first goes to East Austria/South Russia Jul I 17 and then transfers to Romania Aug I 17, before returning to the West (from Romania) Sep I 17.

German OB, February 18 scenario. The 2MS machinegun [X] is listed twice, once as a machinegun and once as a stoss machinegun. Are these two different units?AEG: 6-8-5 MG [X] 1MS, 2MS, 3MS are entirely different units from 8-10-6 Stoss MG [X] 1MS, 2MS, 3MS.

Jul 18 scenario German OB: In the scenario the German hexes 0421 and 1522 appear to have lost all of their fortifications. In the Feb 18 scenario, both are forts, per the all other hexes on the frontline language. After the peace offensive, the Jul 18 scenario leaves this language out, but does not include either hex in the hex-by-hex breakout of improved forts/forts/entrenchments.AEG: The German setup for the Jul I 18 scenario in OT should indeed include forts in hexes GW2:0421 (Oostende) and GW2:1522.

German OB, Jul 18 scenario: The 5R Prussian 6-10-4 XX is listed in both AGCRPoB & AGGCP. Which should it be?AEG: The Prussian 5R XX should be in Army Group Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria (AGCPRoB) at the start of the Jul I 18 scenario.

The 45R Prussian XX is listed as a 6-10-4 in the Feb 18 scenario, but a 5-9-4 in the Jul 18 scenario. My guess is that one of these is wrong?AEG: The Prussian 45R XX should be a 6-10-4 (not a 5-9-4), per the counter and CR 67b.

The 75R Prussian XX should probably be the Bad/75R Prussian XX in the Jul 18 OB?AEG: There are two instances in the German OB where this unit is mislabeled. In both the Jul I 18 OB (as part of the Army Group German Crown Prince Reserves) and in the Dec I 17 regular reinforcements (arrive (rail) from East (East Germany/West Russia)) the XX listed as 75R should be Bad/75R instead. Taking the above three together, the German Jul I 18 starting forces listing should be amended as follows:

Under Army Group German Crown Prince front line forces, change:

5x 6-10-4 Rifle XX

5R, 18, 22, Bad/28, 203

19x 5-9-4 Rifle XX

1R, 2, 4Er, 6R, Hes/9Lw, 33R, 45R, 75R, 78R, 80R, 82R, 88, 105,

201, 202, 223, 228, 238, Bad/240

to:

5x 6-10-4 Rifle XX

18, 22, Bad/28, 45R, 203

18x 5-9-4 Rifle XX

1R, 2, 4Er, 6R, Hes/9Lw, 33R, Bad/75R, 78R, 80R, 82R, 88, 105,

201, 202, 223, 228, 238, Bad/240

The 8th Bav 25-4 Foot Art is listed as a X in the OB, but Im pretty sure it should be a XX?AEG: The X is a typo. The entry under the Army Group German Crown Prince Reserves should read:

1x 25-4 Foot Art XX8 (Bav)

Feb I 19 German OB: In the High Seas Fleet at start position there is a line that reads 2x 6-2 TF (4 hits) (AA=2) CL-2, CL-2 (dr). Is this really 2 CL-2, each with 4 hits?AEG: The reference in the German OB under Feb I 19, West (British Isles/North Sea) command, High Seas Fleet to 2x 6-2T TF (4 hits) (AA=2) CL-2, CL-2 (dr) (KLM) should read instead:

2x 6-2T TF (4 hits)(AA=2)CL-2, CL-3 (dr)(KLM)

Feb I 19 German OB: In the AGGCP Reserves there is listed 2x 4-6 Sturm [III]s, but only the 7th is listed in the unit names. Which is correct?AEG: The reference in the German OB under Feb I 19, West (France/West Germany) command, Army Group German Crown Prince Reserves to: 2x 4-6 Sturm [III] 7 should instead read:

1x 4-6 Sturm [III]7

Feb I 19 German OB: The 13+65 Wurttemberg 3-5 Fld Art III is listed both in the AGCPRoB Reserves and in AGDAoW. Which should it be?AEG: The reference in the German OB under Feb I 19, West (France/West Germany) command, Army Group Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria Reserves to 1x 3-5 Fld Art III 13+65 (Wur) is erroneous and should be ignored. The reference to this unit in the Army Group Duke Albert of Wurttemberg section is correct.

German OB: DD-1 disappears from the Baltic Fleet sometime between the Feb 18 scenario and the Jul 18 scenario, but there is no mention of it taking hits or sinking. What happened to it?AEG: There is an entry missing from the regular reinforcements section of the German OB concerning the DD-1 unit. It should read as follows:

Jun I 18

West (British Isles/North Sea):

German:

Withdraw (Baltic Fleet):

1x 1-4T (1 hit)AA=1DD-1 (be)(KLM)

Designers Note: Remaining older DDs withdrawn from active service spring-summer of 18. Most converted to minesweeping duties and folded (in game terms) into Mw-4 naval unit that also appears this turn.

Why is the A/H unit 30Ms-A Hv Siege Art [II] (6-2-4) listed in the German reinforcement sections? I can not find any exceptions to 11E (National Restrictions of Supply) to let it operate more than 6 hexes from a A/H supply source. 15E2 will allow 15 RE of A/H units to cooperate with Germans for supply purposes. But the way 11E is worded, cooperation has no effect unless dealing with a minor power. Only allow minor powers to use that rule to draw supplies from a major power. 3B4 (Powers defines A/H as a major power. So it cannot use cooperation to use German supplies.

AEG: The A/H Hv Siege Art unit is in the German OB as it represents the heavy siege guns Austria-Hungary loaned to Germany in the fall of 1914 for use in France/Belgium. There a number of ways this unit can be in supply in the West. #1) It can trace general supply to a German Regular General Supply Source (including via a German Army HQs). Rule 15E2 (Cooperation, Supply Effects) specifies that cooperation affects supply as described in Rule 11E; however, the rule then lists two "special" conditions that override that rule. The second of these conditions says that "Up to 15 REs of units from each great/major power (Rule 3B4) may cooperate with each other great/major power on its side." This special condition allows up to 15 REs of Austro-Hungarian units (a major power on the CP side) to cooperate with Germany (a great power on the CP side) for supply purposes (which means that the restrictions in Rule 15E2 do not apply to these 15 REs). #2) It could trace general supply to a supply depot (bypassing any German Army HQs) and then an unlimited distance by high-volume rail over the German-controlled NW Europe Standard Gauge Rail Net and an unlimited distance by high-volume rail over the Austria-controlled SW Europe Standard Gauge Rail Net to an Austro-Hungarian regular general supply source. Note that this is possible since Germany and Austro-Hungary cooperate with each other per Rule 15E1 and per the exception to Rule 11E, "Nations that cooperate may trace over each other's rail nets without restriction." #3) It could trace to a General Supply Point (GSP) for general supply as GSPs are not nationality-specific.

Throughout the Central Powers OB - German Forces (W) booklet, the KLM Oostende fortress unit is described as 1-3-2* Fort III Zee. The counter, though, is 1-3-2* Fort X Zee. Which is correct, the unit, or the counter?

AEG: The counter. The unit should be a 1-3-2* Fort X Zee.

p63, Mar I 17: 3-5-5* Rifle Cadre (9-12-5) 242 Wur should be 4-5-5*.

AEG: Yes.p58, Aug II 16 & Sep II 16: 9-12-5 Rifle XX 208 (be) is on OT counter sheet #22.

AEG: Yes, the "(be)" notation should be ignored.p58 and p59, Sep II 16 and Oct II 16: The "reorganizations" involving the 25Lw X and 11 XX neither spend nor receive Man Pts or Equ Pts. Should these be "converts", or are Man/Equ Pts missing?

AEG: These should be conversions.

CR #67A

German Reserve XXs add 105mm How and thus upgrade their combat ratings by 2 points: Should these conversions be free? Or should they cost Equ Pts?

AEG: They are conversions, costing no Equ Pts. In MTV these were reorganizations costing 1.5 Equ Pts each. This was a mistake, however; and I corrected OT to show these as conversions which require no Equ Pts. Designer Note: In the Great War series, a reinforcement event is shown as a reorganization if it historically absorbed equipment and/or manpower points already in play (or which historically came from conditional reinforcement events under player control - such as Equ Pts resulting from making fortress artillery mobile). If all the manpower and equipment points historically came from new production, the reinforcement event is shown as a conversion instead.

Austria-Hungary OB

6 Equ Pts received from conversion of 1x 4-12-0 Hv Art [XX] 4FBr to 1x 3-9-0Hv Art [XX] 4FBr in Conditional Reinforcement 35a seem not to be accounted for in the Jun I 15 game start set up.AEG: 4 (not 6) Equ Pts are missing from the Jun I 15 Austro-Hungarian (A/H) OB for Jun I 15. (Thus total A/H on hand accumulated replacements for Jun I 15 should be 16 Man Pts and 4 Equ Pts.)

The following Austrian units appear in the Feb 17 scenario, but are missing in the Oct 17 scenario, with no apparent OB entries for them.

58/1KJ Mtn Jgr X

180/2KJ Mtn Jgr X

15Ms-D Hv Art [III]

And NT-2AEG: None of these are missing. Breakdown components of larger units.

The replacement rate for Austro-Hungarian mountain type units. Should this be the same as every other combatant (i.e. 6 REs per month)?AEG: Actually, the Austro-Hungarian mountain unit replacement rate is 12 REs per month in the Grand Great War. However, half of this amount is committed to the south and east theaters and half to the west theater. By 1918, almost all the Austrian mountain troops are in the west so OT should have specified that all 12 REs are usable in the West from Oct I 17 on.

Austro-Hungarian OB: Initial Forces Feb I 19 Front Line Forces: 1x 7-10-4 Rifle XX Cz/13Sch, Cz/21Sch (Aus) and 2x 4-8-5 MG [X] A, B, C. Which is correct, number shown or IDs?AEG: The 1x and 2x are typos. The entries should read:

2x 7-10-4 Rifle XXCz/13Sch, Cz/21Sch (Aus)

3x 4-8-5 MG [X]A, B, C

Austro-Hungarian OB: Regular Reinforcements Nov II 15 West (Italy/West Austria):Linked #2: 1x 1-2-4* Static X KPRN (Aus) No counter. Is it missing?AEG: The 1-2-4* Static X KPRN (Aus) unit referred to in the Austro-Hungarian OB (in many places), the KPRA (Aus) unit listed in the Austrian portion of the Austro-Hungarian abbreviation list, and the 1-2-4* Static X KRA (Aus) unit included in the OT counter set (but not listed anywhere in the OB) are all referring to the same unit. When the 1-2-4* Static X KPRN (Aus) unit is called for in the OB, use the 1-2-4* Static X KRA (Aus) instead. Note: KPRA is the correct ID; KPRN appears to be a typo; and KRA appears to have been a truncation of the original ID because KPRA wouldnt fit into the space allotted for the unit ID.

Austro-Hungarian OB: Sep II 17 German units arriving: German OB shows transfer from France to Italy of 1x Rifle XXX HQ 3 and 1x 2-6 Sturm II 3Jgr. Austro-Hungarian OB shows Rifle XXX HQ arriving from France, but Sturm II arriving from Romania. Which is correct?AEG: The German OB is correct, the 2-6 Sturm II 3Jgr arrives in Italy Sep II 17 from France (not Romania). Note: 3Jgr arrives in Germany from Romania Feb I 17.

Austro-Hungarian OB: Oct I 17 German units arriving: German OB lists 1x 4-8 Mtn Stoss/Ski [III] WGSB (Wur) transferring from Romania to Italy. A-H OB shows unit arriving from France. Which is correct?AEG: The German OB is correct. The WGSB unit goes from Romania to France Feb I 17, goes from France to Romania Aug I 17, and goes from Romania to Italy Oct I 17.

Austro-Hungarian OB: Nov I 17 German units arriving: German OB shows transfer from Italy of 1x 6-8-5 Gas Hv Art X 1zbv, but A-H OB does not show transfer. Which is correct?AEG: The German OB is correct. The following need to be added to the Austro-Hungarian OB:

Oct I 17:

West (Italy/West Austria):

German:

Arrive (Rail) from West (France/West Germany):

1x 6-8-5 Gas Hv Art X

1zbv

Nov I 17:

West (Italy/West Austria):

German:

Transfer (Rail) to West (France/West Germany):

1x 6-8-5 Gas Hv Art X

1zbv

Austro-Hungarian OB: May II 18: Two entries for same unit. First is Assemble (West Austro-Hungary Trng & Repl Force Garrison): 1x 1-3-4* Trng X Croat (Hun) & 1x 1-3-4* Trng X Trnsyl (be) (Hun) to: 1x 3-6-4* Trng [XX] Croat (Hun). Later entry is to Convert/Flip 1x 1-3-4* Trng X Croat (Hun) to: 1x 3-6-4* Trng [XX] Croat (Hun). Which is correct:AEG: The assembly entry is correct. Ignore the convert/flip entry.

Jul I 18 Austrian OB: The A-H SMK-B Siege Art unit is listed twice, once as a 6-2-4 and once as a 3-1-4. Which is correct?AEG: The reference in the Reserves section of the Jul I 18 Austro-Hungarian starting forces OB to 1x 3-1-4 Siege Art [II] (RG=2) SMK-B is erroneous and should be ignored. The reference in the same section to 2x 6-2-4 Siege Art [III] (RG=2) SMK-A, SMK-B is correct.

Jul I 18 Austrian OB: The forts along the Austrian-Italian border down to Triest have been removed. Should they still be listed?AEG: The fortifications section of the Jul I 18 Austro-Hungarian starting forces OB is correct. The forts that were listed in the Feb I 18 OB as being in hexes GW2:4207, 4307, 4406, 4506, and 4606 have been stripped/abandoned by the time the Jul I 18 scenario starts.

Austro-Hungarian OB Feb 19 Scenario: The Austro-Hungarian SMK-B 3-1-4 Siege Art [II] is listed twice again in the Feb 19 scenario.AEG: The reference in the Reserves section of the Feb I 19 Austro-Hungarian starting forces OB to 1x 3-1-4 Siege Art [II] (RG=2) SMK-B is erroneous and should be ignored. The reference in the same section to 2x 6-2-4 Siege Art [III] (RG=2) SMK-A, SMK-B is correct.

Austro-Hungarian OB Feb 19 Scenario: The Austro-Hungarian 1 Rifle XX is not in the at start forces, but apparently does not go away per the regular reinforcements part of the OB?AEG: The two references to 8-11-5 Rifle XX 1 in the Austro-Hungarian OB are both in error. Per the 6 January 2002 errata that shipped with all copies of the game Over There, the Jul II 18 entry in the Austro-Hungarian OB specifying the transfer of the 8-11-5 Rifle XX 1 from Italy to Germany was amended to specify that the 10-13-7 Mtn Rifle XX 1 transferred instead.

Similarly, in the Jul I 18 starting forces (Front Line Forces: On or adjacent to the Front Line), the entry:

9x 8-11-5 Rifle XX1, 4, 9, 12, 27, Rom/35, Srb/36, 52, 57

Should instead read as follows:

8x 8-11-5 Rifle XX4, 9, 12, 27, Rom/35, Srb/36, 52, 47

Note: The entry in this section regarding the 10-13-7 Mtn Rifle XX 1 incarnation of the unit is correct. Further Note: Although the OT countermix includes a counter for an 8-11-5 Rifle XX 1, that counter is never used in the game.

There's a counter for an AH obsolete cruiser (2pt. strength I recollect) in the OT countermix. I can't find any mention of this unit in the AH OB. What role does these cruisers play (or is it the Kaiserin Elizabeth)?

AEG: The Austro-Hungarian 2-1T light taskforce C-1 counter represents the three light (1800 tons, 10x 4") and one heavy cruisers (4900 tons, 4x 8", 12x 4.7") which were under construction at Monfalcone for the Chinese government when WWI started. When Italy entered the war, the Italians overran the shipyard, and as a consequence the ships were never actually completed. Assuming Monfalcone remains continuously CP-owned, the ships will complete Sep I 17 as shown in the regular reinforcements section of the AH OB.

Which AH naval counter contains the Novarra class light cruisers?

AEG: The Novara class light cruisers are factored into the Austrian DD units, with basically one light cruiser in each DD.

Minor Forces OB

CR #40b Portugal at war with CP +2 (Apr I 16) says to: Receive (Mainland Portugal Garrison) (Note: Reduce Man Pts received by 4 for each XX formed per CR #38 above): There is no CR #38 in the Minor Forces OB and in the other OBs this is the Italian National Emergency. Which CR should this be referring to?

AEG: The reference to CR #38 should refer to CR #39 instead. CR #40b represents the call-up of the Portuguese reserves, thus the Portuguese player receives 4 less Man Pts for each Portuguese Reserve XX formed per CR #39 prior to full mobilization.

Entente Africa OB

African OB: Spanish 1-2-5 Rifle [X] GdM (Col) counter is missing.AEG: Use the Spanish Colonial 1-2-5 Rifle [X] Mel (Col) counter which is in Over There, and not otherwise used in the game. (Note: Mel was original provisional ID assigned to this unit before the actual ID of GdM was discovered.)

Under conditional reinforcement #14 (Boer Revolt) in the Central Powers Africa OB, it calls for Boer rebel substitutions for the following 1-2-6 Mtd Rifle [X] Boer units: Boer/1OVSV, Boer/OTVSV, Boer/1TVSV, and Boer/2TVSV. However, I dont see where these units come into play in the 1914 initial forces or the reinforcement schedule. I see that they are listed as withdrawn in the Feb 15 initial setup, and I see several 2-7 Mtd Rifle Boer units forming in the Aug 14 initial setup. I am confused as to what I am supposed to be substituting and where.AEG: The OVSV and TVSV units represent the home defense forces of the Orange Free State and Transvaal. These were predominantly composed of older Boers, men who had fought on the Boer side against the British during the last Boer War. Many/most of these men joined the rebel side during the 1914 Boer Revolt. Rule 41.RR.1 (Boer Revolt) in the OT Game-Specific Rules Booklet spells out how the revolt is implemented. Essentially, the Entente player carries out conditional reinforcement (CR) 15 (South African Home Defense Forces), and then the CP player implements CR 14 (Boer Revolt). This procedure is supposed to put all the South African Home Defense Forces on the map and thus make all four of the OVSV and TVSV units immediately available for conversion to Boer rebel units. However, at some point, the wording of CR 15a got changed to specify that the OVSV and TVSV units only got activated if the home defense forces were called out for something other than the Boer Revolt. To make this work properly, delete the If no Boer Revolt provision from CR 15a in the Entente OB Africa Booklet. This should then read:

Entente OB Africa

Conditional Reinforcements

15) SA Home Defense Forces

a) Sections regarding units other than OVSV and TVSV units unchanged.

Receive (Orange Free State):

2x 1-2-6 Mtd Rifle [X]Boer/1OVSV, Boer/2OVSV(SA)

Receive (Transvaal):

2x 1-2-6 Mtd Rifle [X]Boer/1TVSV, Boer/2TVSV(SA)

Also, the Boer Revolt procedure in Rule 44R1 (Boer Revolt) should be modified to change step 1 from:

If the South African Home Defense Forces listed in Conditional Reinforcement #15A in the Entente Africa OB have not yet entered play, the Entente player immediately activates them.

TO:

If the South African Home Defense Forces listed in Conditional Reinforcement #15A in the Entente Africa OB have not yet entered play, they immediately activate at this time with the Entente player first placing the units listed for Cape Province and Natal and the Central Powers (CP) player then placing the units listed for Orange Free State and Transvaal.

Once this change is made, the revolt should play out properly, all four of the Boer units will be positioned to rebel as they historically did.The Boer Revolt conditional reinforcements (in both Africa OB booklets) states that the CP player checks each remaining Boer unit to see if it joins the rebellion. Heres my situation. In Aug 14, the Boers revolt. The 4 units called out by the British revolt, and the only other Boer unit on the map (Boer/ZAP) makes up the unit chosen at random. The two times that the CP player is supposed to check British Boer units to see if they join the revolt is when the revolt first occurs, and when the Boer rebels first gain ownership of any city. The Boers revolted and captured a city in Aug 14, because one of the Boer units was in one when the revolt happened. There are 5 Boer units forming, and will become available on the Sep 14 turn. Does the CP player check the units that are forming to see if they revolt (entering the game as rebel units in Sep), or is it assumed that they stay loyal because they were not on the map at the time of the rebellion?AEG: You check the forming British Boer units to see if they join the revolt and become Boer Rebel units just like you check on-map British Boer units. Whether or not they join the revolt does not change their forming status. Thus if a forming British Boer unit that normally would go full on Sep 14 joins the rebel side during Aug 14, it remains forming (its just a Boer Rebel unit that is now forming) until Sep 14, at which time it goes full. Note that step 3) of CR #15A in the CP Africa OB Booklet merely says Check all remaining British South African units whose unit IDs include Boer to see if they join the rebellion. This means you check all such units that are IN PLAY, regardless of whether they are on the map, in a forming box, or in the replacement pool. If a forming Boer unit joins the rebellion, its substitute Boer rebel unit remains forming, its just that it is now a Boer Rebel unit instead of a South African unit. Similarly, if a Boer unit in the replacement pool joins the rebellion, its substitute Boer rebel unit merely transfers from the Entente replacement pool to the CP replacement pool.I had the Boers rebel on the very first CP initial phase in Aug 14. At this time there is only one on map Boer unitthe rest are forming or the SA Home defense forces. Hence an early revolt might be disastrous from a Boer perspective.

AEG: Yes it can be. Aug 14 is probably the worst time (from the CP perspective) for the revolt to occur. In 22 playtest games of the Boer Revolt before publication of OT, the Boers never once revolted in Aug 14. Since OT has been published, I have heard of no less than 8 games where this has occurred. In 7 of them, the revolt was disastrous for the Boers. This has been so consistently bad for the Boers that I have been considering modifying the Boer revolt rules to specify that the revolt cannot occur until Sep 14 at the earliest.CP conditional reinforcements 14b) and c) are hypothetical. How can the historical Boers have failed to control at least one city (including point cities) in order to get these reinforcements? The rule says gain control, not retain controlall they have to do is move a unit into a city, or place it there in the first place if it is mobilized in a rebel state.

AEG: The hypothetical notes in the case of CR 14b and 14c in the CP Entente OB are in error and should be ignored. Historically the CP player received both of these reinforcements.

Note: There is nothing the Entente can do that will prevent 14b from happening. Its a given once the revolt occurs, that all Boer units that do not rebel initially will have to be checked again for possible rebellion the next turn. However, the Entente player can often deny the CP player at least part of the reinforcements specified in 14b depending on how he maneuvers his forces during his portion of the Rebellion +1 turn. If he can arrange for all cities in Transvaal, Orange Free State or all cities in Cape Province within 2 hexes of Craddock to be Entente-owned at the end of his player turn he can deny the CP the reinforcements specified for those locations. Its usually impossible for the Entente to stop the CP from receiving the any city in South Africa

Africa British OB Feb 15 scenario: OB shows 3x units in hex 6681, but only 2 IDs are given?AEG: The Entente Africa OB, Feb 15 initial forces, Africa (East Africa) Command, the British forces listed under Northern Force: at Walvisbaai (SA:6681) contains a typo. The reference to 3x 2-7* Mtd Rifle X Boer/1, Boer/2 (SA) should instead refer to:

2x 2-7* Mtd Rifle XBoer/1, Boer/2(SA)

Africa Italian OB: In the Feb 16 scenario (and later scenarios as well) the Italian Tri Coast Art [II] seems to have disappeared from Tripoli. Is something missing?AEG: In the Entente Africa OB, under all initial forces sections from Feb 16 on, the following entry should be added to the Italian forces listed under the Africa (NW Africa) command:

Tripoli (CS:1161):

1x 2-1-0 Cst Art [II]

Tri (mtv)

For the Oct 17 scenario, the French Noir/2Sen Cons [X] should have already converted to the Noir/1Sen Rifle [X] per the regular reinforcements OB (Feb I 17 activity), but this is not reflected in the Oct I 17 at start OB?AEG: In the Entente Africa OB booklet, the Oct 17 initial forces key off the Feb 17 OB and thus the Oct 17 OB merely consists of a list of changes from the Feb 17 OB. Unfortunately, the Oct 17 changes section missed an important change. To fix this, add the following two new listings to the Africa (Northwest Africa) command, French forces section:

South Tunisia Remove from listing:

1x 1-2-4 Cons [X]Noir/2Sen(Col)

South Tunisia Add to listing:

1x 2-3-5 Rifle [X]Noir/1Sen(Col)

For the Feb 18 scenario, the British Col Afr/NRP Lt Rifle has returned to [III], but now the 1-2SAR Lt Rifle has switched from III to [III]. Which is correct?AEG: In the Entente Africa OB, Feb 18 Initial Forces, Africa (East Africa) command, British forces, Nyasaland section the reference to 3x 2-6* Lt Rifle [III] BSAP, 1-2SAR, Afr/NRP (Col) should instead refer to:

1x 2-6* Lt Rifle III1-2SAR

(Col)

2x 2-6* Lt Rifle [III]BSAP, Afr/NRP(Col)

For the Jul 18 scenario, the British Royal Navy LC-3 unit is not deleted from the previous listing (this OB adds/deletes from the Feb 18 scenario), but transferred to the West on Feb I 18. Ditto the above for the GB-1, transferred to the Middle East on Apr I 18.AEG: In the Entente Africa OB booklet the Jul 18 initial forces key off the Feb 18 OB and thus the Jul 18 OB merely consists of a list of changes from the Feb 18 OB. Unfortunately, the Jul 18 changes section missed the fact that a number of naval units listed in the Feb 18 OB had moved by Jul 18. To fix this, add the following new listing to the Africa (East Africa) command, British forces section:

Ignore the any ports listing in its entirety

For the Jul 18 scenario, the East Africa Field Force lists 3x 1-2-5 Rifle IIIs, and 3 names are given, but the Afr/6KAR is repeated as one of these three. Should the second reference to Afr/6KAR read 7KAR instead?AEG: In the Entente Africa OB, in the Jul 18 and Feb 19 Initial Forces, under the Africa (East Africa) command, British forces section the entry 3x 1-2-5 Rifle III Afr/5KAR, Afr/6KAR, Afr/6KAR (Col) should instead read:

3x 1-2-5 Rifle IIIAfr/5KAR, Afr/6KAR, Afr/7KAR(Col)

For the Feb 19 scenario, the French forming item for Senegal needs to be deleted (i.e., a reference needs to be made removing the 13Sen from forming, since the Feb 19 scenario references the at start position of the Feb 18 scenario).AEG: In the Entente Africa OB booklet the Feb 19 initial forces key off the Feb 18 OB and thus the Feb 19 OB merely consists of a list of changes from the Feb 18 OB. Unfortunately, the Feb 19 changes section missed an important change. To fix this, add the following new listing to the Africa (West Africa) command, French forces section:

Ignore the Forming (Senegal) listing in its entirety

For the Feb 19 scenario, the Sanussi and Entente owned hexes do not mesh due to the Sanussi owning all hexes within 1 hex of 2362. A change should be made to the Entente OB.AEG: In all of the Feb 18, Jul 18, and Feb 19 scenario setups in Africa the Entente and CP OBs differ regarding who owns the territory around Bardai. The CP OBs correctly assign ownership of this area to the Sanussi, but the Entente OBs do not. To correct this, amend the Entente Africa OB booklet so that the Feb 18, Jul 18, and Feb 19 initial forces, Entente Territory & Front Lines section contains the following entry:

The Sanussi Eruption (Sanussi-owned territory) now consists of all territory in the Niger Military Region within 1 hex of Bardai (CS:2362).

For the Feb 19 scenario, the SA RT-1 naval unit has lost its home. In the Jul 18 scenario a modification to the Feb 18 OB placed the unit in Cape Province. The Feb 19 scenario is missing this language.AEG: In the Entente Africa OB booklet the Feb 19 initial forces key off the Feb 18 OB and thus the Feb 19 OB merely consists of a list of changes from the Feb 18 OB. Unfortunately, the wording of the Feb 19 changes section inadvertently deleted a unit that should still be in play. To fix this, add the following new listing to the Africa (South Africa) command, British forces section:

Cape Province Add to listing:

1x C3 transport

RT-1(SA)

Were still wondering about the proper location of the South African factory. One source places it in Johannesburg while another says Cape Town?AEG: Per the Entente Africa OB (in the Factories section at the beginning of each initial forces OB) the South African factory deploys at Cape Town (SA:7881).

Be advised for the master errata that 44E13a (near the end) says that the SA factory is in Johannesburg.AEG: Thanks! I hadnt caught that one.

In the Entente Africa OB, CR #30 has two listings for Assign in Central Africa, they appear to be redundant.AEG: In the Entente Africa OB booklet, under Conditional Reinforcement #30 (End of Cameroon Campaign), End of Campaign +1 (Apr 16), Africa (Central Africa) command, British forces there are two Assign to Cameroon entries (which both reference the same unit, but in slightly different ways); the entry that cites a specific unit (the 1-2-W MG II Afr/NMar (Col)) should be ignored, while the Assign to Cameroon entry that specifies At least 1 RE of any Rifle or Lt Rifle units, or at least 1/2 RE of any MG units is correct.

Rule 32C (Planning and Preparation for Amphibious Landings) is quite clear that amphibious landings may be planned in advance for units that are to arrive as reinforcements. I recommend that the amphibious planning limit should not be equal only to the capacity of LC and RT currently in play, but that the capacity of LC and RT which could arrive as reinforcements also be included. This is important in the Cameroon scenario, as the Entente gets it only RT in October 1914. Under the rules as written (assuming that the advanced naval rules are being used), an amphibious invasion could not then occur until November 1914. However, the historical invasion occurred in late September.

AEG: Amend the Entente Africa OB as follows: #1) Oct 14, Africa (Central Africa), Special: Some (up to all) of the forces arriving by sea from Africa (West Africa) this turn may be placed at any one enemy-owned coastal hex; if placed in this manner, these forces are considered to be performing an amphibious landing there. #2) Nov I 14, Africa (East Africa), Special: Some (up to all) of the forces arriving by sea from Asia (India) this turn may be placed at any one enemy-owned coastal hex; if placed in this manner, these forces are considered to be performing an amphibious landing there.

In the Entente Africa OB, Nov 14 reinforcements, Central Africa, a French unit is listed as "Arrive (Overland) from South (Middle East)". Since South (Middle East) is not an adjacent command, how should this unit's entry be treated?

AEG: Place it in any hex in Oubangi-Shari-Tchad along the north edge of map CA. Design Note: This unit represents part of the French Garrison of the Ennedi-Borkou region (just north of Oubangi-Shari-Tchad, and actually part of the Niger Military Region area, but for game purposes included in the South (Middle East) command).

CR #29d: Place in any port in Libya being attacked by Sanussi (Italian CA-1 Taskforce). Pending an exception to rule 33A NGS ("To provide NGS, the TF must have first prepared for the fire by spending at least 90 MP in a hex during a friendly movement or exploitation phase.") all they can do is watch the city fall.

AEG: Add the following to CR #29d: Special: The CA-1 taskforce is considered to be prepared to provide NGS (Rule 33A) during any turn in which it is received as a reinforcement in this manner.It appears that if the Sanussi attack multiple port cities in Libya, the conditional Italian 4 pt CA will show up for NGS only at the first city attacked; is this correct?AEG: No. Conditional Reinforcement #29d only specifies that the 4-pt CA taskforce is placed at any port in Libya being attacked. It need not be the first port attacked. It is the Entente player's decision at which Libyan port being attacked it is placed; and the decision to place the TF at an attacked port is made during step h of the combat sequence (see the Master Sequence of Play Summary Chart) when the defender commits NGS.

The Entente Africa OB requires 2x French Colonial 2-3-6 Chssr [X] Noir/1MAOF, Noir/2MAOF to reorganize, but these units are breakdown components of the 9-12-6 Alp Chssr XX MMar (Col). Does the reorganization 'require' the breakdown of the MMar XX as an implied action.

AEG: Yes.

Rule 44E14d says that supply points spent to call up tribal local levy units may be spent from anywhere in the district that the units is called up in. Conditional reinforcement 5 in the Entente Africa OB says that the supply points must be at the tribal home hex where the units are called up. I prefer the latter.

AEG: The Entente Africa OB is correct, the supply point spent to call up a native levy unit must be spent in the tribal home hex where the levy is to be called up.

In Initial Forces, Feb 15, there is a fort in Tripoli that is not in existence in Aug 14. How is that fort built with respect to Rule 13A1g (Restrictions on Construction) if you start the game before Feb 15?

AEG: Consider the following added to Conditional Reinforcement 28 (The Western Sanussi):

a) 1st time the Sanussi eliminate any European unit +1 (Sep 14): Africa (Northwest Africa): Italian: Special: Italy may build 1 fort anywhere in Tripolitania (at Tripoli, historically). Note that this is an exception to the rule (13A1g) about the Entente not being able to build forts prior to Feb II 16.

b) Sanussi gain ownership of a hex in Tunisia for the first time +1 - (Mar 15): Africa (Northwest Africa): French: Special: France may build 1 fort anywhere in Tunisia (at Gabes, historically). Note that this is an exception to the rule (13A1g) about the Entente not being able to build forts prior to Feb II 16.In the Entente Africa OB, under Nov 14 regular reinforcements, is the Italian 1-5 Eng III 1Z a (mtv) unit?

AEG: Yes. Note the corresponding entry in the Italy OB correctly notes this unit as a (mtv) counter; only the entry in the Entente Africa OB is incorrect.

CP Africa OB

Africa German OB: I have an OB errata notation that has the OAS/1FK German Colonial 3-4-7 Jgr [III] no longer starting on board in Aug 14. It does begin in the Feb 15 scenario, but Ive got no errata that change the regular reinforcements section of the OB. How does the OAS/1FK enter the game? Also, in the Feb 15 scenario, the OAS/3FK Jgr [III] appears to be listed twice, at two different strengths. Which is correct?AEG: The 6 Jan 02 errata which shipped with all copies of Over There attempted to clear up the OB problem concerning this unit. However, it appears that errata only made the problem worse since it cited the wrong section of the OB as being in error. Therefore, ignore the instructions in the 6 Jan 02 errata that specifies that the German 3-6 Jgr [III] OAS/3FK (Col) unit should be deleted from the Aug 14 initial forces. Instead, the Central Powers Africa OB should be amended as follows:

First, under Feb 15 Initial Forces, Africa (East Africa) Command, German Forces, Anywhere in German East Africa, the OAS/3FK unit is listed twice, once at 3-4-7* strength and once at 3-6 strength. The 3-4-7* strength is correct and the listing for 1x 3-6 Jgr [III] OAS/3FK (Col) should be deleted.

Second, under Regular Reinforcements, Mar 15, Africa (East Africa) Command, German Forces, Full, German East Africa, the entry 1x 3-6 Jgr [III] OAS/3FK (Col) should instead read as follows:

1x 0-1-5 Cons [III] OAS/1RR(Col)

Note: Once the above two corrections are made, the OB will correctly list the OAS/3FK unit as forming in East Africa (as a 3-6 Jgr [III]) in Sep 14, going full in Dec 14, and reorganizing from 3-6 to 3-4-7* strength at the CP players discretion per CR 60 (Equipping German units in Africa).

African Scenario OBs: For the Oct I 17 scenario, the hexes owned by the British and Germans in German East Africa dont mesh properly. Which is correct?AEG: The Entente Africa OB is correct. In the Central Powers Africa OB, Oct 17 Initial Forces, Central Powers Territory & Front Lines listing the reference to The Central Powers owns all territory in German East Africa within 1 hex of EA:6254, 6255, 6354, and 6355 should instead read The Central Powers own the following territory in German East Africa: hexes EA: 6254, 6255, 6354, and 6355. In the Central Powers Africa OB, Oct 17 Initial Forces, Africa (East Africa) Command, German forces the entry Within 1 hex of EA:6254, 6255, 6354, and/or 6355 should instead read: In hexes EA:6254, 6255, 6354, and/or 6355.

For the Feb I 18 scenario, should the Kunda in hex 6562 be listed as devastated, since they no longer appear to have a rebellion level and previously were at level 4?AEG: In the Central Powers Africa OB, Feb 18 Initial Forces, Africa (East Africa) command, African forces, add the following listing:

Kunda (EA:6562):

decimated tribal area

For the Jul I 18 scenario and the Feb I 19 scenario, the Berber rebels no longer appear to own the within 1 hex of Tafikalt region, yet the set-up still allows them to set up in that location. What is the problem?AEG: The ownership of the Tafikalt region is messed up in all the Central Powers scenario starts (not just the Jul 18 and Feb 19 ones). In game terms the Berber Rebels maintained ownership of the Tafikalt area the entire war (the reality was somewhat different in that the French at various times controlled portions of the Tafikalt, but their control was always shaky and far from complete and thus it works best in game terms if the Berber Rebels own the Tafikalt at the start of each scenario). The Berber Rebels ownership of the Tafikalt area is correctly noted in all the scenario starts in the Entente Africa OB. Also, the CP Africa OB correctly notes that Berber Rebel units may begin each scenario deployed in the Tafikalt. What is missing from the CP Africa OB is any mention of the Berber Rebel ownership of the Tafikalt at the start of each scenario. Accordingly, add the following to the Central Powers Territory & Front Line section at the beginning of each Initial Forces listing in the CP Africa OB:

The Berber Rebels also own hexes WS:0577, Er Rachidia (0576), 0677, and Tafikalt (0676).

For the Feb 19 scenario, should the Barue in 6860, the Lunda in 5370 & 5668, and the Chokwe in 5472 &5670 all be listed as devastated, having been at Rebellion Level 4 and not listed as being at any level at start?AEG: In the Central Powers Africa OB, Feb 19 Initial Forces, add the following:

1) To the Africa (East Africa) command, African forces:

Kunda (EA:6562) and Barue (EA:6860)

decimated tribal area

2) To the Africa (South Africa) command, African forces:

Lunda (SA:5370 & 5668), Chokwe (SA:5472 & 5670):

decimated tribal area

I've noticed a quirk in the errata.. Errata states that in CP African OB, page 3, right column, Initial Forces, Aug 14, the 3-6 Jgr III OAS/3FK (Col) should be deleted from listing. However, the page referenced is for the Feb 15 initial forces, not Aug 14. The unit referenced does appear here, but it does not appear in the Aug 14 initial forces. A look at the regular reinforcements suggests that this unit is in place by Feb 15. Is the errata spurious?

AEG: No. The errata should have referred to the Feb 15 initial forces, not the Aug 14 initial forces. Note that on page 3 under the Feb 15 initial forces there are two listings for the OAS/3FK (Col) Jgr III, one for it at 3-6 strength and one for it at 3-4-7* strength. It should appear at 3-4-7* strength and the 3-6 listing should be ignored.

CR #60

In the Central Powers Africa OB, Conditional reinforcement 60 (Equipping German Units in Africa), a Jgr MG [II] can be reorganized to a Jgr MG [III] at the cost of one Equ Pt. However, under Rule 16B3e (Augmenting units to full strength), the battalion may be augmented to the regiment at a cost of the difference between their replacement values, which is half a Man Pt and half an Equ Pt. Also, for reorganization a unit must be in regular general supply and the replacement points must come from the replacement pool, rather than from on-map. An augmentation is more flexible, since replacement points may be spent from the same hex, in which case the unit need not be in regular general supply. This greater flexibility seems to make 3 other entries in CR 60 superfluous (those for the Mtn Art and the one for the Cons unit). In those cases, the replacement point costs for the reorganization and for the augmentation match.) These rules are not actually in contradiction, but the situation suggests that something may not be working exactly according to intent, and that some rule may have been left out.

AEG: The CR is an earlier attempt to portray how these units go to full strength. The augmentation rule came later in playtest after the CP OB had been printed. As the rule and CR do not directly contradict each other, I saw no need to errata this (the CP player just has two choices on how to do this). Your analysis also contains an error: the Man/Equ Pts to reorganize a unit MAY come from on-map (per Rule 16A1t (Reorganization): "If Man/Equ Pts must be spent, they may be spent from the player's general pool of accumulated replacements for the command, or from on-map Man/Equ Pts in the same hex as the reorganizing units.")

Ground RulesRule 3.G. Isolation.

G. Isolation.

A unit or hex is isolated if a line of communications (LOC) cannot be traced from the item to an unlimited regular general supply source (Rule 11C2ai). In the case of a unit, the supply source traced to must be usable by units of its nationality; in the case of a hex, the supply source must be usable by at least one unit on the tracing player's side. (Rule 11E lists the general restrictions regarding which supply sources a unit may use. Additional restrictions may apply to the units of some nations as listed in that nation's section of Rule 41 (Nation-Specific Rules).) A LOC may be traced through both land and sea. The land portion of a LOC is traced in the same manner as an overland element of a supply line (Rule 11B1), except that it may be of any length. The sea portion of a LOC is traced in the same manner as a naval sub-element of a supply line (Rule 11B3b), except that it cannot be traced through a port with a port capacity of zero. (Ports and port capacity are covered in Rule 26B1 (Basic Naval Rules) or Rule 30A (Advanced Naval Rules).) Example: A British unit in Frances traces a LOC overland to the port of Le Havre, then by sea to the port of Southampton, and then over land to London (which is an unlimited regular general supply source for British units).

Special: A LOC may be traced from a unit or hex on the non-European maps (Rule 3E) to limited regular general supply sources (Rule 11C2aii) in addition to unlimited regular general supply sources.

Players determine the isolation status of all units and relevant hexes three times per player turn, at the start of each initial phase, combat phase, and reaction combat phase. Once judged isolated, an item remains isolated until isolation status is checked again.

Rule 6 Movement

Does the ability to combine overrun with the special one-hex movement ability apply to exploitation and reaction movement phases?AEG: Yes to reaction movement phase, no to exploitation movement phase. The addition to Rule 6 therefore should read: Enemy units in adjacent hexes may be overrun (Rule 6F) at no MP cost by units using this special one-hex movement ability during movement and reaction movement phases (only) if all other requirements of overrun are met. Note that a units special one-hex movement ability cannot be used to overrun adjacent units in the exploitation phase.

Rule 6.B. Accelerated Movement.

What is new rule on Accelerated Movement?AEG: The amended accel movement rule for Over There follows:

Rule 6B. Accelerated Movement.

1. Declaration. For a unit to use accel movement during a movement phase, the phasing player must declare that the unit is using accel movement prior to any expenditure of MPs by the unit in that phase. Note: Once a unit has spent even a fraction of one MP during a movement phase, it cannot be declared as using accel movement that phase.

2. Effect. A unit which is declared to be using accel movement during a movement phase has its printed movement rating doubled for that phase. For example, a unit with a printed movement rating of 5 would have its movement rating doubled to 10 during a movement phase in which it uses accel movement.

3. Restrictions. A unit is restricted during a movement phase in which it has been declared to be using accel movement.

If it has a ZOC, it loses its ZOC for the entire movement phase. (ZOCs are covered in Rule 5.)

All MP costs paid by the unit, except those for terrain, are doubled. Note that this means that MP costs are doubled for any ZOCs (Rule 5) the unit moves through during the phase; that MP costs are doubled for any overruns (Rule 6F), operational rail movement (Rule 7A2), river transport movement (7C), engineering tasks (Rule 13), or naval transport (Basic Rule 26B or Advanced Rule 31) the unit may engage in during the phase.

It may not spend MPs to rest (Rule 6B4) during the phase.

A unit which has been declared to be using accel movement during a movement phase is also restricted as to which types of terrain it may spend MPs to enter or cross during the phase, as described below. Note that these restrictions apply only to the expenditure of MPs for ground movement (including overruns) and do not apply to MPs spent for operational rail movement, river transport movement, or naval transport.

Good Road Areas. In areas with good roads (i.e., everywhere in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russian Poland, Romania, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Italy, Great Britain, Ireland, and the USA), it may spend MPs to:

Enter any hexes except mountain, forest, unfrozen swamp, wooded swamp, ravines, or prohibited.

Cross any hexsides except unfrozen/unfordable major river, unfrozen great river, mountain, high mountain/high mountain pass (regardless of weather condition), unfrozen narrow straits, or prohibited.

Move on a road (regardless of the terrain in the hexsides crossed or in the hexes entered). (Road movement is covered in Rule 7B.)

Poor Road Areas. In areas with poor roads (i.e., everywhere that does not have good roads), it may spend MPs to:

Enter any clear terrain, intermittent lake/salt lake, canal intensive, bocage, or stony desert hexes.

Cross any wadi, minor canal/river/canal/seasonal river (frozen or not), frozen major river/great river/all lake/narrow straits, or escarpment hexsides.

Move on a road (regardless of the terrain in the hexsides crossed or in the hexes entered).

Exception: Cavalry, light, mountain, and irregular units (Rules 14D, 14E, 14F, and 14L) may spend MPs for ground movement in poor road areas in the same types of terrain they may spend MPs for ground movement in good road areas.

4. Fatigue. If a unit which has been declared to be using accel movement in a movement phase starts or ends its movement in that phase in a hex in an enemy ZOC; or moves into a hex in an enemy ZOC at any point during its movement in the phase; or enters any enemy-owned hex at any point during its movement in the phase; it will receive fatigue hits. (ZOCs are covered in Rule 5.) At the end of movement phase, place one fatigue hit on the unit for every 2 MPs (or fraction thereof) over its printed movement rating that it moved. Exception: If the unit is artillery, cavalry, or any Army HQs (per Rules 12B, 14D, and 14M), place one fatigue hit on the unit for every 1 MP over its printed movement rating that it moved.

Special: When a unit using accel movement overruns enemy units (per Rule 6F), place fatigue hits on the overrunning unit immediately after the overrun is declared. At the end of the movement phase, calculate fatigue hits for the unit as normal, but only apply fatigue hits in excess of those applied prior to the overrun. Example: The CP player uses accel movement to move one of his 12-7-7* Hv Cav XXs adjacent to the Belgian 0-1-4 Static X in Brussels and declares the XX will overrun the X. As the XX has spent 9 MPs up to this point, it has 2 fatigue hits placed on it. At the end of the movement phase it is calculated that this XX has spent a total of 14 MPs, thus an additional 5 fatigue hits (for a total of 7) are placed on it at that time.

Fatigue hits affect combat, overruns, and bombardment as described below:

Bombardment. When a force containing units with fatigue hits bombards (Rule 12C), modify the bombardment resolution die roll for the bombardment by 1 for each fatigue hit on the unit in the bombarding force with the most fatigue.

[remainder of rule unchanged]

Rule 6.B.4. Fatigue

A unit receives fatigue hits if it moves adjacent to an enemy unit with a ZOC. Besieged units (Rule 15G) still have a ZOC in their own hex. This means that you cannot lay siege to a fortress (for instance Maubeuge) in order to open a path in adjacent hexes for accel movement. OK, units will not have to pay any (doubled) ZOC costs, but they will still get fatigue hits. Is this the design intention?

AEG: No. This is an artifact relating to how the ZOC/ownership rules changed from MTV to OT. To fix this, modify the opening sentence to Rule 6B4 (fatigue) to read as follows:

4. Fatigue. If a unit which has been declared to be using accel movement in a movement phase starts or ends its movement in that phase in a hex in an enemy ZOC; or moves into a hex in an enemy ZOC at any point during its movement in the phase; or enters an enemy-owned hex at any point during its movement in the phase; it will receive fatigue hits.

Units bombarding do not seem to get any penalty for fatigue (Rule 6B4 and 12C). Intentional?

AEG: The issue has never come up before. I cannot remember a single instance of this type of situation ever being reported in any playtest (and it definitely never came up in any game I've played). However, it does seem to be abusive if bombardment is not affected; especially late in the war when both sides have a LOT of artillery, you could accel move dozens of artillery units in order to concentrate them for bombardment for no penalty as the rule is currently written. So further modify the fatigue rule as follows:

Fatigue hits affect combat, overruns, and bombardment as described below:

Bombardment. When a force containing units with fatigue hits bombards (Rule 12C), modify the bombardment resolution die roll for the bombardment by -1 for each fatigue hit on the unit in the bombarding force with the most fatigue.Rule 6.E. Exploitation Movement

What types of units can perform Exploitation Movement? The rule indicates that all types will get some exploitation movement allowance. The sequence of play lists c/m, water-only, cavalry, light, mountain, and infantry as able to exploit.

AEG: Rule 6E (Exploitation Movement) is correct, and Rule 4 (Sequence of Play) is in error.

Rule 6.F. Overruns.

Just to clarify, when overrunning units, if for example, the odds are actually 13:1, which would normally be resolved as a 12:1 overrun, if the overrunning units have 1 fatigue hit, which would shift the odds one level in favor of the units being overrun, would the overrun be resolved as a 12:1 overrun (meaning essentially there is an assumed 13:1 column on the overrun table, and the odds are shifted to 12:1) or is it resolved as a 10:1 overrun?AEG: A 13:1 overrun with one fatigue hit becomes a 12:1.

Rule 9.F.1. Movement after Combat, Declarations.

If the combat result is AL, but all the defending units are eliminated: #1) Are the attacking units forced to retreat? #2) May the attacking units advance after combat?

AEG: #1) No. Per Rule 9F1 (Movement after combat, Declarations), a mandated retreat is cancelled if the non-mandated retreat player declines to advance into the hex that would be vacated by the retreat. In a case where ALL the defending units are totally eliminated (no cadres or remnants), there are no units left to advance into the vacated hex, so the mandated retreat is automatically cancelled. #2) Yes. Per Rule 9F3 (Advances after Combat), attacking units may advance after combat if the combat clears all defending units from the combat hex. Under the situation you describe, this would be the case.

Actually, I just realized there is a quirk in Rule 9F1 that means under some circumstances, the attacking units in the case you describe might be forced to retreat, and therefore could not advance after combat. The mandated retreat is only cancelled if the retreat would clear the hex of all enemy units (not all attacking enemy units) and the defender declines to retreat. In the case where one or more units in the hex did not attack, the units which did attack would be forced to retreat, since their retreat would not completely vacate the hex. To fix this, I'll add a sentence to 9F1 stating that: "A mandated retreat is automatically cancelled if all enemy units in the combat were totally eliminated."

Rule 9.F.2. RetreatsSay that a defending hex contains 24 unmodified defense strength points, 8 of which are from units that retreated into the hex from an earlier combat, and the combat result is DX. Am I correct that the mandated defender losses are 12 (half of 24), while mandated attacker losses are 4 (half of half of 16)?

AEG: Yes. However, I see that Rule 9F2 is somewhat ambiguous here, since it says that the retreating units are ignored for exchange purposes, but suffer all adverse effects from the combat. This probably should say that retreating units are ignored when calculating any mandated attacker losses.

Rule 12 Artillery

Rule 12.B. Artillery Units states that Artillery is halved for purposes of overrun and combat if the nation does not use modern artillery tactics. However, the Artillery Summa