The Canadian Wargamers Journal

Issue 29 Fall 1991

EastFront Clarifications

Even the most polished game raises some questions and EastFront is no
exception. 1here are only a few questions raised by the rules and most
can be figured out upon closer reading. Just in case you have the same
questions we had, here are the answers courtesy of designer Craig
Besinque (his answers are paraphrased by The JOURNAL). Also included are
a couple of minor corrections and/or printing errors as mentioned by
Craig. 

Craig; 

1) 3.2 When HQ units activate are they allowed to deploy into a hex
causing temporary overstacking. 

No. This is clearer by the sequence of play being separate from the
movement phase. 

2) 4.3 Not really a rules question but more of a "are you really sure
you meant this type of question ". Do units become unsupplied because of
weather going to mud? ex. if four units are in a clear hex and mud
occurs then one unit becomes unsupplied and will lose a step if it is
the opponents turn. 

This is the intent of the rule and it is not really too severe as it may
seem ust try and prepare for it. 

3) 12.13 Do airstrikes have single fire in swamp attacks or DF/TF as
appropriate? 

Their fire is based upon their effectiveness listed in the scenario.
i.e. SF/DF or TF. 

4) 6.4 Can an unsupported combat (at the start of the phase) become
supported if a path can be opened up to a HQ at the instant of combat? 

No. 

5) In the W43 scenario the hex east of Leningrad is shown (on the map)
as being Soviet but in the scenario book as being German. Which is
correct? 

The scenario booklet is correct. 

6) Do dead pile Axis satellite units count against the German player for
victory points? 

Yes. 

7) Are there any restrictions on stacking or movement in each others
countries of Axis satellite units? 

No. Except as detailed in 10.42 or 13.1 when they must stay in their
respective countries. 

8) If you are not using the paratroop rule do you still use the
paratroop unit? If not does it count against you for victory points? 

Yes Not applicable. 

Are there any errata or clarifications that you have? 

Yes in 13.71, concerning exiting units off the opponents map edges. The
unit which exits must be in rail supply from the exit point.
Unfortunately the word "rail" was left out of the rulebook. 

Under the example of play in the Edelweiss scenario there is an error.
In the last paragraph under the explanation of diagram 3 it says the
Soviet unit is does not lose a step. This is not the case as the unit
cannot trace supply. It should not be around in example 4. Unfortunately
this led some to mistake what the supply rules actually say. 

To avoid misunderstanding, the last sentence in 9.1 should state "The
supply status of units is only determined during the enemy supply
phase." 

Other errors include the HQ activation example on page 7. The HQ unit
featured should he any HQ but OKH for the example to work properly. 

Under 15.43 the coastal army gets a break and is only repulsed on a 1 or
2. 

The first sentence in 15.44 should read "When the coastal army lands
successfully...". Only the coastal army may create a beachead. 

Section 5.5 and 16.0 conflict in regards to the dropping of the Soviet
Paratrooper unit. 16.0 is correct, the paratrooper maybe commanded to do
a paradrop from any HQ unit. 

A few minor mistakes made it to the scenarios and charts: 

On the game chart the basic production for the Soviet in 1941 should be
listed as 12 and 18 not 8 and 16. The scenario still lists the correct
amount but it was confusing. 

The hexside limits under Major City on the game charts should read no
effect or as per other terrain. By listing 1 and normal it could be
confusing. 

In the winter '42 scenario the Soviet production increase should be [+8]
and not [+6]. 

The following two changes only really matter for postal games but might
as well be mentioned anyway. 

In Oct'41 the German reinforcement unit should be the 59 corps as two 35
corps units are listed. 

Similiarily the Soviet strategic reserve should be the 50 army in
Kalinin and not the 27 army. 

NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net)
on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society
(http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), 
originally collected by Andrew Webber 
(gbm@wwwebbers.com)