Q. If an attacker card play is matched by defender it is immediately canceled with no secondary effects of the attacker card taking place. The rules then say that the defender's secondary effect immediately take place. Then the rules say the attacker may cancel the defenders card by match yet again (a la Down in Flames). My question is their really this asymmetry where defender gets to have secondary effects take place EVEN IF CARD IS THEN CANCELED BY ATTACKER while the attacker does not enjoy this privilege? In DiF a cancel was a cancel but the way the rules are written there seems to be an advantage for defender card plays here. Please clarify.

A. The canceling effects are symmetrical. Regardless of who plays the card, it must survive being canceled to have it secondary effects kick in. 

Q. If 1 above loss is applied immediately can I use a pull out to retreat all my force voiding the battle?

A. A Loss effect takes place immediately, but only if the card is not canceled. Yes, you can then play a card that reacts to your suffering losses, even if it will end the battle. 

Q. Can I play several pull outs to reduce my losses from one battle?

A. Yes, you can play several Pull Backs at a time. 

Q, if above answer  is yes must I retreat more than one region?

A. You must then retreat one region per card played. 

Q. I have assumed that Syrian War, Balkan War and the Torch card are removed from the game when their event is played? Or do they stay in but the event cannot be played again?

A. All cards are reshuffled when the deck is depleted and have an effect as normal when redrawn. 

Q. If in a battle I play, for example, “siege,” which is cancelled. I then play “flanking.” Could I then play another siege?

A. Yes, if an Attack Plan is cancelled, you can play another one of the same type. 

Q. Can you play more than one of a particular attack so to use the secondary effects?

A. You cannot have more than one Attack Plan of each type in play at a time. So, if you have a Siege in play, you cannot play another one. 

Q. Is Overrun correct? It seems to be very strong. For example, a force of 2 Mot and 2 Arm attacking cause 6 loss on a Arm/Mot, Encircle 7 loss, 6-10 on flanking, 4 on siege and 12 on overrun. When we played, if an opponent got overrun as attack option the defender generally had to guess overrun because he could not afford the loss.

A. Yes, Overrun inflicts +2 Losses per attacking force. It is a very powerful Attack Plan and both sides should always keep in mind that it can be played. (So think twice about using those 'Any' cards to cancel a weaker Plan.) 

Q. When bringing a force into play is the sequence play card down then discard or the other way round? For example, bringing in the 21st Pz Div -- if I discard three cards, then put it into play and the Allies play Malta, I have lost four cards out of my hand; where, if discard after put down I just lose force.

A. When a card is played, immediately pay the cost, then the opponent can react. This means the cards discarded to pay its cost will be lost if the card is somehow cancelled.

Q. I like how you have replicated the flow of the campaign with the objective/region cards.

A. There are a couple important regions, such as Cairo and Tobruk. The other regions have value in terms of their overall strategic position, but no inherent value when held. This allows players to freely give up the desert wastes between the major objectives in order to save their troops when they have a card that will stop losses in exchange for retreating. Keeping troops in supply is a bigger consideration. Force cards that are out of supply suffer losses. To keep a force in supply you must keep the regions between it and your supply base free of enemy forces.

Q. What happens if you end up with no attack plan? ie both your inherent attack plans have been cancelled?

A. The attacker loses: he'd lose with just one attack plan; so having less can't have a better effect. Zero or 1 attack plans means automatic failure.

Q. Movement - A force may move out of an enemy occupied area, correct? So an Allied Force in Tobruk could move west into Benghazi and put Axis forces in Tobruk OOS (assuming the Allies control Tobruk), correct? 

A. Correct. Though in making the move from your example, it would also be putting yourself OOS. 

Q. Out of Supply - A force is considered OOS if an enemy force is between the friendly force and the friendly supply base. Is this true even if friendly forces are also present in the area where the enemy force cutting supply is present? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Attacking Forces - Can all forces present in an area where a battle is declared participate in battle OR ONLY those forces that took the Attack option? (I think the rules say that the attacker selects the forces that will participate in the attack, but the rules section about battles don't say that only those forces that took the Attack Option may attack. It seems obvious to me, but a rules lawyer/shark could make the argument that all forces in an area regardless of the option taken during the Action phase could attack.) 

A. You're right. The only attacker forces that can participate in an attack are the ones that took the Attack Order.

Q. Battle Plan selection - Is the following interpretation correct? 

Q. The attacker plays a Battle Plan. The defender may play the same Battle Plan. That cancels the Attacker’s Battle Plan. The attacker may now play the same Battle Plan again to cancel the defenders play. According to the rules (as I read them) these three steps are repeated until the attacker chooses not to play additional plans. That means (to me, anyway) the defender gets ONE chance to cancel an attackers plan and succeeds only if the Attacker does not play the Plan a second time. Is that correct, or is the defender allowed to repeatedly play counter plans until the attacker gives up and chooses to play no additional cards or play a new plan? 

A. The playing of cards can go back and forth. But once a card is played, by either player, and not reacted to, it cannot be reacted to later in the battle. For example: the attacker plays an Overrun. The Defender plays an Overrun to cancel. The Attacker plays an “Any” and declares it to be an Overrun, canceling the defender's Overrun. If the defender doesn’t cancel the Any (Overrun) now, he can’t do it later in the battle.  Likewise, the defender could choose not to play a card in reaction to the Overrun, thereby giving up the option to cancel it during this battle, and play a card to cancel the attacker's Armored or Motorized plans. The attacker would then be forced to immediately react, or lose that option.

Q. In step 5C, the last bullet point says: "The defender can also play a card to cancel one of the 'inherent attack plans.'" It is the word "also" that confuses me. It  leads me to believe the defender can play a second card to cancel one of the inherent attack plans. I don't think that’s what’s meant. Would it make more sense to substitute the word "instead" for "also" in the sentence?

A. Yes, good point. The word "instead" would have been better, because the word "also" does give the impression he can play two cards.

Q. After playing a Pulling Out card, may you move an opponent’s force card: a) from a region that does not contain one or more of your force cards to a region that does contain one or more of your force cards? b) to a region that places the opponent’s force card out of supply? 

A. Yes, he can do both. 

Q. Same questions as above for the Confused Orders card. 

A. Yes, he can do both. 

Q. May you play a Pulling Out card and a Blocking Force card at the same time in such a way as to cancel the “Pulling Out” and inflict a loss? 

A. Yes, so long as the Force is leaving a region containing your forces. 

Q. Is the Sabratha Division force card (#60) a Motorized force? 

A. It isn't rated as being Motorized or Armored due to its low cost.

Q. I see no restriction for an Out of Supply force to recover steps through play of “Reinforce” events or even using their intrinsic capability (Regain one loss for free). Confirm that OoS forces can regain losses ? 

A. Yes, Reinforce can be used on an OOS force.

Q. I’m a bit surprised by the “Pulling Out” event. I would have viewed that event used to extricate one of your own forces after it had suffered losses. (like “pulling back”), rather than like a very powerful “Confused Orders” used to send the last defending Force in Tobruk farther away from its base. According to an earlier question ( #8 ) it seems that I’m not the only one to view it that way: the German “Pulling Out” event would allow a German (not an Allied) force to move. Loophole or design intent?

A. Pulling Out was designed that way because several times in the campaign forces would move without specific orders to do so. This would then cause problems when high command later found out they weren't where they were supposed to be.

Q. If I have an Axis force and an Allied force in the western Desert, is the Allied force there out of supply? We may be over-thinking your word "between" - the Allies still hold Cairo btw.

A. The Allied force would not be out of supply. The Axis force needs to be either between the Allied force an its base, or the Axis force needs to be sitting on the Allied base, while the Allied force is not in the same region.

Q. According to careful reading of the Rules, it's stated "Any" battle cards may stay for Encircle, Flanking, Siege or Overrun Attack Plans. No mention is made of Armored and Motorized Plans. Does that mean I cannot play an "Any" battle card as an Armored or Motorized Plan? That would mean the defender can't cancel Inherent Attack Plans by play of an "Any" battle card and the attacker cannot gain the Inherent Attack option back by his own play of an "Any" battle card. Is that so?

A. Our bad wording, "Any" cards can also be used for Armored and Motorized plans.

Q. When a Loss! effect occurs, does each opposing unit take one loss, or does only one? And if only one, who chooses which unit takes the loss? Is there a general rule for loss allocation due to card play?

A. A "Loss!" inflicts only one step loss, no tone to each opposing force. Owners always allocate effects to their own forces unless a card says otherwise.

Q. The "Convoy Arrival" card says, "Look through your deck and find 1 Axis force." Does this mean that (a) you can look through your whole deck and choose whichever force you want or (b) you go through the deck in some order (say, from the bottom upwards) and receive whatever the first force card to come up is? 

A. Look through your deck and grab anyone you want. 

Q. The "Captured Supplies" card says, "Allied player must inflict 1 loss on 1 of his forces. One of your forces may regain 1 loss." The card does not state that the loss-taking Allied unit and the loss-regaining Axis unit must be in the same map region. Should I interpret the card as if it did say that, though? 

A. Any Forces can be selected. 

Q. Having read through this message board, I think I understand how the back-and-forth of card play goes when the attack plans involved are one of the four non-inherent plans. But I'm confused about inherent plans. Does the attacking player need to play a card from his hand to put an Inherent Attack battle plan into play in step 5B under "Order of Attack"? (If so, I assume that any card would do.) 
An earlier post from Designer Dan would imply that the answer is "no": "The only time you need to play a card for one of the inherent plans, is if the defender plays a card to cancel them." But if you don't need to play a card to put one of the inherent attack plans into play in step B, then why wouldn't you always choose both inherent attack plans as part of every battle? It's free to the attacker, and you either force the defender to burn cards to cancel them or to let the attacker have more options for the single attack option that he'll soon choose. The final bullet in 5C says that, "The defender can [instead] play a card to cancel one of the 'inherent attack plans.'" If the attack plan is, say, "Armored," can the defender play any card to cancel the inherent plan, or does the defender's card have to say "Armored" at the bottom? The next paragraph says, "[For the attacker] to play a card in reaction [to the defender's canceling card], it must show the same attack plan as the one on the card played by the defender." If the answer to (b) above is "any card," then can the attacker's counter-canceling card be any card, or does the attacker have to come up with whatever attack plan at the bottom of his card that happened to be at the bottom of the card just played by the defender? 

A. No cards need be played for inherent attack plans. However, the defender can play the proper cards to take those plans away. At which point the attacker would need to play the properly labeled cards to reactive them. 

Q. Do reinforcement force cards enter play during the Action Phase, the Supply Phase, or at any time? 

A. During the action step.

Q. One thing that is still murky to me is what sort of restrictions there are on playing action cards. The rules say that you can only play action cards during "the actions phase' of your own turn unless the card says otherwise. This seems clear enough except for the note that states that after resolving the losses in a combat both sides may play action cards to increase or decrease battle losses. When combined with the restriction mentioned at the start of this paragraph, that would seem to imply that there are only a limited set of such action cards that either player may play to increase or decrease losses after an attack. Is this so? What is an example of such a card? For example, after I resolve an attack, may I as the German player play card 101, Anti-tank guns, to inflict an additional 2 losses? If so, must those losses come from the enemy force I just attacked? The rules also state in a couple of places that once the attacker is finished playing cards, play proceeds to the next step. In one case, this occurs in the actions phase. The rule states, "The Action Phase continues until the current player passes, not wanting to play any further cards at that time, or until he's simply out of cards to play, whichever occurs first." earlier in the same rule it describes how the opposing player may "interpose the play of an opposing action card." This seems to imply that players are taking turns with playing one action at a time. First the attacking player declares an action, then the defender may play an eligible card, then the attacker may declare an action, etc. until the attacker declares he is finished, at which time the defender does not get another chance to play. This same sequence appears to apply in the battle phase as well. Once the attacker declares he is finished playing cards, the defender may play no more either. At least, that is how I read, "Repeat steps B, C, and D until the attacker stops playing cards." 

A. Pull Back is an example of playing a card outside of the normal action step because it says "Play when suffering Losses...". The same for Armored Advance. 
Since AT Guns does not have a conditional "Play when..." statement, it is played as normal.

Q. Suppose the results of a battle inflict 4 losses on a defending force which can only take 2 losses (say, that force consists of two forces with two hits each). So, the two force cards would be destroyed. But what if the defender plays a pull back card. This causes 2 losses to be canceled. Does that still leave the other 2 losses to destroy the defending forces, or are the extra losses inflicted simply ignored for purposes of results, thus allowing the defenders to survive? 

A. From the total losses inflicted, you adjust up or down by cards, then apply the remaining hits to the forces. In your example, 4 hits are inflicted, 2 are stopped, leaving 2 to be inflicted, which would destroy the 2 forces.-- 

Q. Assuming that the Pull back card still leaves 2 losses to be absorbed, may the defender play a second Pull Back to cancel the remaining two losses as well? 

A. Yes.

Q. According to rules, the Battle sequence of card-playing immediately stops as the Attacker passes, so the Defender can't play any more cards. I gather it to mean that if the Attacker refuses to even start a Battle sequence, that is to say he's pleased with a 50/50 chance to win the battle, the Defender is not entitled to try canceling any of the Inherent Attack Plans by playing of a relevant battle card. Is that so?

A. The steps B, C, and D are conducted the first time. They are repeated if the Attacker plays a card during any of the steps.

Q. The Axis hold Tobruk, Allies have a set of three forces in Tobruk, none in Western Desert and two in Cairo. I know if the Axis move a force into WD, then barring changes, the Forces at Tobruk will be out of supply...what if there was an Allied force in WD. Is the Tobruk force still out of supply?

A. Yes, the Allied forces in Tobruk would be out of supply because of the Axis force in WD, even though there is also an Allied force there.

Q. I am a bit nonplussed about the use of the Minefield Action Card, it seems almost useless as I understand it. As the Attacker, I can only play Minefield on a moving Defender who could only move by reactive play of an Action Card over the Attacker card play. It's a rarely seen situation. As the Defender, I could only play Minefield reactively over the Attacker's moving after playing of an Action Card allowing him (the Attacker) extra movement outside of Move/Attack Operations because the Defender can only play Action Cards reactively to the Attacker's card play, not to interrupt normal Orders (Operations). In such a way, a Minefield card seems to lose most of its strategic value, except for its Attack Plan section, or is something escaping me? Is Minefield, maybe. best applied during play of the Pull Back/Pull Out action cards?

Q. The Minefield card can be played anytime "an (Axis/Allied) force enters a region containing one of your forces." This means anytime he moves a force into a region containing one of your forces, you can play the Minefield card, not just in the middle of a battle.

Q. May I, as the Defender, in the Action Cards sequence, play Action Cards reactively to interrupt or cancel the Attacker's Operations (as if they were inherent actions without cards), not merely over Action Cards played by the Attacker? Then, if the Attacker does not play any card during steps B, C and D, the sequence is not repeated and the Battle sequence ensues. This is my general impression of the game mechanics, anyway. Am I wrong?

A. During the "Actions" phase, the defender can only play cards that have reaction wording tied into what the acting player is doing. For example, Minefield.

Q. Can you play a card to inflict a loss and so totally eliminate an enemy unit, e.g. if you were able to play Flak guns on a British division that already had a loss on it and so eliminate it? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Can you play the Coastal Road card to move into an area and initiate a battle or just to move an area? 

A. Just to move as per the card. The unit could then take an Attack action, though. 

Q. If you occupy an area and your opponent also has cards there, can you or your opponent move to an adjacent empty or occupied region even if this puts you behind enemy lines? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Can you move to an area if it puts you out of supply? 

A. Yes, though the unit will take two losses later in your turn. 

Q. If the Allies lose Tobruk but later move back into it so that there are Allied and Axis units there, do the Allies automatically get the benefit of Tobruk or do thet have to clear it of Axis units first? 

A. Clear the Axis first. 

Q. If the Axis lose control of Tripoli and then move a unit back in to contest it, are the Axis considered in supply as they began the game controlling it or do they have to clear it of Allied units first? 

A. Clear it first. 

Q. If both sides have units in a region can both sides trace supply to the units there and through it, or is it that only the side that originally owned it could trace supply to it and through it? 

A. Both sides can trace to the region, but not through a region with opposing units. 

Q. If there are units from both sides in a region who controls that region - the first units that were in there? 

A. Yes. 

Q. If both sides have unit in a region are both sides units in supply?

A. Yes.

Designer’s Notes on Play
Tactics: The UK is better at putting forces on the table. The Germans are better in combat. As the Germans, if you can get into combat with more than a couple cards in your hand you should be in good shape. You should be able to open up multiple attack plans, remove their attack plan options, and inflict bonus losses. As the UK, don't try and get tricky. Just get forces in play and crush the Germans with superior numbers.

General Play Overview: The initial battle for Tobruk sets the mood for the game. In general, I've found it comes out to be a 50/50 success for the Germans, so both sides need to be ready for any outcome. The Germans need to really be mindful of their resources, For one, the Italians should do very little attacking. They are good for Preparing and defending. They are also good at moving into an area with other German units that are attacking to absorb any UK counter-attacks on their turn. The Germans always need to push the envelope of aggressive common sense. If they wait or delay, the UK will build up and crush them. For new players, the UK is probably easier to play. On the UK side, don't be afraid to take losses, you'll make more!
End of File