From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: WITD
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 18:00:15 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
So, has anyone seen War in the Desert yet? Has it
been released?
I would be just as happy if they don't release it too quickly.
I'd rather that the counters are right and the rules are well edited.
To my mind, these have been the two biggest problems since GR/D took
over.
But, I do look forward to it.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:58:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: WITD
When I last called Iowa for an update ( circa middle of January ),
Winston Hamilton said that shipment was four to six weeks away.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:27:32 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: WITD
> So, has anyone seen War in the Desert yet? Has it
>been released?
>
> I would be just as happy if they don't release it too quickly.
>I'd rather that the counters are right and the rules are well edited.
>To my mind, these have been the two biggest problems since GR/D took
>over.
I'm curious about the scale of playtesting. The Second Front playtest was
a large, semi-public affair, but no-one on this list seems to have a hand in
testing WITD -- or even know about it, so far as anyone has mentioned. Has
GR/D reverted to in-house testing? Are they skimping on it to get the game
out quickly?
- Bobby.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 9:06:52 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:WITD, plus TEM 45, 46
> So, has anyone seen War in the Desert yet?
> Has it been released?
When I talked to Rick Gayler this weekend he was checking
countersheet art for errors. That of course means they're not printed yet,
so I'm not planning on a February desert extravaganza at my place. Or
March for that matter. Rick had so far found 30 minor goofs which is good
new in that they were caught, and bad knews in that if there were 30
there are probably at least 31.
Rick had not seen the game itself, but told me that based on the
countersheets it looked like there would be some pretty neat things - for
example, there are roadhead markers.
That's all I know about WitD.
On subject of schedules, TEM 45 is printing. TEM 46 should be ready for
printing in 3 weeks. TEM 46 will have Peter Rogers' article on defending
Finland that started as his post to this list.
Frank
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 9:12:05 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: SF Map Teaser
TRIVIA:
OK, who knows what Italian city on Map 26 is either misplaced by at
least about 5 hexes or misnamed?
Frank
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: re:WITD, plus TEM 45, 46 (fwd)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:51:08 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Frank writes:
> When I talked to Rick Gayler this weekend he was checking [the WITD]
> countersheet art for errors. That of course means they're not printed yet,
> so I'm not planning on a February desert extravaganza at my place. Or
> March for that matter. Rick had so far found 30 minor goofs which is good
> new in that they were caught, and bad knews in that if there were 30
> there are probably at least 31.
>
> Rick had not seen the game itself, but told me that based on the
> countersheets it looked like there would be some pretty neat things - for
> example, there are roadhead markers.
>
> That's all I know about WitD.
>
That sounds good. I hope that they take their time and do it
well. I'll probably continue to buy anything that GR/D puts out, but
I don't feel that I can reccomend their products to people who aren't
already Europa fans. This makes me sad and worry for the future of
the company.
While I lived in Boston, I convinced my favorite game partner
to try First to Fight, which had recently come out. He thought that it
was a nice game, but that my counters were falling apart did not make
a good impression on him. Although GR/D counters no longer fall apart,
there are still many printing errors; my current game partner was
unimpressed by the number of misprinted counters in FWTBT. He's not
running out to buy the game, or any other of the GR/D games, although
he does own some of the old GDW games. In the two most recent releases,
there are significant gaps and miswordings in the rules. If I have
trouble with the rules after playing Europa games for 15 or so years, I
can't ask a neophyte to plunge into them.
However, Rick Gaylor did call me in Toronto from Alabama to clear
up some of my rules questions about Second Front. So, customer service
is not one of my complaints!
Bobby Bryant pondered the playtest situation. There were earlier
questions raised about whether or not some of the scenarios in FWTBT were
playtested. One has to wonder.
Although I will continue to buy Europa games, thinking of them
as well researched books on the Second World War, I don't think that I
can make a case for someone to put out alot of money for a game with
many production errors that may not have been playtested.
Best Wishes to you all and to GR/D,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:50:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Delays in game release
Having just read Frank Watson's update on WitD, I wonder if any
of you know what causes these consistent, lengthy delays. Once upon a
time, I worked in customer service/ wholesale shipping for a toy company
in california ( Dakin/ Terragrafics ). Sometimes delays in order
shipment were caused by factory problems and/ or lengthy travel on the
high seas of cargo containers. Other times the fearless leaders would
withold order shipment to vendors, even when the stock was available, so
as to maximize the shipping volume and get a better deal on trucking costs.
That experience has made me somewhat cynical, so thats why I'm curious
about whats going on at GRD. I'm not trying to say that they are doing
what my old employers did,.........just that the regular discrepancies
between release date updates and actuality are so vast that it makes me
wonder what the heck is going on! If any of you can shed light on this,
please let me know. Thank you.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:20:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Balbach <stephen@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Delays in game release
Delays are only delays when a release date is set. So rather then
asking why the delay it might be better to ask why the optimistic release
date given past experience of taking longer then expected.
/stb
On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, J. Nelson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Having just read Frank Watson's update on WitD, I wonder if any
> of you know what causes these consistent, lengthy delays. Once upon a
> time, I worked in customer service/ wholesale shipping for a toy company
> in california ( Dakin/ Terragrafics ). Sometimes delays in order
> shipment were caused by factory problems and/ or lengthy travel on the
> high seas of cargo containers. Other times the fearless leaders would
> withold order shipment to vendors, even when the stock was available, so
> as to maximize the shipping volume and get a better deal on trucking costs.
> That experience has made me somewhat cynical, so thats why I'm curious
> about whats going on at GRD. I'm not trying to say that they are doing
> what my old employers did,.........just that the regular discrepancies
> between release date updates and actuality are so vast that it makes me
> wonder what the heck is going on! If any of you can shed light on this,
> please let me know. Thank you.
>
---
Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet to Work"
VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
info@clark.net the full original message in your reply.
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Delays in game release (fwd)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:47:10 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
J. Nelson writes:
> Having just read Frank Watson's update on WitD, I wonder if any
> of you know what causes these consistent, lengthy delays. Once upon a
> time, I worked in customer service/ wholesale shipping for a toy company
> in california ( Dakin/ Terragrafics ). Sometimes delays in order
> shipment were caused by factory problems and/ or lengthy travel on the
> high seas of cargo containers. Other times the fearless leaders would
> withold order shipment to vendors, even when the stock was available, so
> as to maximize the shipping volume and get a better deal on trucking costs.
> That experience has made me somewhat cynical, so thats why I'm curious
> about whats going on at GRD. I'm not trying to say that they are doing
> what my old employers did,.........just that the regular discrepancies
> between release date updates and actuality are so vast that it makes me
> wonder what the heck is going on! If any of you can shed light on this,
> please let me know. Thank you.
>
Acutally, I don't think that this is special to GR/D. Consistent
lengthy delays are an industry standard. I view wargame production as
something like a scientific research project. New things keep happening,
and various things take much longer than you expected. It's best to view
any release date as unrealistic until you actually see the product. Even
Avalon Hill, the industry giant, never releases anything on time. (In
the case of AH, I think they announce unrealistic release dates in
order to try to create a "frenzy" of interest; I think better of our
friends at GR/D.)
GR/D is an amateur company in the best sense of the word. Many
of the people who we think of as being associated with it are not
employees. Although this keeps the project alive, it also means that
they don't always act in the way that we would like as consumers. In
particular, they don't meet deadlines and they have less than perfect
quality control.
I find that I can forgive them missed deadlines; I have plenty
of games to play and no time to play them. But, as I said in my
earlier posts, I am worried about their quality control with respect
to counters and rules editing. I would rather that they miss a raft
of deadlines and get everything right.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:31:57 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: re: WITD
> However, Rick Gaylor did call me in Toronto from Alabama to clear
>up some of my rules questions about Second Front. So, customer service
>is not one of my complaints!
That is interesting: I sent SF questions to the Rules Court via paper
mail in August, and again via e-mail in December, but have as yet gotten
reply to neither.
Bobby.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:01:21 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: WITD -Reply
Bobby Bryant said:
>I'm curious about the scale of playtesting. The Second >Front
playtest was a large, semi-public affair, but no-one >on this list
seems to have a hand in testing WITD -- or even >know about it, so
far as anyone has mentioned. Has
>GR/D reverted to in-house testing? Are they skimping on it >to get
the game out quickly?
My understanding of this is that it is a revision of the earlier
desert games & Near East module [not a 'new' game], all packaged
together with revised maps, the new generation of counters a la FWTBT
[with only minor changes to the counter set], and the rules updated to
SF standards. The only portion of the rules that is undergoing any
substantial scrutiny, TTBOMK, is the supply subsystem. Apparently the
value-added is the inclusion of all remaining Italian forces, and the
1939-41 U.S. forces, in addition to the above, of course.
Ray
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: re: WITD (fwd)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:58:47 -0500 (EST)
>
> > However, Rick Gaylor did call me in Toronto from Alabama to clear
> >up some of my rules questions about Second Front. So, customer service
> >is not one of my complaints!
>
> That is interesting: I sent SF questions to the Rules Court via paper
> mail in August, and again via e-mail in December, but have as yet gotten
> reply to neither.
>
> Bobby.
>
>
My Second Front game, which was a year and a half ago, had to
be played during specific dates while my wife was away on a business
trip and I had free reign over the dining room table. I mentioned
these dates in my letter to Rules Court and asked for a speedy
reply. Rick Gaylor came back from vacation the day before my game
was to begin and called me up.
I did send FWTBT questions by email a month ago as well as
a request for a replacement for my misprinted rules book. I haven't
had a response on either point.
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:36:45 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Delays in game release -Reply
J. Nelson wrote:
--snip--
>That experience has made me somewhat cynical, so thats >why I'm
curious about whats going on at GRD. I'm not >trying to say that
they are doing what my old employers >did,.........just that the
regular discrepancies between >release date updates and actuality
are so vast that it >makes me wonder what the heck is going on! If
any of you >can shed light on this, please let me know. Thank you.
>From over 20 years experience dealing with Europa vendors, and the
gaming world generally, my experience has been that there is
generally no perfidy involved. Yes, there are business people in the
gaming world who are totally sleazy [You know who you are, out there,
and so do we!], but by and large the people in this hobby are honest,
and earnest in their desire to do right by everyone.
With regards to Europa specifically, I am not aware of anyone, from
Winston on down [except maybe the delightful woman who does the order
taking], who is making a full-time living from Europa. This is not
Milton-Bradley we're talking about here [no matter how much we might
wish that we had that kind of money/clout to throw around]. People
are only in this because they love it, not because they're making
millions off of us. Look at the Clash of Titans scenario: originally
scheduled for an earlier issue of the Europa Magazine, it even missed
the deadline for the last issue. So, rather than delay it further,
Winston sent it out as a special mailing to members. Did anyone pay
him any extra, even mailing costs, to do this? Not! And I'd be
willing to bet that noone called to say thanks for going the extra
mile, but I'm sure that he's had calls complaining about the
inevitable errors that are part and parcel of a project this size.
Enough rant. My point is basically that everyone associated with
Europa has a life outside of it, and Europa should, and probably
does, take second place to that life, so things do not always get
done when it is expected that they will. This causes delays, as does
everything else from trying to hunt down a single obscure unit that
someone is bound to complain was pivotal to the war [only if it
doesn't show up], to trying to ensure that the counters are correct,
and don't peel, blot, or appear in the wrong color.
Do note that it is >not< my impression that GR/D is misrepresenting
release dates, as almost all software game companies seem to do to
drum up interest in their product, and preempt possible competitors.
Europa, for whatever flaws it may have, has NO competitors, IMHO.
Finally [at last], if you're really concerned about the time these
products are taking, call Winston and volunteer some time to do
something to help get things out faster.
Ray
Subject: Clash of the Titans
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:55:29 -0800
From: Rodney Holmes <rodney@ccsf.caltech.edu>
How do I get a copy of this? What else am I suppose to do with an
empty hardwood floor.
Rodney Holmes
rodney@ccsf.caltech.edu
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: GR/D and Release Dates
GR/D never should have gotten involved in the release date game in the
first place. As has been stated so well in the previous letters in our
discussion group, war game companies seldom keep to a release date. I would
like my copy of WITD as much as anyone but to make matters worse I also VERY
MUCH want a copy of 'March To Victory', GR/D's alleged first installment of
WW1 on a Europa scale. I saw a flyer on this in a hobby shop some time last
summer. The flyer boldly said:... "Coming next November 11 (WW1's Armistice
Day) we will be releasing March To Victory!" The flyer went on to describe
the game and the other planned games in this series. Rumor has it (their
rumor) that this series will contain about four to six games.
To make matters worse still GR/D said they will be releasing "The
Damned Die Hard" their first Europa scale game in the Pacific in WW2. This
game was to be released by Feb 96 but we know that won't be the case. I was
told that March To Victory was being held up by WITD because sales from this
game would make money available for the production of MTV. No WITD means no
MTV means no TDDH and on we go.
But GR/D still wasn't done with silly rumors. They have said that they
now believe that Europa will be completed by about '97 or '98! Who's
kidding who? I was sure glad I was seated at my computer when that one
scrolled across my screen as I about fell over. Why even bother making a
statement like that?
In their defense I have to admit that if you tell a wargamer and
wargame collector like me that you are going to release such and such a game
on such and such a topic and if I like the game I'm going to bug you until
you tell me when you are going to release the darn thing. And when you miss
that deadline I'm going to bug you to tell me when the next deadline is etc.
I think that if I were GR/D I would say no more than the following
concerning game releases:.... "GR/D is currently working on War In The
Desert- it's next expansion for the Europa series- no release date will be
given."
Tom
PS. My thanks to GR/D for making
the finest operational games series
on the market bar none.
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:26:28 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Delays in Game Release & Helping out Europa
For those of you with internet access, the URL for GR/D is:
http://www.grdgames.com/
and they can be reached through this for offers of assistance, etc.
For those of you with only email access, Winston can probably be
reached best through Rick Gayler at:
europaboss@aol.com
Please note that I am in no way associated with GR/D other than as a
player of Europa for 20 years, sometime playtester, and occasional
contributor/gadfly to the magazine.
Ray
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:31:55 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Delays in game release -Reply
>... Look at the Clash of Titans scenario: originally
>scheduled for an earlier issue of the Europa Magazine, it even missed
>the deadline for the last issue. So, rather than delay it further,
>Winston sent it out as a special mailing to members.
What is this scenario (theatre/year) ?
>Do note that it is >not< my impression that GR/D is misrepresenting
>release dates, as almost all software game companies seem to do ...
And at least one major PC operating-system vendor.
BTW, I remember that GDW (hats off, everyone!) had tremendously long pauses
between the later E-releases (accompanied, if I remember correctly, by
ever-receding predictions of release dates).
But still, if the rules are being "brought up to Second Front standards" I
would expect a need for serious playtesting -- especially if the supply
system is being overhauled, as someone mentioned a day or two ago. Have I
simply failed to hear about playtesting because I'm no longer an Association
member? Or is production proceding on the assumption that as a re-release it
needs little or none?
Bobby.
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:40:48 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: re: WITD
> > However, Rick Gaylor did call me in Toronto from Alabama to clear
> >up some of my rules questions about Second Front. So, customer service
> >is not one of my complaints!
>
> That is interesting: I sent SF questions to the Rules Court via paper
> mail in August, and again via e-mail in December, but have as yet gotten
> reply to neither.
This corresponds to my experience when it comes to questions and
errata. E-mail questions in October, a remainder a couple of weeks ago
and not even a whisper of an answer.
/Johan
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: SF rules questions
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:41:35 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Since Rules Court is not responding promptly to SF rules
questions at the moment (presumably because Rick Gaylor is stuck
doing other things like proofing the WITD counters), I thought
that I would provide the questions which I asked him and the
written response that I received. He rewrote some of the questions,
and I provide here the questions and answers as he wrote them.
This made a difference with only one question, as I'll point out
below.
(3E2 and 37E)
Q: There is no city on Malta and therefore nowhere to place a unit of
the garrison if it is activated. Is Valetta the activation hex for
the Malta garrison?
A: Oops! Valetta has indeed been scaled down from a reference city to a
point city. Nevertheless, use it as the activation hex for the Malta
garrison.
(10H and 14A2)
Q: May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat
engineer proportion in order to avoid "Required Losses?"
A: No.
(14B1 and 14B2)
Q: (Not applicable in Second Front) If a long-range siege artillery
fires from two hexes in such a way that the "line of sight" crosses
the vertex between two hexsides, one of which is an improved fortified
hexside and the other of which is not, then is the artillery's strength
doubled?
A: Yes.
(14J)
Q: If a movement counter is not carrying a unit, is it treated as a
0-strength unit for combat purposes (e.g., not included in AEC/ATEC
computations)? [This is not exactly what I asked; it seems to me that
some 0-strength units, such as American heavy AA batallions, are
included for such computations. In the case of Italian light armor
batallions in Western Desert, this their raison d'etre.]
A: Yes.
(14J2 and 14J3)
Q: How are LVT and APC counters treated when determining losses in the
combat phase? In particular:
Q1: If the unit being carried is eliminated, is the LVT/APC eliminated
as well?
A1: Yes, as they are treated as a single unit.
Q2: Does a unit carried by an APC have its strength increased by 1 when
determining losses, or is the APC treated as a separate unit with a
strength of 1?
A2: Neither, actually. The 1-strength point increase is a strength modifier
(similar to the way seige artillery is doubled against fortresses), but
losses are determined using the printed strengths only, and the LVT/APC
counters do not have a printed strength.
Example: A 3-d Inf X carried by an APC would attack with a strength of 4.
If eliminated, both the 3-8 Inf X and the APC would be removed from play and
would count as a loss of 3 attack strength points.
(15E)
Q: If a panzer division has an attached Panther (or Panzer IV) battalion
suffers losses in combat, is the battalion considered to be a separate
unit from the division for loss purposes?
A: Here's how it works: if a 15-10 panzer division with a 4-2-10 Panther
battalion attached is reduced to cadre, the division would count as 19 for
loss purposes and you would be left with an 11-8 panzer cadre (a 7-8 panzer
cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached).
If a 7-8 panzer cadre with a 4-2-10 Panther battalion attached
suffers losses in combat, the cadre would count as 11 for loss purposes,
and both the 7-8 cadre and the 4-2-10 Panther battalion would enter the
replacement pool.
[When I spoke to Rick Gaylor on the phone, he explained that a
panzer cadre may attach a Panther battalion in the same way as a panzer
division.]
(23H10)
Q: If I understand this rule correctly, then a code X air unit which
suffers an "A" result in combat is considered aborted and not eliminated.
Is that correct?
A: The unit would suffer a "double abort" (once in combat and once per
Rule 23H10), but in SF this still equates to an "abort" and not an
"eliminated" as in some other Europa games.
(31B)
Q: According to this rule, armored brigades could not get into the Anzio
beachhead? Is it correct?
A: Rule 31B claims "Non-amphibious units with heavy equipment may not
embark/disembark at beaches." This is WRONG: such units can land at beaches
if they use landing craft, as explained in the replacement for Rule 31B below:
31B Beaches
Any amphibious unit may land at a beach. (Note that this includes
intrinsically amphibious units and certain units carried by LCs and LVTs,
per Rule 27B6.) A non-amphibious unit may also land at a beach, if it is
solely on board LCs at the time of its landing. (A non-amphibious unit on
board NTs or NTs in combination with LCs may not land at a beach.)
A naval unit may not embark or disembark cargo at a beach during
stormy sea conditions.
(32B and 32D)
Q: Do divisions making amphibious landings have ZOCs (which might affect
enemy reaction)?
A: Divisions are not amphibious and therefore cannot make amphibious
landings. (Exception: The U.S. Marine XX Exp is intrinsically amphibious;
its ZOC owuld be considered when determining enemy reaction.) Divisions
must be broken down unsupported and transported by LCs and LVTs to make
amphibious landings.
(37A4)
Q: Does massive flooding destroy a fort marker in the hex?
A: No. A fort marker is removed only when it is captured by enemy units.
However, given the sequence of events in rule 37A4, the Allied player
will have the first opportunity to re-enter the flooded hex, and the
fort will likely be destroyed at that time.
(40B2 and 40B3)
Q: If a specialized armor unit is replaced, then does its replacement
count against the combat/assault engineer replacement limit?
A: No, specialized armor unit types (flamethrower tank, engineer tank,
assault engineer tank, and sturmpanzer) are different unit types from combat
and assault engineers. See the unit identification chart.
(40D1)
Q: This rule refers to tracing an overland supply line to a "source of
replacements." What is that?
A: This rule is misworded. Replace the phrase "source of replacements"
with "unisolated regular source of supply."
(40D3)
Q1: For puropses of this rule, is there always considered to be a supply line
connecting Allied-owned cities in the United States and the various
Commonwealth countries?
A1: Well, that's the general idea. However, this rule is misworded. The
second sentence should read: "During a player's initial phase, the player
may transfer armor RPs, as long as he can trace a supply line from any
unisolated regular source of supply of the donating nation to any
unisolated regular source of supply of the receiving nation."
Q2: Also, this rule suggests that the United States and Commonwealth
countries may not provide foreign aid to the various exile forces:
Free France, Poland, etc. Is this correct?
A2: With the above correction the U.S. and Commonwealth countries will
always be able to provide foreignaid to all of the various exile forces,
since they share the same regular sources of supply.
(41A)
Q: Since cargo may not be transported by sea or air in the pre-game
Allied movement phase, the units in the Anzio Beachhead on Apr I 44 are
out of supply. Is this correct?
A: The units in the Anzio Beachhead are considered to be in supply on the
Allied Apr I 44 turn.
(43F2)
Q: In different places in the rules and charts, the definition of
"force" seems to be different. For the purposes of this rule I assume that
the Allies have five forces (American, British, French, Italian, and
Other Allied) and the axis have three forces (German, (RSI) Italian, and
Other Axis). Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Chart Errata:
Note #2 in the optional antiaircraft fire table notes is incorrect.
The last sentence should read:
"Treat shifts that would go past the "A" column of the table as positive
dice roll modifiers on the "A" and "F" coumn."
Also, the stacking summary is incorrect in one instance: regular
stacking should be 3, not 6, units.
That's what Rick Gaylor sent me in September, 1994. I hope that
I haven't made too many typos and that this is useful to you.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 96 9:19:34 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:WITD
I forwarded some of last week's messages about rules questions to
Rick. He asked me to post this in response.
Frank
------------------------[ Original Message ]--------------------
From: grd1@genie.com (Rick Gayler)
Subject: Rules Court Timeliness
This is a fairly accurate representation of how rules questions have been
handled lately. Some people have been fortunate enough to get an
immediate
and personal reply. However, I do have a folder containing unanswered
Q&A,
mostly long lists of questions on Second Front with a lot of "design" stuff
interspersed. There are probably 10 such written lists, and I also have
about a half dozen or so e-mails filed for future response, again, most all
Second Front questions - some lengthy and detailed.
I am sorry about this, but I have had to act in the best interest of the
most Europa players. I could have spent the last few months answering
the
questions of 20 or less folks, but this would have delayed stuff going to
thousands of players: #43/44, #45 and War in the Desert (since I would
have
had to access JMA also) even further. With GRD under cash pressure to
generate product, I had to act as I did. I told Winston at Origins that I
was behind on answering questions, and asked that Arthur Goodwin
might step
in and help, but was told that he was not available, being under
deadlines
to complete development work on Glory and WWI series. I was told to do
the
best I could, which unfortunately hasn't very good since July.
I will get to these as soon as I can. Right now I am proofing counters for
WitD. After that I will finalize the FWTBT errata sheet. Then I will turn my
attention to catching up the SF rules questions and putting together a
comprehensive SF errata sheet, while still working off and on to
complete
issue #47 and whatever else Winston comes up with for me to do.