I am not sure I understand the Roman leader rule in the Mona Insulis scenario.

http://www.ccancients.net/Maps/Conquest-of-Britain-43-60-AD/c3i17-mona-insulis-60-ad.html

The special rule says that no Roman unit may move into the river until the turn after the section leader has successfully crossed onto the Briton side. Does this mean that the leader alone must cross the river or the Roman unit he is attached to?

I played this with the Roman leader alone crossing the river but they were unable to stay on the Briton side as they were always pushed back by the British who advanced to the shoreline. This meant that whole sections of Romans couldn't move in the game (one leader was killed) and the game became an exchange of missile fire. Most units did not move - most Romans and British chariots for example.

Would it be better to say that the Roman units can only advance once one leader has crossed the river, irrespective of whether he can stay there? This would still represent the generals taking control of the hesitant troops.

Or have I got this wrong?

Good question. The special rule seems very badly written. It refers to "no advance", but advance in the rules only relates to post combat momentum advance. The rule does not prohibit movement into the river hexes.

If you read it as only preventing a momentum advance it will have no effect, and if you interpret it as you did initially then the Romans will never get across.

I think the intention was for only units stacked with a leader to be able to cross the river and then the rest may follow once he is established on the far side.

Yes it soon became clear that the only way to play this is to allow attached units to cross the river. I still think it is harsh to require each section leader to cross before allowing other units to follow. Perhaps requiring the first section leader to successfully cross before the army units are able to cross would be better.

Appart from this it's a very good scenario, especially when played as part of the Para Bellum system.

Had the same question myself about this scenario and that rule. It is badly written. Thanks for raising it on the forum. Have to give it a go soon.

As this scenario appeared in C3i magazine and is considered official, can we get official clarification / rewrite of this rule? I know Richard Borg sometimes posts on the Memoir '44 forum which is very helpful.

Hi guys, I'm reporting here an answer from Mr Tony Curtis (from C3i Magazine).

The way to resolve is to say no Roman unit without an attached leader in any section can advance until the start of a turn where a Roman leader is already on the Briton side of the river.

This allows a unit to advance across the river with the attached leader and provides a chance for the leader to remain if the unit holds its ground.