SAN and Prisoners

[Pyth]

Two unrelated q's.

First -- My fire (Axis) breaks an U.S. MMC guarding prisoners. The prisoner passes the MC with a 1,1 -- (no HOB for prisoners -- is there any effect of that 1,1... I don't think so) but 2 is the Allied SAN. Is this a SAN event, or not. That is, who is rolling that MC, me, because the prisoners are still in some way my men, and thus thus the SAN is live, or my opponent because the prisoner unit is his?

Second question is just help me find a rule(s) please, or correct me if I'm wrong. I believe a BAZ marked First Fire has no Final Fire capability -- right? But how is this made clear in the rules? I believe it has something to do with a BAZ, as a SW, has no Intensive Fire capability -- but I can't fully connect the rules dots where it says that a second shot from the baz would be intensive fire -- basically my question is, where in the RB does it say a LATW gets one shot in a turn?

 

[Brian W]

Prisoner MC do not generate Snipers (A14.1).

Ordnance support weapons cannot use intensive fire, so cannot final fire,

 

[Vinnie]

Only inherent FP can Subsequent First Fire or Final Fre ifvmarked First Fired. MGs may sustained fire and ordnance on a 5/8 counter may intensive fire.

 

[Pyth]

Prisoner MC do not generate Snipers (A14.1).

Ordnance support weapons cannot use intensive fire, so cannot final fire,

Thanks Brian (and Vinnie), I see I missed an [EXC] and so it doesn't matter whose units the prisoners are technically, it's a question the RB doesn't seem to answer actually.

As for "Ordnance support weapons cannot use intensive fire, so cannot final fire" -- I understand this fine (from other players telling me) -- my question was more -- am I'm supposed just to understand this as a consequence of C5.6? My simple little brain wants there to be a rules sentence somewhere in the RB that spells out SW's fire capabilities explictly. But this doesn't seem forthcoming.

 

[Brian W]

See the second sentence of A8.41. That's as clear as I think it gets.

 

[jrv]

Thanks Brian (and Vinnie), I see I missed an [EXC] and so it doesn't matter whose units the prisoners are technically, it's a question the RB doesn't seem to answer actually.

As for "Ordnance support weapons cannot use intensive fire, so cannot final fire" -- I understand this fine (from other players telling me) -- my question was more -- am I'm supposed just to understand this as a consequence of C5.6? My simple little brain wants there to be a rules sentence somewhere in the RB that spells out SW's fire capabilities explictly. But this doesn't seem forthcoming.

COWTRA, or Concentrate On What The Rules Allow. C5.6 allows non-SW Ordnance to use Intensive Fire. In order for SW Ordnance to use Intensive Fire (or make a similar attack), you would have to find a rule that allowed it. I will save you some time: there is none.

Unfortunately to know this you have to know many rules. There is no single place where you can find all the capabilities of SW Ordnance just like there is no single place you can find all the capabilities of non-SW Ordnance. To know that non-SW Ordnance can use Intensive Fire, you have to go to C5.6. To know that a full squad crew can fire a Gun and retain use of its inherent FP, you have to go to A7.351. To know that using the inherent FP causes the removal of any acquisition, you have to go to C6.5. There are lots and lots of other rules that pertain to Guns, SW and non-SW, so it's hard to imagine that there ever could be a useful list of all capabilities.

This is why a forum such as this is valuable to a learning player who is unafraid of learning, like yourself. Those of use who have suffered more than you will ever know are ready to provide you with a snarky response to your questions. Sometimes the response will even be right. But don't put us under any pressure, ok?

JR

 

[Pyth]

"Unfortunately to know this you have to know many rules. There is no single place where you can find all the capabilities of SW Ordnance..."
JR

Thanks JR. I do get it... unfortunately my particular brand of mental-illness (OCD? Stupidity?) involves frequent double checking of things I already know... so I spend a lot of time looking up rules I already know, "just to make sure" -- the distributed nature of many ASL concepts/rules makes this nervous tick of mine time consuming & impossible to satisfy. And ASL being the complex interdependent thing that it is, in "just making sure," I occasionally confuse myself out of understanding something I had previously gotten, which is kind of what has happened here.

But don't put us under any pressure, ok?
JR

Pressure? Me? God no... any pressure you feel is from Klas looking over your shoulder and pursing his lips with a look of mild concern and disagreement...

But Brian offered this --

"See the second sentence of A8.41. That's as clear as I think it gets." --

Here's that sentence: "Any weapon marked with a First Fire counter and capable of Intensive Fire (C5.6) or Sustained Fire (9.3) may use such for one additional attack during Final Fire only vs. adjacent or same-hex tagets.

OK. Apply COWTRA and that's clear. Or it would be until I go and readA8.4...

"Any such units/weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex..." (I'm not having an Area Fire vs ATT confusion here... a LATW can have Area Fire penalties imposed (Case D) as noted in C.4)

As I read it, the sentence from 8.4 I cited strongly suggests that _any_ units (not only units with Intensive or Sustained fire capability as in 8.41) marked First Fire -- can fire again as Final Fire so long as they take Area Fire penalties -- which LATW can take. So why is it that LATWs cannot get an additional Final Fire after being marked First Fire? My one thought about this is that perhaps LATW should NOT get marked First Fire after firing in the Mph -- they get marked final fire. That would make sense and be consistent if its the case... but is it somewhere mentioned in the RB? (I think it's how I'll be marking LATWs going forward, just for purposes of my own sanity.)

 

[General Mayhem]

See A8.3

"Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire."

See C5.6

"Intensive Fire is available only to Guns (not SW),"


Therefore Baz can only fire once.

 

[von Marwitz]

See A8.3
"Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire."

See C5.6

"Intensive Fire is available only to Guns (not SW),"
Therefore Baz can only fire once.

And Guns are 5/8" (only) for firing purposes. To be more precise as per the index:

"Gun (for firing purposes, any weapon on a 5/8" counter currently firing as ordnance; for non-firing purposes, any non-vehicular weapon on a 5/8" counter): counters. I cannot cite the rule number out of my mind. There are some (few) 1/2" counters that appear to be Guns but they are not."

Non-Guns can't gain acquisition for the same reason either. I am thinking of the little french 37* "gun" on a 1/2" counter and an American 57RCL on a 1/2" counter.

von Marwitz

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Here is a Q&A related to the subject.

A8.41 & C13.2 May an ATR, without a printed ROF, already marked with a First Fire counter
use Final Fire during the DFPh to fire at an adjacent or same hex AFV? On the IFT? If so, is
there any penalty besides Area Fire or Case K?
Or, does the second sentence of A8.41 apply even though it's listed under the heading "Multiple
ROF"?
A. No, since it cannot use Sustained Fire or Intensive Fire. A8.41 applies. [Letter166]

166) Jeff Barber to Perry Cocke and reply, posted to ASLML 15 May 2002

 

[Pyth]

Thanks Klas and all... I understand the rule. My issue from the start has been how this rule is put across in the RB. I spent the morning mentally composing a post to explain the issues I was having... but when I sat down to the computer to explain myself this is what I wrote:


I purified myself thrice, first with water and then with oil and then wine, and I went into the woods and I fasted and prayed. I meditated upon the things I had heard. Upon the seventh night at the darkest hour a vision came -- a burning, nay, a blazing wreck appeared in the darkness and drifting amidst the smoke and flame was the avatar of Sgt. Dan Rock, and it spoke aloud in a mocking voice saying: "Lo the book is evil, it is full of wanton uncorrected error and grammatical ambiguities -- let there be wailing and gnashing of teeth for all who follow the rule book of lies! Look upon it and despair!" I knew this vision to be a devil, sent to torment me, and I stamped upon the fire shouting as I had been taught, KINDLING IS NA... and of a sudden a great peace fell upon me and riding from the clouds above came a great messenger, Klas, upon a Kettenkrad of Silver, and he bore with him a great scroll upon which were written all the Q & A and he spoke calmly saying, do not be troubled, many before you have questioned thus, and many more after will question thus, and to all there is an answer -- and my eyes were dazzled by the truth of what I beheld and though many misgivings and grammatical quibbles remained in my heart, I looked down on them now, as if from a height, for they seemed small to me, and I knew that I would be able to continue my game.

 

[Brian W]

Thanks Klas and all...

I completely understand what you are saying, as I went through it once myself. The ASLRB is very vague about some things we take for granted. The DFF/DFPh rules are, IMO, the core of what makes ASL a great game, and they are some of the most complex rules in the system. They have been changed/"clarified" a couple times, too. The easy response would be to say that A8.41 is a later rule and takes precedence over A8.4, but the real answer is that those who wrote A8.4ff did not think out all the consequences of what they wrote, and used defined terms imprecisely, making it confusing and somewhat contradictory.