Your favourite sentence in ASLRB?

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Which part of "unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it" is unclear? Do you know of any situations where a malfunctioned or not-possessed SW/Gun is "capable of fire"?
Hm, maybe a more recent example: I am thinking of throwing an Uzi submachinegun with safety off into a room... ;)
(Though I concede that this is technically not a SW.)

von Marwitz
 

holdit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
414
Reaction score
568
Location
Ireland
Country
llIreland
Hm, maybe a more recent example: I am thinking of throwing an Uzi submachinegun with safety off into a room... ;)
(Though I concede that this is technically not a SW.)

von Marwitz
If I remember correctly, you could get the same result by throwing a Sten with the safety on. :)
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
But the unit possessing the Mortar is and is capable of firing Indirectly (C.1) which in theory, negates HA (B10.31). I guess I assumed folks would assume the Mortar was possessed. I used the phrase "mortar unit" in the Concealment loss portion. -- jim
But as I read it the rule only talks about "units" - not any SW or Ordnance that the unit may possess. I understood "mortar unit" to mean a unit in possession of a MTR - I just think it doesn't count for the rule.

EDIT to ADD: For the record, I don't think it should be able to strip or negate HA. Hence the reason I asked "what if the mortar was malfunctioned". I think it silly. I don't think Q&A has been asked on this to date either.
We agree.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
No. (The mortar is immaterial.)
This is also how we interpret the interdiction rule, as above. The rule refers to "unit" - not any SW or Ordnance that may be possessed or manned by that unit.

The rule states: "in both the LOS and Normal Range of an unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it in that hex with at least one FP without any form of LOS Hindrance"

Keeping with the notion of Concentrate On What The Rules Allow, if SW/Ordnance counted one would expect to find (as one does in other rules) the wording to include the ability to obtain a hit with a manned gun or mortar, and/or make specific reference to the range of the SW.

As we've played it here, a German 1st Line squad manning an HMG can interdict out to 6 hexes - NOT 16.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
If I remember correctly, you could get the same result by throwing a Sten with the safety on. :)
I think the joke originated with the Sten. We were told the same thing about the C1 submachinegun (our copy of the Sterling) during basic training - hopefully in jest. Our training on it was done on a 25 metre range, about all it was considered good for.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
As we've played it here, a German 1st Line squad manning an HMG can interdict out to 6 hexes - NOT 16.
Pretty sure that is not correct. The HMG can Interdict out to 16 hexes.

If SW/Guns did not count then this from A10.532 would not be needed: "a unit using Spotted Fire"

But perhaps we shouldn't clutter up this thread with this question?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Pretty sure that is not correct. The HMG can Interdict out to 16 hexes. But perhaps we shouldn't clutter up this thread with this question?
I think it is a great illustration of the nature of the rulebook. I can see how either interpretation might be correct (EDIT - hmm, you've also edited with the info on Spotted Fire - thank you). I've asked the question in the Facebook group though if you want to continue there.

EDIT - and there you go, Perry Sez:

13094
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I kind of like this from A2.51 regarding setting up offboard:
"This is done by placing any randomly chosen unused board(s) adjacent to the mapboard edge(s) the ATTACKER’s units are to enter."

It takes longer and longer for me to "randomly choose" an unused board(s) when more and more of them are published. :D
 

Spencer Armstrong

Canard de Guerre
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
8,624
Reaction score
1,682
Location
Gainesville, FL
First name
Spencer
Country
llUnited States
I kind of like this from A2.51 regarding setting up offboard:
"This is done by placing any randomly chosen unused board(s) adjacent to the mapboard edge(s) the ATTACKER’s units are to enter."

It takes longer and longer for me to "randomly choose" an unused board(s) when more and more of them are published. :D
It is always board 9.
 
Last edited:

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,070
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I think it is a great illustration of the nature of the rulebook. I can see how either interpretation might be correct (EDIT - hmm, you've also edited with the info on Spotted Fire - thank you). I've asked the question in the Facebook group though if you want to continue there.

EDIT - and there you go, Perry Sez:

View attachment 13094
The only thing I will add, I added on Facebook: if a mortar is used to interdict a routing unit, it loses any acquisition is has as well (C6.5). -- jim
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
The only thing I will add, I added on Facebook: if a mortar is used to interdict a routing unit, it loses any acquisition is has as well (C6.5). -- jim
A very good an often missed point!

(That makes me sound experienced and wise, because nowhere did I say that I often forget this...) :sneaky:

von Marwitz
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
1,437
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
The rule interaction says that a unit possessing a mortar is using Indirect Fire so no HA (C.1)
Um ... no. C.1 says nothing about "the unit possessing the MTR". (I'm assuming your quote in the post above is accurate as I am NRBH.)

and thus moving units are in OG for Concealment Loss/Gain.
And again, no. You are assuming (incorrectly) that if you don't qualify for the +1 TEM for HA that therefore "you must be in OG". Where do you derive that equivalence? Not even the relevant rules for MTRs say anything about "the target is therefore in OG"; the most that can be said is that you don't always get the +1 TEM for HA even when the firer is at a lower level. The rules for when you are and when you are not in OG are very clearly spelled out in the interdiction rules (and oddly, it's the one rule you have neglected to quote, perhaps because it renders your "thought-provoking discussion" rather moot).

If the mortar is broken, then the EXACT SAME unit would be using Direct Fire so HA would apply. IMO, the target does have HA in both instances. The rules don't support that. To me, that's silly.
What's silly is that you are reading "apple pie" and thinking that it means "steak". While they are both tasty food items they are not the same thing, and should not be treated as if they are.

FWIW, B1.14 also refers us to A10.531 Open Ground definition when referring to Hill/HA interaction so Advancing into an HA in the LOS of a unit possessing a mortar would also be Concealment Loss
And again, no. "Not qualifying for a +1 TEM vs that weapon" is not the same as "I am advancing in Open Ground". When I am being attacked by a FT I don't qualify for any sort of TEM, and yet if I am sitting in a building, I am sitting in a building and not treated as being in OG. HA is no different; it's a TEM that happens to be conditional.

The Q&A Klas quotes directly supports this. I'm not sure why he thinks some errata might be required.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,070
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
And again, no. "Not qualifying for a +1 TEM vs that weapon" is not the same as "I am advancing in Open Ground". When I am being attacked by a FT I don't qualify for any sort of TEM, and yet if I am sitting in a building, I am sitting in a building and not treated as being in OG. HA is no different; it's a TEM that happens to be conditional.
It's not a question of qualifying for TEM, it's a question of what TEM you qualify for. If FFMO applies, you are moving in open ground. B10.31 says HA is applicable against Direct Fire. C.1 says mortars fire Indirect. If the HA does not apply (Indirect Fire) and it is an otherwise Open Ground hex, there is no option left to us but FFMO. And that is the rub.

WRT errata, I agree with Klas. The issue lays in C.1 and on-board mortars firing Indirectly. Remove that, and the issue clears. Alternatively, strike the word "Direct" from B10.31 and have it read "Any unit in a hex receiving fire from a lower elevation is entitled to a +1 TEM ..." and the issue is cleared up as well.

Of course, opinions vary among reasonable men. Regards. -- jim
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I was not saying/thinking/claiming errata (or clarification) is needed - I threw out the question whether it might be needed, and I will fully admit I had not actually re-read all the relevant rules when I posted the question - I was NRBH at the time.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,070
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I was not saying/thinking/claiming errata (or clarification) is needed - I threw out the question whether it might be needed, and I will fully admit I had not actually re-read all the relevant rules when I posted the question - I was NRBH at the time.
Which is fine too. I agree it may be needed as well. The answer from the Q&A is consistent with what I believe the rules should say. I am not convinced that's what they say as written today. I hope you are well Herr Malmstrom. -- jim
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
633
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
I think the joke originated with the Sten. We were told the same thing about the C1 submachinegun (our copy of the Sterling) during basic training - hopefully in jest. Our training on it was done on a 25 metre range, about all it was considered good for.
Michael I remember the C1 all to well.............the only weapon I know where you put the mag in ,cock it , leave the safety off and throw it into the room......damn hair triggered weapon..........more dangerous to the user than then the enemy :(
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
633
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
Going back to the origional quote, the author should of added this as the first sentence:
Beware All Ye that enter..once you turn this page your life will never be the same....Ye all have been warned!!!!
 
Top