Dug-In Tanks and WA

[Tuomo]

Because my FIRST question relating to the IR Tournament went so well, let's do another! This one is actually clear enough to me but Doug is less than convinced.

Can a Dug-In AFV (D9.54) in Woods (like P7 below) claim WA?


D9.54 says Dug-In AFVs are Armored Cupolas (unless they're not).
D9.52 (Armored Cupolas) says "An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides unless it is Abandoned/in-Melee or its inherent crew is stunned/shocked. "

To me, that's clear enough (to mean that Dug-In AFVs can claim WA) but Doug smells a rat with the wording "directly behind". (And it's his Dug-In AFV we're talking about!). Might be relevant that the WA rules (B9.32) say WA can't be claimed by a vehicle eligible to receive an in-hex TEM of >= +1.

Whatcha think?

BTW, here's what the real board situation looks like there. The Dug-In Churchill has already destroyed two tanks (including a Tiger on an IF shot) and has a chance to nail another one (in P8) in the upcoming PFPh. It's likely that he'll do that, then use his CMG to break the 10-2, 468/MMG, 248/MMG under that tank. And for good measure, IF to kill the OTHER Tiger who's skulking offscreen to the south.

Did I mention I really hate that guy?

 

[EagleIV]

The "directly behind" means that if the P9/P10 hexside were a wall the Churchill in P7 could not claim WA over it when drawing on LOS off the south edge of the map as shown. The Churchill must claim WA (unless prohibited) over the P7/Q8 Wall though since it is directly behind that Wall hexside.

 

[Bill Kohler]

D9.52 (Armored Cupolas) says "An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides unless it is Abandoned/in-Melee or its inherent crew is stunned/shocked. "

I agree. I think the "always" governs. (And I agree with EagleIV, that the "directly behind" probably means "in the same hex as" the wall.)

And notice the plural to "hexsides" without the rulebook having specified a maximum number of hexsides. In Y5, the Armored Cupola would have WA over all hexsides (assuming not Deluxe). (Perhaps assume the Cupola is on a small rise within the hex.)

 

[Doug Leslie]

The problem is that D9.52 is inconsistent with the normal WA rule that a vehicle in terrain giving it TEM cannot claim wall advantage over any wall/hedge in that hex.

“9.5 ARMORED CUPOLA: An Armored Cupola represents a Dug-In AFV (9.54) or ground-mounted turret or specially constructed bunker with a rotating turret, and is represented in a scenario OB by a BU TCA counter. A corresponding SSR is necessary to define its armament, turret type, and AF. The TCA counter is used to define its CA and any To Hit/IFT DRM penalties for fire outside it (3.12 and 3.52) CC vs an Armored Cupola requires the use of PAATC and CCV in the usual manner. An Armored Cupola is considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below or by SSR”

I guess that D9.52 could be in the “modified below” category but it seems extraordinary that an “immobile tank” that is half buried in the ground can claim woods TEM and WA whereas a regular immobile tank cannot. What does the term “directly behind” mean if it isn’t intended to exclude a unit that sets up in woods?

 

[Stewart]

The problem is that D9.52 is inconsistent with the normal WA rule that a vehicle in terrain giving it TEM cannot claim wall advantage over any wall/hedge in that hex.
An Armored Cupola is considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below or by SSR”

I guess that D9.52 could be in the “modified below” category but it seems extraordinary that an “immobile tank” that is half buried in the ground can claim woods TEM and WA whereas a regular immobile tank cannot.

9.52 PLACEMENT: An Armored Cupola can be placed only in brush,
grain, woods, orchard, shellhole, debris (O1.), or Open Ground hexes as if
it were a pillbox (B30.1).

Since the AC is considered to be an immobile tank, we have:


9.32 WALL ADVANTAGE (WA): A unit may claim WA over a
same level wall/hedge hexside if it is an armed, unbroken ground
level unit which is not: a vehicle eligible to receive in-hex TEM of
≥ 1
The vehicle will be claiming the TEM upon setup. Ineligible for WA.
AND...

A 9.322 ...A Pinned, TI, or Immobile unit cannot voluntarily claim or forfeit WA.
Our AC is considered an Immoblie unit here, and cannot have WA per 9.322. And if you are in woods you would have to Voluntarily claim WA...unlike the other terrain types the AC may setup in.

 

[Bill Kohler]

And yet we have D9.52 An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides unless it is Abandoned/in-Melee or its inherent crew is stunned/shocked.

And do a search in the rulebook on the phrase "directly behind". It occurs 12 times and always is referring to an entire hex Location, not to any subdivision within a hex.

There is no EXCEPTION listed in the D9.52 sentence for woods, and it is the higher numbered rule.

 

[Sparafucil3]

... and it is the higher numbered rule.

I am not saying you're wrong, but this is the last refuge for a weak rules argument. Clearly, you have made other arguments which I agree with. I just detest this one when I see it. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I believe the text in D9.52 was an incorporation - partly - of rule O.7:
"An armored cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides (even if set up after an enemy unit that is ADJACENT to it across such a hexside) unless it is Abandoned or its Inherent crew is stunned/shocked."

 

[Treadhead]

I am not saying you're wrong, but this is the last refuge for a weak rules argument.

But why, though? I really do not understand this sentiment.
I have always seen E.2 as a good way to create exceptions without having always to say it's an exception. Chapter B trumps Chapter A, Chapter C trumps Chapters A and B, and so on.
For me it is a first refuge, especially during the heat of play.

In the present question, the answers are found in D9.5 and these over-ride whatever Chapter B may say on the matter.

 

[Treadhead]

D9.54 "A Dug-In AFV is HD to all Direct Fire attacks... has a +1 Target Size ... "
The "is HD to all Direct Fire attacks" does not allow for any exceptions, the HD must always be used.

D4.2 "A HD target may not also claim a Case Q TH DRM but it may claim an in-hex Case Q TEM DRM in lieu of HD status."

However, by D9.54 (which by the way supersedes D4.2 via E.2) a Dug-In AFV is always HD to Direct Fire, thus there is no option to accept TEM in lieu of HD status.

According to B9.32, "A unit may claim WA... if it ... is not: a vehicle eligible to receive in-hex TEM..."
Dug-In AFV are not allowed in-hex TEM, see D9.54 and D4.2.
Since a Dug-In AFV is not eligible to receive in-hex TEM, it is eligible to have WA.

That is how I close the loop on that.

 

[Sparafucil3]

But why, though? I really do not understand this sentiment.

Because IMO there are better ways to resolve it. The rules aren't perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. If the intent of a later rule was to negate an earlier rule, then they could have just said that. Instead, the implied situation is the later rules were written to replace the older rules and the writers were not interested in going back to fix them. I find that very unsatisfying.

D9.54 may be the answer. I haven't given it much thought. BUT the original WA rules (in the unpatched 1985 version of the rules) allowed Infantry to steal WA from an AFV sharing a hexside. If the AFV was there first, it didn't matter, the Infantry got the WA. Now, in light of that knowledge, D9.54 makes a whole lot more sense. A Dug-In AFV is still an AFV. And under the old rules, it would lose WA but for this rule.

The original WA rules also used Good Order units where today's version says Unbroken Units. The intent was to allow Berserk units to claim WA. The unintended consequence (IMO) was that Shocked/Stunned AFV are not "Unbroken" so they don't lose WA in that system. I think this was unintended because the articles in the Journals accompanying their introduction do not mention this as a change, let alone a significant change. The articles state (paraphrasing) not much changes, these are just clarifications.

For 30+ years, the Mandatory FG rules said that Good Order units in the same Location had to FG to fire on the same target using the same MP/MF. That same rule didn't care if those units couldn't Fire Group. If they were GO, they must FG or one must forgo the shot. So all those times you armored assaulted and fired the Infantry and the AFV at the same target in AFPh, you (and me and everyone else I know) broke the rules. This wasn't corrected until J13.

For these reasons, I abhor the higher numbered rule argument. There have been many people over the years who have patched, corrected, or updated sections. The people doing this are smart, intelligent people but ASL is too complex to keep straight. I reject the notion that unintended consequences or misunderstanding was an intended outcome.

Finally, E.2 is an optional rule. It is rather funny that someone would refer to an optional rule as the basis for solving a rule in the main text. Why not refer to the IIFT or Battlefield Integrity as a reason to reject the rule?

Anyways, this all JMO. YMMV. -- jim

 

[Treadhead]

Finally, E.2 is an optional rule. It is rather funny that someone would refer to an optional rule as the basis for solving a rule in the main text.

That is incorrect.

"Rules Order Precedence (Higher alphanumeric rule case takes precedence): Intro. pg. ii, E.2"

The last sentence of the Introduction from the section called "THE NUMBERING SYSTEM".
"Lastly, whenever a seeming contradiction appears between rules cases, the higher alpha-numeric rules case always takes precedence, barring mention of a specific exception (e.g. B1 is a higher numbered rule than A1)."

You may abhor it for your own reasons, but it is not a rule argument. It is an actual rule.

I am quoting the pocket rulebook, not the first edition I still have from 1985. But it seems to me that the Rules Order Precedence has always been a thing, and is very much a part of the rules as every other rule.

Not sure why you hate it so, it has always worked well for me and resolves many seeming contradictions (such as the Dug-In AFV WA question, which seemed pretty direct upon examination.)
But as you say, YMMV.

 

[Stewart]

That is incorrect.

"Rules Order Precedence (Higher alphanumeric rule case takes precedence): Intro. pg. ii, E.2"

So if you fire at the tank in the woods that has WA and can't relinquish WA....does it get +1 TEM ?

 

[Sparafucil3]

I am quoting the pocket rulebook, not the first edition I still have from 1985. But it seems to me that the Rules Order Precedence has always been a thing, and is very much a part of the rules as every other rule.

The Intro was in the original rule book. I haven't liked it since then. Anything in chapter is E optional, even E.2.

Not sure why you hate it so, it has always worked well for me and resolves many seeming contradictions (such as the Dug-In AFV WA question, which seemed pretty direct upon examination.)

I find it distasteful because it's illogical and allows for bad rules. It assumes that people writing higher numbered rules were either lazy or lacked rules knowledge. If they were aware they just re-wrote the rules then why didn't they go back and fix the earlier rule? If they weren't aware of the earlier rule, then why are they changing it here? If there is a footnote acknowledging the earlier rule, then at least we know they were aware of the change and had it in mind when they made it. Where you see it as removing contradiction, I see it as introducing confusion. Where you see acceptance and moving on, I see a need to clarify and correct. I see a need to make sure the change was deliberate and intended and not just an oversight. I find it unusual that a person aware of the contradiction wouldn't fix the contradiction why they were at it. I find it unusual that a contradiction wouldn't be explicitly cross referenced.

To me, pointing to "this is the higher numbered rule" is an acknowledgement that the rules need correcting. It is an opportunity for two people to sit down and play the game differently because they aren't aware of the two separate rules governing the same action. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

It would seem that rule numbering precedence in the Introduction is clear and not optional. It may well be that the rule is repeated and numbered in Chap E.1 through .6 because that is not optional but instead rules provided as a framework for the use of the Optional Rules. The Optional Rules are E1 through to E12. If one does not accept this then one is faced with the nonsense of the "optional only" use of the rule is optional and will be non-optional.

Consider this rule:
"Should the order of actions given in the body of the rules conflict with the ASOP, the latter takes precedence."

It would seem that contradiction in the rules is accepted as a possibility, and a method of resolution is implemented with some finality, distasteful as it may be.

 

[Sparafucil3]

"Should the order of actions given in the body of the rules conflict with the ASOP, the latter takes precedence."

It would seem that contradiction in the rules is accepted as a possibility, and a method of resolution is implemented with some finality, distasteful as it may be.

By it's nature, that sentence acknowledges the possibility. If shows forethought on how to resolve an unintended consequence. Like I said above, if there is a footnote or something saying "yeah, we're aware but play it this way" then I find it more acceptable. Without such a note, we have no idea if it was a deliberate intention or an oversight. Without a note, if we think it deliberate then we have to wonder why they didn't go back and fix the earlier rule. if it wasn't deliberate then it was a mistake and why should we honor a mistake? I don't like contradictory rules. They leave room for reasonable people to disagree and that isn't a good thing. Do you keep reading AFTER you find the answer to look for contradicting rules in the higher rule numbers? Does that sound like the way we should play? -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

I have uppermost in my mind that the people who provide the ASL rules are running a business. Yes it is a business based on a hobby, but they have to decide what is going to make the cut and what is going to be ignored for now. Sure there are more than a couple of things that deserve to be redone, but have to be weighed against work that has a more direct impact on paying the bills. We play with the rules have have now.

Having said that, I am not ashamed to ask for more™, but I know that it needs to be taken with a hefty dose of "good enough Vs gold plating".

The simple statement that higher numbered rules take precedence carries a lot of the load in respect to unintended consequences. I'm happy to hope that more will be done to resolve these things later. I look to the popularity of the pdf eASL rules, and perhaps the concept of some cost-effective implementation of "living rules" taking hold and minor issues like this being addressed every few years. In the meantime there are dice to roll.

 

[Stewart]

I'm just curious how a DUG in TANK that doesn't move, go from WA to the woods TEM when shocked. It's simply odd to implement.

 

[PresterJohn]

Okay, it all starts with the quantum nature of the universe as we currently know it. Waves and particles.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The simple statement that higher numbered rules take precedence carries a lot of the load in respect to unintended consequences.

So, do you live by this though? Do you continue to looking in B, C, D, E, F, or G when you think you've found your answer in A? After all, there could be a contrary higher numbered rule negating your A rule? This is why contradictory rules are such a bad thing for game continuity. I LOVE the stability of ASL rules. I hate the idea that players could be playing different games because two reasonable people can reach differing conclusions because the rules are in a confusing or contradictory state. -- jim