Dug-In Tanks and WA

[PresterJohn]

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

What??? Seriously? We know there are some errors in the rules. We know there are exceptions (usually with higher rules over lower rules). We know that most of the game is covered by less than half of the rules. We know that people misread the rules. We know all these things and still attempt to play the game correctly. If there is a rules question it is good to look at the index and look at both high and low references. And specifically look for examples in the rules. But it is also easy to go directly to the errata lists and use search terms there. If I am asking a question somebody else has probably already asked it. I tend to stop at the errata if I find the answer and not keep looking for a different answer. Do I live by that? Yes, yes I do.

We also expect that over time the errors will be addressed and confusion clarified. But in the meantime we have to come to terms with the simple fact that not everybody is on the same literal page when it comes to some of the lesser used rules.

 

[Sparafucil3]

We also expect that over time the errors will be addressed and confusion clarified. But in the meantime we have to come to terms with the simple fact that not everybody is on the same literal page when it comes to some of the lesser used rules.

So how long do we allow "higher numbered rule" to be the norm before we stop? This is why I hate the precedent. It creates more problems than it solves. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

So how long do we allow "higher numbered rule" to be the norm before we stop? This is why I hate the precedent. It creates more problems than it solves. -- jim

I think it is inherent. I am tempted to have a half hearted attempt at going through some pages in Chap A and see if whenever the EXC comes up that it refers to a higher numbered entry as the cause of the exception. Until some hard data is determined it is just my feeling.

 

[PresterJohn]

And when I say "errata lists" I really mean those compendium files of all things rule related but mostly Q&A.

 

[Treadhead]

Do you continue to looking in B, C, D, E, F, or G when you think you've found your answer in A?

Just to say here, it really depends on the what and the where involved, doesn't it? Am I in the desert? The PTO? If I am dealing with AFV, then most certainly I will look somewhere in Chapter D. Likewise when dealing with Guns, or maybe a terrain. I most certainly will consult the appropriate later chapters. If it is strictly an Infantry question in European terrain, then I probably wouldn't think to look beyond Chapter A. But first I would probably look in the Index, and most certainly there would be appropriate references there to later rules.

Honestly, I find the above question to be a little odd. For instance, if you a driving a tank through the desert, then you most certainly better be looking in Chapters D and F, and any rules in Chapter A give way to those immediately.

After all, there could be a contrary higher numbered rule negating your A rule?

Isn't that rather the point? The later chapters add layers of complexity based upon other unit types. I certainly have a reasonable expectation that Guns may involve some kind of contradiction to what might apply to Infantry. I certainly have a reasonable expectation that vehicles will have several exceptions to the Infantry rules found in Chapter A. You better believe Chapter G changes a lot of things. I almost expect that something later on could contradict or negate what I find in Chapter A. So rather than say each and every time "this is an exception", the blanket principle covers it.

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.

Pardon me for expressing it this way, but I can't think of a better way of saying it: If two people play by the Rules Order Precedence like the rules say to do, and then there is a contradiction (no matter how disagreeable or "confusing"), they should both be able to reach the conclusion found by applying the higher numbered rule, and play it that way, because frankly that it how we are instructed to approach the matter. It is a very direct way to resolve the matter during play, also.

It is a foundational principle from day one.

 

[Treadhead]

The Intro was in the original rule book. I haven't liked it since then.

That is your personal preference, of course, but it is how we are instructed to apply the rules.

I find it distasteful because it's illogical

To you...

... and allows for bad rules.

Bad rules? Like what?

It assumes that people writing higher numbered rules were either lazy or lacked rules knowledge.

So, you are say that the people who actually wrote the rules, and also wrote the original Rules Order Precedence, assumed that they themselves lacked rules knowledge or were lazy? What?

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?

I think you are missing the point. When a rule in a later Chapter creates a contradiction, it's because it is adding a layer of complexity. It's not that the earlier rule needs "fixing". If anything, it may need an EXC pointing to a higher rule.

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.

Can you help out with an example here? I am not sure what you are referring to. Is that Chapter A through D stuff, or later modules?

To me, pointing to "this is the higher numbered rule" is an acknowledgement that the rules need correcting.

Not at all.

Please explain how you justify that conclusion?

A statement was deliberately placed in the Introduction to the game about how to apply to rules structure. How is that an acknowledgement that an earlier rule needs correcting?
Do you really think that Don Greenwood and Bob McNamara were too lazy or too stupid to go back and change a rule that they knew needed correcting, in the very first published edition of the rules?

It seems to me it was a deliberate device to introduce more complex rules with a higher number, with an understanding that it might create (deliberate) contradictions, and also the understanding that those exceptions may not be stated in the earlier rule.

You may disagree about the later rule per se, and how it alters an earlier rule. I think it is incorrect to conclude that a contradiction is automatically an error that needs 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.

Is there an example of two separate rules governing the same action?
Rather, it is a case of one rule altering another; they are not the same action, something makes them different.

I daresay, a close reading of the Index would find all the rules governing the same action. It may take a minute or two.

 

[Treadhead]

So how long do we allow "higher numbered rule" to be the norm before we stop?

Always and forever, of course. It's how Chapters F and G could be introduced, which altered all kinds of things. Would you really apply a Chapter A rule that contradicts a Chapter G rule? Example?

Rules Order Precedence is the norm and always has been.

This is why I hate the precedent. It creates more problems than it solves. -- jim

It's not a "precedent".

It's an instruction on how to apply a set of rules that were constructed in a very deliberate way.

It solves a whole boatload of problems when it is applied.

Please describe the problems that it has really created, that really could not be solved by applying the principle.

What it boils down to is, you just don't like it. You say "it creates problems", but I just don't see it.

 

[Treadhead]

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

I am not sure of your exact question, but whether or not to apply Case Q TEM is a question of HD status, not necessarily Wall Advantage.

A Dug-In AFV is always considered HD (the hull not even visible being dug into the ground, hence the instruction to place a West of Alamein turret on there), so TEM never applies.

 

[Treadhead]

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.

A Dug-In AFV can lose Wall Advantage by becoming Shocked.

But TEM applies to the To Hit attempt. A Dug-In AFV is always HD and cannot apply TEM.

A Dug-In AFV will also have WA, but loses it when it becomes Shocked or Stunned. The wall is not protecting the hull, so WA has no effect on HD status for a Dug-In AFV.

If the AFV was not Dug-In, had WA and then lost it when becoming Shocked, then it would automatically also lose its HD status and would then apply the TEM. (The wall was protecting the hull in this case.)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

IIRC, WA is not lost automatically if an AFV becomes Shocked/stunned.

 

[Sparafucil3]

So, you are say that the people who actually wrote the rules, and also wrote the original Rules Order Precedence, assumed that they themselves lacked rules knowledge or were lazy? What?

You have rule A that says one thing. You have rule B that says the complete opposite. You have no footnote or anything explaining why rule B changed to the opposite. You just know it does. The rule is changed in such a way that A is no longer valid and is misleading. They could have said "contrary to A, this is now the law of the land" in B but they didn't even do that. So what are we as readers to think?

• They didn't know about A -- Seems bad to say but this is one option.
• They didn't understand A -- Again, seems bad to say, but this is another one. It explains why they said something opposite
• They knew about A but don't like it or think it needs to change -- If this is the case, my not mention A? Why not change A? Why not a footnote?
• They knew about A but just didn't change it while introducing B -- What else can we call this? Lazy? Didn't want to do replacement pages? Something else?

No one is error free, not even Greenwood or McNamara. Let alone the other several dozen people who have introduced rule changes over the years. If rule B contradicts rule A and makes no mention or reference to A there is no way for us to know if rule A was even considered. If they didn't consider rule A then deferring to rule B because of some higher number rule precedent is silly. The change is completely capricious and not thought out. If they did consider A and decided to change it, why not refer to A or remove A altogether? Why write B when you could simply re-write A? People know where A is to begin with. Why not something that explains why the change was made such as a footnote?

I am sorry if these observations escape you. It isn't rocket science. It's just good technical writing. -- jim

 

[morrigu]

To chime in on the original question:

A Dug-In Tank is always HD vs Direct Fire (D9.54) and consequently cannot claim in-hex Case Q (D4.2), which means it is under "Mandatory WA (B9.323)" which in cannot voluntarily forfeit (A9.322).

I haven't played in over 10 years and am just getting back, so I'm not too sure about my assessment.

Rules used:

B.9.3.2. Wall Advantage (WA)
A unit may claim WA if it is not ... a vehicle eligible to receive in-hex TEM of ≥ 1.

A.9.3.2.2.
A Pinned, TI, or Immobile unit cannot voluntarily claim or forfeit WA.

B.9.3.2.3. Mandatory WA
A unit unable to claim in-hex TEM of at least +1 must claim WA.

D.4.2
A HD target may
- Not claim an in-hex Case Q TH DRM
- Claim an in-hex Case Q TEM DRM in lieu of HD status

D.9.5.2. Placement
An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage.

D.9.5.4. Dug-In AFV
... treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise ...
... HD to all Direct Fire ...