Search results

So you don't have a problem with the fact that in the definition of Open Ground you quoted, "concealment gain/loss" and "Interdiction" are treated identically (side-by-side in the definition really), but yet you believe that they really are treated differently.

Both sections state that the IFT DR is unaffected by HA.

As others have noted, it's C1.52, not C1.55. And the exact wording is "Indirect Fire IFT resolution is subject to TEM (EXC: Height Advantage)". IFT Resolution. It does not say anything about the TH DR. My claim is that HA could keep FFMO from applying to the TH DR, and therefore to...

Right, but I just meant that HA could negate FFMO on the TH DR of mortars.

Isn't it possible that HA applies to a mortar's TH DR, but not to its IFT DR? Note that C9.1 states that "Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance...", and "the IFT effects of those hits are resolved using Indirect Fire principles and modifiers" (my emphasis added). I believe I've always played it...

A implies B does not necessarily mean that B implies A. I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I imagine the designer did not want bamboo and/or huts to be in play.

That's not what this is. Malwarebytes is an anti-virus application, and they have placed this site on their list of blocked sites so that whenever anyone who has malwarebytes installed on their device tries to access this site, it is blocked. A brief search on the internet indicated that when...

Malwarebytes has been blocking www.gamesquad.com for a week or so due to phishing activity (it claims). I have been continuing to the site anyway and haven't had a problem. Just letting you know.

I agree with you. Which is why I called out the person who inserted a political statement into a discussion about an upcoming product. Which I've pre-ordered, BTW.

LOL, so in your mind, the symbols of Nazism were absolutely fine until they started being potentially identified with current groups?

What if the shortest route could be interdicted (in this example, directly across the road), and the longer route could not be interdicted? Are you saying then that the unit still couldn't take the longer route because he won't be able to arrive there? And that would mean he would have to...

Your entire argument is based on this phrase, but let's include the very next sentence in order to understand the context: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point." "newly-Known enemy unit" obviously means from the viewpoint of the routing...

Suppose that the enemy unit in R6 was concealed, and the routing unit chose to rout to P7 via O6 as in the example, which is a perfectly legal rout. After the routing unit enters O6, the enemy unit in R6 drops concealment, which makes continuing to rout to P7 illegal. Are you saying that the...

But it was unable to rout to its originally chosen target hex due to coming within LOS of a previously unknown enemy unit. So you refigure its new rout destination from its current hex just as if it was starting there. A10.51 line 23: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new...

Yes, because when figuring the new rout destination from O6, he can ignore N5 and O7 as rout destinations since they are equidistant from KEU.

IDK but JKJK

I absolutely agree, but I have to admit I went 😲 given the author of the comment, lol.

I'd like the capability to pin threads that are of interest to me, and that would be pinned only for me. Probably not possible, but just wanted to voice my opinion.

😳 4 HASLs!?!? Or did you mean 4 CGs?

This is all in the context of post #4, in which von Marwitz claimed that one could purposely not declare a Target Type on a Location that might be a Vehicle or a 5/8" dummy stack, and the shot would magically use whatever Target Type and Ammo was optimal based on what is actually there. That is...