WaterRabbit said:
By original rules, I mean the original rules -- the ones that SOF and HH were tested under. And by clarified you mean changed, so no, it is not incorrect.
I thought we discussed how the v.2 rules - and not earlier debriefing -changed WA, but OK.
And by clarified I mean that there was absolutely no consensus about what they meant, so one side saw this as a change and the other as a clearer way of saying what it already said.
This is the part we are in disagreement. Just answering yes was never sufficient to prevent the DEFENDER from claiming WA later on in the turn. Unless backed up with a shot, the in-hex TEM was never ‘claimed’.
I agree that this part was more than debatable until the 96/97 debriefing. Personally, I didn't have much clue until after those :nuts:
The ATTACKER did not have to specify which unit was firing but he did have to commit at least one unit to fix the terrain of the DEFENDER. The reason being is that if the ATTACKER did not fire, then the in-hex TEM was truly never claimed and the defending unit could then still claim WA against a unit that moved adjacent.
I agree that the possibility of later claiming WA was one of the possible interpretations before the 96/97 Annuals. But your statement about being able to switch between a declaration of an attack, and the actual attack - has been incorrect all along.
I learned the WA rules the hard way from about ten guys that did play test SoF and HH. :surprise: For argument’s sake, let’s say that they were incorrect in their interpretation. In effect their interpretation was correct from my perspective because every opponent I have played since that time (and prior to ’96) played it the same way. So if it was misinterpreted, it was uniformly misinterpreted. So from my perspective, it is more likely that you have misunderstood the rule.
I certainly misunderstood the rule. Some of the unofficial Q&A on the subject, are from me (from 94 or so), and I did not get the answers I expected.
And I neither expected what you argue that the original rule said, nor what they said after the 96/97 debriefing. :nuts:
All this shows is that one interpretation won out over the other (and only because one faction had control of the rules). If the other faction had control over the rules…well it is interesting to note the changes introduced in '96 & '97 (and of course continued in RBv2) were not during either Don's or Bob's watch.
I agree with (most of) this. I know for sure that if Tate Rogers had control, the rules would say something else now
.
I was not involved in the 96/97 debriefing, so I cannot say anything about what was behind those, but since there are no Q&A (official or not) from Don's or Bob's time about this, we can only speculate about what their intention was (unless you have some inside info).
You are correct. The changes introduced in the '96 & '97 annuals are not much different than RBv2. But they are different than how the v1 rules were played and more importantly how SOF and HH were tested.
I cannot speak of the SOF/HH testing, but I remember enough from the ASLML around 93-98 to remember that very many already played as per those debriefings.
To me the changes in WA take the ambiguity out of the WA but don’t preserve the FoW elements in the original.
I happen to prefer the way the 96/97 annuals decided it, as it to me is a good simulation of surpressing fire. If the defender is afraid of enemy surpressing fire, he will choose in-hex TEM, but at the cost of giving the enemy more freedom of movement.
I also think the original rules (interpreted your way) was terrible, since a unit without a WA counter could mean:
a) That the opponent had not yet asked whether in-hex TEM or WA would be chosen.
b) That the unit had chosen in-hex TEM, but could later claim WA.
c) That the unit had forfeited WA, and could not later claim WA.
