A10.531 and the case of the mysterious House Rule

[Pyth]

The following wonderfully clear text is snipped from a 2004 Ole Boe GS post:

A12.14 tells us that a unit looses "?" if it "moves/advances/withdraws into an Open Ground hex (as defined in 10.531)"
So, the unit will not loose "?" unless it does so in an Open Ground hex as per A10.531

A10.531 tells us that the hex is considered Open Ground (for "?"-loss and some other purposes), only if an enemy unit could fire with the -1FFMO DRM.

So those two combined tells us that a unit using AM will only loose "?" if there is a GO enemy unit that could hypothetically fire with FFMO (regardless of whether that unit has a usable weapon or not).

The part I emphasized in red is crucial to applying A10.531 correctly. And that red part could be said even more explicitly imo, something like "regardless of the individual characteristics of a unit's weapon or lack therof, for Open Ground determination in concealment loss situations the hypothetical fire is considered as a direct fire weapon with 16 hex normal range." Which is just a long and ASL roundabout way of saying, "use pure LOS when determining Open Ground for concealment, forget about the specific weapon."

This is, I think, how everyone plays. It's not controversial. There's a related Perry answered Q&A about mortars and concealment loss that says... "the mortar is immaterial.' Good. Great. Right. The weapon is immaterial. These are good rules that make sense and we all use. My only problem is that I can't find them in the RB or in any errata or anywhere.

As I read A10.531 it says nothing about "regardless of the weapon. " Nor does A12.14. This house rule seems to have been adopted at some time in the epic past, the time when giants and rule-makers imposed their invincible will upon the 9 available hard-sided Geo Boards with an iron fist and tiny low quality dice.... and now this house rule has been thoroughly absorbed into the ASL playing community... but here we are in 2020 and imho the RB text could use some fixing. It says something else. The RB in A10.531 ties the determination of Open Ground, for concealment-loss purposes to weapon specific hypothetical Interdiction -- which would be confusing if you let it be. But no one I'm aware of actually plays this (incorrect, yet rb sanctioned) way.

Can anyone shed light on this? Ole's post is from 2004... this was a resolved issue 16 years ago at a minimum. Is it time for an errata to A10.531? Or is there one already and I've just missed it?

 

[Eagle4ty]

The question Ole Boe replied to was for losing concealment where only a LOS is required as opposed to interdiction where a weapon is certainly required. The example to best differentiate the two is use of a unit with a mortar against a unit with the HA TEM. For concealment loss an assault moving unit in an OG hex but receiving a HA TEM vs a unit with mortar, the assault moving unit would not lose concealment because the weapon does not matter for LOS concealment loss purposes. However, if the unit with HA was broken and had to rout across an OG hex also with HA the mortar could interdict the routing unit because TEM never applies to a mortar TH attempt, nor does the mortar have to actually attain a hit vs the routing unit, just have the possibility of a hit being achieved to claim interdiction.

 

[Honosbinda]

Interesting post! I glean you are more concerned about concealment loss than interdiction.

In the case of the mortar 'being immaterial,' it's only so for the circumstances elaborated in that specific question and answer. Answers to specific elaborated questions are not changes to the rules.

Hopefully that explains why the phrase 'regardless of the weapon being material,' or whatever similar wording you are looking for, is not cited in the rules, because it was never in the rules, it was just used in that Q/A.

One can logically conclude that LOS = line of sight => is based on what eyeballs on humans can do, not what weapons being held by humans can do. At least out to 16 hexes. According to the concealment chart, eyeballs alone aren't good enough to strip concealment from infantry more than 16 hexes away.

The problem may be that the ASLRB index cannot comprehensively define every word in the English language, otherwise it would be a dictionary, not a rule book. Inevitably we must interpret on the basis of the language itself. In that sense, every rule is a house rule.

What I'm saying is we could pick any rule in the rule book and describe it as a house rule because each word in the rule is based upon each definition of each word in English.

It's gonna be a circular tail chase that I suggest best be avoided and I'd say the same for extreme analysis of A10.531. As you suggest already, it seems clear enough to play the game with!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The RB in A10.531 ties the determination of Open Ground, for concealment-loss purposes to weapon specific hypothetical Interdiction -- which would be confusing if you let it be.

Note that the Interdictor part of A10.531 has been change via ASL Journal 11 errata:

A10.531: line 3, replace “any Interdictor” with “the particular enemy unit(s)”. {J11}

So now at least, the connection to the units with a LOS being an Interdictor is not there anymore.

Personally, I think that that first sentence of A10.531 perhaps is trying to say too much in a single sentence.

 

[Pyth]

Thanks Klas, the errata seems to help...but it doesnt really solve what I see as the critical issue which is concealment loss/gain being tied to a "hypothetical DFF opportunity." (It should, imo, be tied to a LOS check that assumes direct fire and 16 hex normal range -- isnt that how the community plays it?) I think that the sentence is trying to say too much. Concealment gain/loss demanded differentiation imo.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Thanks Klas, the errata seems to help...but it doesnt really solve what I see as the critical issue which is concealment loss/gain being tied to a "hypothetical DFF opportunity." (It should, imo, be tied to a LOS check that assumes direct fire and 16 hex normal range -- isnt that how the community plays it?) I think that the sentence is trying to say too much. Concealment gain/loss demanded differentiation imo.

In this case LOS and LOF are not synonymous. When draws a LOS string to fire a weapon it is just that, a LOS to see if one is able to see the unit. A LOF may be a bit different though traced as a LOS based upon direct fire or indirect fire principals. I agree the rule could go a bit further in clarifying the the nuances here, but given the further rules in Ch C with regards to types of fire and alluding to the fact LOS & LOF vary somewhat in their application, I have not seen this as a major concern. (JMHO)

 

[Honosbinda]

....I agree the rule could go a bit further in clarifying the the nuances here, but given the further rules in Ch C with regards to types of fire and alluding to the fact LOS & LOF vary somewhat in their application, I have not seen this as a major concern. (JMHO)

Agree. It's not a major concern nor a critical issue but more a case of splitting hairs to satisfy one's interpretation of a rule imperfectly written but more than satisfactory in its execution by the entire ASL community, apparently.

There are a lot more pressing issues related to the ASLRB than this. Examples? Prisoner rules. All of Chapter E. Official eASLRB. Those, just off the top of my head. Not having these fixes causes far more 'serious' issues in gameplay and the efficiency thereof.

 

[Sparafucil3]

In this case LOS and LOF are not synonymous. When draws a LOS string to fire a weapon it is just that, a LOS to see if one is able to see the unit. A LOF may be a bit different though traced as a LOS based upon direct fire or indirect fire principals. I agree the rule could go a bit further in clarifying the the nuances here, but given the further rules in Ch C with regards to types of fire and alluding to the fact LOS & LOF vary somewhat in their application, I have not seen this as a major concern. (JMHO)

The Concealment Loss table ties Loss/Gain to FFMO (A10.531) (... For purposes of rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction, an Open Ground hex is any hex in which the particular enemy unit(s) could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity (regardless of what attacks it actually made in previous phases), the -1 FFMO DRM. ...) Notice is says "hypothetical DFF opportunity. Further, the FF in FFMO is literally "First Fire". As such, LOF does play a part in determination. The fact that LOF does play is what creates the conundrum. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

There are a lot more pressing issues related to the ASLRB than this. Examples? Prisoner rules. All of Chapter E. Official eASLRB. Those, just off the top of my head. Not having these fixes causes far more 'serious' issues in gameplay and the efficiency thereof.

"Fixing" this is easy. Render an official decision, create the 3 - 15 words needed to "fix" the rulebook, check to make sure it doesn't create problems elsewhere, move on. Those things you mention above are all major under-takings. I think the Chapter E stuff has been discussed, I don't know the status. I know I submitted the prisoner rules re-write to Perry ages ago. I don't know if what the status of those are. I don't even know if Perry really feels like taking that on. We talked ad-naseum about an eASLRB. The effort is way more than people think. I am sure, if you picked up the phone and called MMP, they would be happy to consider any submission on the topic you might have. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

..... The fact that LOF does play is what creates the conundrum. -- jim

Umm, no, it's not a conundrum. A conundrum is an issue that is both confusing and difficult. Obviously this is not either, since people work around these issues very easily, every day, every hour, every game and every rout phase -- without much confusion and without much difficulty.

"Fixing" this is easy. Render an official decision, create the 3 - 15 words needed to "fix" the rulebook, check to make sure it doesn't create problems elsewhere, move on. Those things you mention above are all major under-takings. I think the Chapter E stuff has been discussed, I don't know the status. I know I submitted the prisoner rules re-write to Perry ages ago. I don't know if what the status of those are. I don't even know if Perry really feels like taking that on. We talked ad-naseum about an eASLRB. The effort is way more than people think. I am sure, if you picked up the phone and called MMP, they would be happy to consider any submission on the topic you might have. -- jim

So what if they are major undertakings? They are by far more important. Why should we only focus on what is easy, and in this case, mostly unnecessary?

In fact, why don't you post your prisoner rules re-write up for all of us to see? Maybe Perry thought there were too many problems with them? Maybe not? You keep talking about them, so let's see them. We'll look them over and help you press the issue. We've heard enough, let's have a look.

Your nausea is not my nausea. I'll talk about the eASLRB until they have done what they've promised. My holding their feet to the fire is not popular with you and others, so be it. I've dealt with opposition before.

The fact is, the electronic effort is not hard. People actually realize that cross-linking every single rule and example is not necessary (only desirable). We can do a search ourselves with a PDF far faster than flipping through the actual rule book that obviously has no cross-links either. If there were no cross-linking, maintenance would be far easier than you keep telling us how difficult it is. It's not.

If it were so difficult, by the way, why do I personally know of at least three bootleg, workable, usable and efficient copies of the eASLRB? What you say about it's difficulty is entirely relative and I believe you exaggerate the factor.

I don't think MMP would take my calls, and your suggestion is a bit farcical, isn't it? Given how they don't seem to answer you about a major submission you put together umteen years ago. Very amusing!

 

[Sparafucil3]

Umm, no, it's not a conundrum. A conundrum is an issue that is both confusing and difficult. Obviously this is not either, since people work around these issues very easily, every day, every hour, every game and every rout phase -- without much confusion and without much difficulty.

People walk around everyday without a grand unified theory. Doesn't make it any less of a conundrum.

So what if they are major undertakings? They are by far more important. Why should we only focus on what is easy, and in this case, mostly unnecessary?

In fact, why don't you post your prisoner rules re-write up for all of us to see? Maybe Perry thought there were too many problems with them? Maybe not? You keep talking about them, so let's see them. We'll look them over and help you press the issue. We've heard enough, let's have a look.

Your nausea is not my nausea. I'll talk about the eASLRB until they have done what they've promised. My holding their feet to the fire is not popular with you and others, so be it. I've dealt with opposition before.

The fact is, the electronic effort is not hard. People actually realize that cross-linking every single rule and example is not necessary (only desirable). We can do a search ourselves with a PDF far faster than flipping through the actual rule book that obviously has no cross-links either. If there were no cross-linking, maintenance would be far easier than you keep telling us how difficult it is. It's not.

If it were so difficult, by the way, why do I personally know of at least three bootleg, workable, usable and efficient copies of the eASLRB? What you say about it's difficulty is entirely relative and I believe you exaggerate the factor.

I don't think MMP would take my calls, and your suggestion is a bit farcical, isn't it? Given how they don't seem to answer you about a major submission you put together umteen years ago. Very amusing!

Have you created your own eASLRB? I find it amusing that people who haven't put in the effort are telling me how easy it is. If all you're doing is downloading I am sure it's easy. Napster existed because downloading was easy.

WRT my prisoner re-write, I have moved through at least two PC's since then. I am not even sure I still have them any more. I did share the re-write with people whom I work with to get their thoughts and opinions. That is how good work gets done. There were questions in there for Perry to examine. For instance, Disrupted units are not an Obstacle to movement (i.e. you can move through a Location containing a Disrupted enemy unit). They Surrender Adjacent and can be captured by moving through their Location. That changes when No Quarter is declared. They no longer Surrender Adjacent and can no longer be captured by moving through their Location. What isn't addressed is are Disrupted Units then an Obstacle to movement now? I would imagine so, but it begs the question. I can see the argument for both sides as the Disrupted unit now pretty much Routs normally since if can't Surrender Adjacent. Given that it is back to "normal Rout", is it like any other unit? I don't know and the rules are silent. Where the rules are silent is Perry's domain. I know there were other question posited seeking clarification. One of the goals was to create a comprehensive Surrender guide like the comprehensive Rout example. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

People walk around everyday without a grand unified theory. Doesn't make it any less of a conundrum.

Congratulations on cleverly providing the biggest and most irrelevant apples to oranges comparison this forum has ever seen.

Have you created your own eASLRB? I find it amusing that people who haven't put in the effort are telling me how easy it is. If all you're doing is downloading I am sure it's easy. Napster existed because downloading was easy.

You're not the arbiter of my capabilities and experiences. It amuses me you can't take that possibility into account. I guess that in your world you find yourself a mountain of efficiency and capability in ways that are barely achievable by others, but....

I don't have to create an eASLRB precisely to know how to and have experience scanning many documents into Word, formatting them, checking them, then printing them as a combined PDF. This isn't the rocket science you like to make it sound like. I'm sure it's tedious, especially if one tries to cross-reference every rule with hyper-links. Again, that's not a necessary feature and I wouldn't do it. The technology needed to do a very simple living rules document, like GMT seems to do readily for every game that they have (thousands of pages of living rules, I Imagine) is quite available, easy to use and cheap to maintain.

The ASLRB may be long and convoluted but scanning it and printing it into a PDF is something an intelligent 12-year old could probably do.

WRT my prisoner re-write, I have moved through at least two PC's since then. I am not even sure I still have them any more.

That's a bit astonishing. Oh well.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Congratulations on cleverly providing the biggest and most irrelevant apples to oranges comparison this forum has ever seen.

I do try.

The ASLRB may be long and convoluted but scanning it and printing it into a PDF is something an intelligent 12-year old could probably do.

Well, have you done it? What are you waiting for? Or do you want someone else to do all the work so you can just download it? -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

That's a bit astonishing. Oh well.

I forgot this part. After 10 years, I have moved on. You should try it. Speaking of which, Ciao. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

Well, have you done it? What are you waiting for? Or do you want someone else to do all the work so you can just download it? -- jim

I forgot this part. After 10 years, I have moved on. You should try it. -- jim

In general, remarks such as these are a typical strategy on forums when one has lost argument(s), thus:

a) ignore the other party's valid points and of course refuse to acknowledge them, then,
b) turn the discussion into an ad hominem attack on capabilities and character -- because all else has failed.

JIm -- I'm not defending myself from character assassination from some guy who doesn't even share his real and full name on the forum. Your profile is not accessible. My real name is in the signature panel of this post. PM me and we can continue this discussion in full recognition.

If you've moved on from this mishap as you claim, you sure bring it up a lot! I guess we won't ever again see you talking about your lost rules rewrite project, right?

Back to the OP, as stated, I think this is not such a major issue, but I'm glad you brought it up! Cheers.

 

[von Marwitz]

I don't have to create an eASLRB precisely to know how to and have experience scanning many documents into Word, formatting them, checking them, then printing them as a combined PDF. This isn't the rocket science you like to make it sound like.

For starters:
How do you 'scan' all the errata that came out over the years into your eASLRB on that scanner?
And the links and references to Klas Q&A compilation?

Just lumping the pages of your ASLRB onto a scanner and pressing the button will give you a PDF not unlikely of an enormous file size*. But I wouldn't call that an eASLRB and nothing of a rocket at all. For a good eASLRB that rocks, you'll need a bit more of 'rocket science'.

von Marwitz


* Even a more sophistcated one covering Chapters A through Z and tons of Third Party stuff is well beyond 1 GB.

 

[Sparafucil3]

* Even a more sophistcated one covering Chapters A through Z and tons of Third Party stuff is well beyond 1 GB.

Scans are bigger than some people think. -- jim

 

[Honosbinda]

For starters:
How do you 'scan' all the errata that came out over the years into your eASLRB on that scanner?
And the links and references to Klas Q&A compilation?

Just lumping the pages of your ASLRB onto a scanner and pressing the button will give you a PDF not unlikely of an enormous file size*. But I wouldn't call that an eASLRB and nothing of a rocket at all. For a good eASLRB that rocks, you'll need a bit more of 'rocket science'.

von Marwitz


* Even a more sophistcated one covering Chapters A through Z and tons of Third Party stuff is well beyond 1 GB.

You can make this sound as tedious and impossible as you want to, Von M. but that does not make it that it needs to be.

I've scanned stuff. A lot of stuff. I know what happens when a lot of documents are scanned.

You expect errata to be included that MMP hasn't bothered to include in their printed versions? Why? Don't make the hypothetical bootleg project harder than it would need to be.

People can still search the errata and Q/A because they are PDFs. Remember? These are already available! I wouldn't redo what's been done. Why would I? Why would you, unless you wanted a perfectly crafted product.

But that's not what we need.

It's the rulebook that's not PDF and hence not searchable. The rulebook. The rest of it we can deal with as it is.

I'm sure you know this to be the case, but you just wanted to jump in to make a point, which you've done, but it's not hugely pertinent. In any case, I'm not in the market to be making bootleg copies, there are enough of those. I want MMP to deliver what they've promised, as I've said already.