pward said:
BTW the rules don't say anything about looking at the 2 result, nor do they specify the mechanics of determining the "possibility"...
Agreed, so there's nothing that demands that only the DR of 2 is to be checked, thus 3 (or higher) may be checked as well.
In order to account for cowering, I believe that all the DRMs must be checked against the lower column. Start at a 2 original DR, and work up with the DRMs, if you can still have a NMC result, DM.
Why do you check a "3" against the lower column? If you roll a 3, there is no cowering, so why do you treat it as an automatic cowering even with a DR that has no possibility of cowering? That doesn't make sense - at least not to me.
Boe's and Flarvin's method seems to make you check at the lower column for snakes, the original column for DR 3. (Further checks would be redundant.)
That is correct - simply because that is how results are determined in ASL. You use your original column unless you cower, and you never cower on a DR of 3, so why not use the correct column?
Why would the "possibility of cowering" have to be taken into account if you can stay on the same column and look for a result there at DR 3?
I assume that without the "possibility of cowering" part, some players would say that a 1+2 attack (with a final DR of 4) or a 2+3 attack etc.
can result in an NMC - i.e. they would disregard the fact that the attack was subject to cowering, so the clause was added to remind them that the possible NMC calculation would be subject to normal cowering rules.
And normal cowering rules is that a unit never cowers when the DR is 3.
If the intent had been "if you cower or not, check and see if you could have gotten a result on the effective column", I believe the rule would have been written that way, or would have left out the part in parentheses.
I agree that the rule is not very well written, but I'm sure that if the intent had been to treat the attack as an automatic cowering if possible, then it wouldn't say in a paranthesis to take
possibilty of Cowering into account. Note that "possibility" is in italics - IMHO to signify that it is a possibility and not automatic.
Let me use the rule ("attacked by ... enough FP (taking the
possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target") as a basis for a couple of yes/no questions when you make a 1+1 attack with a squad that can possibly cower:
1) Can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?
2) Is this true even when you consider that the unit may cower (if it rolls doubles)?
If you answer yes to the above two questions, the requirement in question is fulfilled - and I don't see how you can answer no to any of those when making a 1FP +1DRM attack.
You also wrote in your previous post:
pward said:
Now, I think if you do manage to get a result without cowering, then the unit is DM again from the result.
Assuming that your interpretation is otherwise correct, this one is wrong.
A10.62 says: "
DM is a condition which afflicts any unit during the Player Turn it breaks (even if it breaks voluntarily) or any already broken unit which is subsequently attacked by CC/WP, or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target."
The unit in question is already broken from a previous turn so the first part obviously doesn't apply, and according to you, the second part doesn't apply for (say) a 1FP flat attack. If you then actually roll 3, the effect is a 1MC but the unit would not become DM even if it failed the MC and got reduced to a HS. I think such a situation shows pretty well that your interpretation is not the correct one...
Finally, there is a Perry sez with the following wording:
Perry sez said:
If a unit capable of cowering takes a 1 +1 shot at a broken unit does the broken unit become DM?
Yes
I know this isn't official, but at least shows that Perry reads the rule the same way.