A10.62 Dm

[jcr1968es]

By the way, this particular rule would probably be better expressed with some variation of, "if the only possibility of causing a NMC would also result in a Cower, then the attack does not cause DM status." -- because it wouldn't, seeing as a lower column would produce a lower result on the same DR and DRM.

Just to give some credit to rules writers and go deep into the real nature of humanity, if the rule were written the way you did this thread would be discussing if "would also result in a Cower" meant that units inmune to cower won't force DM on a 2+3 attack,

 

[pward]

I thought Bruce was helping me out here for a moment, but alas it's not so...

<start CS lesson>
In computer science, the testing of an algorithm has some trouble spots, which are usually tested at the various limits imposed on the function. For instance if the algorithm shouldn't get negative numbers nor should it get numbers over 100, then it gets tested to see how it functions with some negative numbers, zero, one, some more numbers mid range, 100, and some above 100. If the program functions properly with all these numbers, it's approved for use.
<end CS lesson>

For this particular issue, we don't have any problems when there is no risk of a column shift for cowering falling off the chart. The troublesome limits are at the edge of the chart where a unit would cower off the chart, as well as certain combinations of DRM with a 2 column shift for inexperienced.

This discussion is mostly limited to these limit tests, as for the other cases (higher FP or lower DRMs) both methods agree that a given attack will cause DM.

At it's core are the semantics and "spirit of the rules" interpretations.

Keep in mind that to remove the DM for breaking originally, in most cases a unit will be in rally terrain, someplace they wanted to be, that they think is safe. In order to get them to move out, they must be enticed by "enough FP" (or WP, ADJACENT enemy, etc.).

I see any 1 FP shot as incapable of inducing DM on an already broken unit, because of the possibility of cowering off the chart. (Same thing for inexperienced on the 1 or 2 column). This interpretation fits with the "enough FP" as a DM cause. Having the inexperienced units do the same for 1 or 2 FP columns is in keeping with their lower quality/poor equipment/lack of training/loss of NCO's/etc., whatever got them to Green or conscript status.

With an inexperienced unit firing, without the possibility of cowering off the chart, I see their inexperience shining through at the FP-DRM combination that has a DR two or three result (on the original column) the NMC result. Their 2 column shift means that the lower column used for cowering will result in a PTC or nothing, not enough for DM.

For all other cases, the Cowering column shift will result in the same NMC or better (worse for the target) result.

My interpretation of the "possibility of cowering" is that this clause is inculded to exempt the non-Cowering units from having to consider the column shift. Since there are 6 different DR combinations that Cower, you have to consult the lower column to see if there is still the possibility of a NMC result.

Boe's algorithm gives inexperienced units more capability then I think they deserve, and means that a 1fp attack on a unit in Woods (where the broken unit want's to take root) is enough to make them reconsider. To be firing on the 1 FP chart, most units would have to be at long range, or shooting in the advancing fire phase or both to get down to the 1 chart in the first place. You're already at a low volume of fire for whatever reason, so why is this enough to cause DM?

 

[Ole Boe]

Peter, I agree to most of what you write in your last post, but will comment a few issues:

I see any 1 FP shot as incapable of inducing DM on an already broken unit, because of the possibility of cowering off the chart. (Same thing for inexperienced on the 1 or 2 column). This interpretation fits with the "enough FP" as a DM cause.

But my interpretation also fits with the "enough FP" as a DM cause, since I only allow attacks that really has a possibility of getting an NMC to inflict DM. The attack must be good enough, and a 1 +1 attack is about as good as a 2 +2 attack - both have enough FP compared to its DRM to possibly get an NMC result, even with a unit that is subject to cowering.

My interpretation of the "possibility of cowering" is that this clause is inculded to exempt the non-Cowering units from having to consider the column shift. Since there are 6 different DR combinations that Cower, you have to consult the lower column to see if there is still the possibility of a NMC result.

I understand your interpretation and I agree to check the lower column for the DR combinations that result in Cowering. But it's still 30 other combinations that does not Cower, and with those the attack will be using the original column.

Boe's algorithm gives inexperienced units more capability then I think they deserve, and means that a 1fp attack on a unit in Woods (where the broken unit want's to take root) is enough to make them reconsider. To be firing on the 1 FP chart, most units would have to be at long range, or shooting in the advancing fire phase or both to get down to the 1 chart in the first place. You're already at a low volume of fire for whatever reason, so why is this enough to cause DM?

Simply becuase the attack is good enough to get an NMC (or better) result.

Anyway, I think the opinions are made clear by now, and I understand you and I will not agree on this one. Did you see my suggested rephrasing in my previous post? I'd like to get opinions of whether it is a good enough clarification to be suggested as an errata?

 

[zgrose]

>You're already at a low volume of fire for whatever reason, so why is this enough to cause DM?

For the same reason that a different die roll for the 1FP attack *could* have caused an NMC which the brokies *could* have failed and been reduced to a half-squad (or elimination on a 12). Sounds like a desperate situation to me. =)

At the risk of prolonging a "completed" thread, I'm not sure I understand the different sides. It has always seemed a pretty straightforward rule.

1+1 attack by Germans: if I roll a 3 I get NMC therefore auto-DM. 1+2 attack by Germans (not leader-led): if I roll a 3 I get a PTC and if I roll a 2 it shifts off the table therefore no auto-DM.

>>I see any 1 FP shot as incapable of inducing DM on an already broken unit, because of the possibility of cowering off the chart. (Same thing for inexperienced on the 1 or 2 column).

Remember, you aren't testing for the failure conditions, you're testing for 1 or more success conditions.

 

[Ole Boe]

I've quoted this once, but wanted to add another comment to it.

You're already at a low volume of fire for whatever reason, so why is this enough to cause DM?

This 1 +1 attack has 2/36 chance of getting a NMC result. A 1+2 attack with a unit immune to cowering only has half the chance (1/36) of getting a NMC result, but we all agree that the latter makes the unit DM. So I don't think it makes much sense to argue that the 1 +1 attack (which is twice as good) is to weak while the 1 +2 (immune to cowering) is not too weak.

At least this shows the fallacy of realism arguments - which I should be the last to say, since I often use them myself.

 

[Michael R]

I'm having difficulty with this one...

The correct one is to see if any hypothetical DR could result in an NMC or better. But as with the real DR, you must apply cowering if your unit is subject to it and the only hypothetical DR that could otherwise inflict a NMC is snakes.

So it is really as simple as saying before the actual attack: "Is there a theorethical possibility of getting a NMC (or better) with this attack?" If the answer is "yes", the broken target becomes DM regardless of what you roll.
[\quote]

Are you saying then, that "taking into account the possibility of cowering" means "consider the possibility of cowering when two is the only result that will inflict a NMC"?

That is different from how I, and everyone I've played in 15 years, has handled it. Of course, the actual low FP situation hasn't come up that often.

 

[Ole Boe]

Are you saying then, that "taking into account the possibility of cowering" means "consider the possibility of cowering when two is the only result that will inflict a NMC"?

I do consider the possibility of cowering in all cases, it's just that in some situations (e.g. if a 3 will inflict a NMC too), that the possibility of cowering doesn't matter, because a non-cower DR can inflict a NMC.

But as a simplification, I guess one can say "yes" to your question.

That is different from how I, and everyone I've played in 15 years, has handled it. Of course, the actual low FP situation hasn't come up that often.

It reminds me of the discussion on the ASLML 2-3 years ago about whether a multi-hex FG with one CX stack and one stack firing through +1 Hindrance, would get a +1 or a +2 DRM. Lots of people wrote that they've always played it one way and had never seen anyone playing the other way, but it was about 50/50 for +1 and +2.

I've always played it according to the Perry sez. and have never seen anyone playing it the other way, but as you say, it doesn't come up very often so it's fully possible that some of my opponents would have played it differently.

 

[SamB]

And here you have it in a nutshell.

A simple question about a situation that comes up dozens of times in a typical game generates two freaking pages of debate about the meaning of "taking into account the possibility of cowering".

Is it any wonder that only one person in a thousand has any desire to play this game?

I'm not complaining, and I am certianly not disparaging the character of the folks who have participated in this discussion. Just an observation about ASL.

On a related note: Since this board started (a little over a year ago?) there are 54 threads and 480 posts in "The Gamers" forum. By contrast there are 8,852 threads and 101,883 posts in the ASL forum!!!!

My, we are a wordy bunch, aren't we?

 

[Flarvin]

Are you saying then, that "taking into account the possibility of cowering" means "consider the possibility of cowering when two is the only result that will inflict a NMC"?

Whenever you make an attack, you are "taking into account the possibility of cowering.” That does not mean that every roll is treated as cowering, just doubles with unit susceptible to cowering.

I see the DMing rule as saying is it possible (regardless of the actual roll) for your attack to cause a NMC (at least), applying cowering as you normally would when determine the attacks results. This means you would need to check all possible rolls (2 through 12) not just 2 or 3, then adjust each roll (2 through 12) as if that was what you actually rolled for the attack. If any of the rolls (2 through 12) gets a NMC or better the target would be DMed.

Using 2 and 3 is just a short cut because these are the two best rolls and if 2 or 3 could not cause a NMC or better then the other rolls would not either. For non-cowering units you could use 2 because it gives the best possible result for the attack; this is not true for units that can cower. Generally for units that can cower, a roll of 3 gives better results then 2 because of the column shift(s). This means that there are times when 2 will not result in a NMC or better, but 3 will. This way when determining if DM is applied, attacking units are treated the exact same way you treat them when making the actual attack.

Flarvin

 

[cryophobia]

You guys managed to confuse the crap out of me. Had to go reread the rule ... sheesh :nuts:

 

[pward]

I've quoted this once, but wanted to add another comment to it.

This 1 +1 attack has 2/36 chance of getting a NMC result. A 1+2 attack with a unit immune to cowering only has half the chance (1/36) of getting a NMC result, but we all agree that the latter makes the unit DM. So I don't think it makes much sense to argue that the 1 +1 attack (which is twice as good) is to weak while the 1 +2 (immune to cowering) is not too weak.

At least this shows the fallacy of realism arguments - which I should be the last to say, since I often use them myself.

Before I go into the details, the point I am trying to make regarding the examples you used is that they are invalid for comparason to one another. A British 1st line rifle squad (good marksmanship) is not the same quality of fire as a Green British squad (less training). Or compare Finns to Russian Conscripts...

By virtue of the unit in the second example being immune to cowering, you are talking about one of a number of game mechanic reasons (not quite reality arguments):
1. British Elite and 1st Line - A25.45 says it all.
2. Finns - Sissu (see footnote A37) and A25.7 for the rule.

These previous 2 as a game mechanic are meant to model that nationality. The footnotes or rules section define this benefit from their marksmanship or calmness in combat. With respect to Cowering, their fire is more accurate and therefore doesn't need to check on the "Cower" column.

3. Berserk/Fanatic - More than willing to shoot alot to kill the enemy. My understanding of Cowering and the 2 column penalty for inexperienced is to take complete control away from the player and make that squad occasionally have weapons unused or personnel unwilling to fire at that target. Zerks and Fanatics would seem to be willing to face return fire, where other units may have some soldiers not quite as enthusiastic about emerging from cover to shoot (cowering). (It's an extension of the footnote for inexperienced units, the part about some soldiers being unwilling to use their weapon...)

4. SMC - This is either going to be a Hero or Leader, who should be able to overcome his fears to shoot at the enemy. Besides, if a SMC can't avoid Cowering when he's shooting alone, how can he expect to lead others properly.

5. Other reasons like OBA, guns, snipers etc. Aren't personnel who are wanting to cower behind cover instead of engaging the enemy.

Generally speaking Cowering is another random chance to not get what you want from those cardboard troops. Like Sniper direction and distance rolls, or routing units having a "program" to follow; occasionally you don't get the full FP worth from a unit.

I extend this reasoning to the DM rule to see if the FP is motivating enough to cause desparation. (As I have explained before.)

 

[pward]

So instead of "attacked by ... enough FP ... to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target." it would be better to say

"attacked by ... an attack that could possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target".

I see no problem with this rule as written, it fits the way you look at the current rule. My only two suggestions would be to add some examples, and add to the end "... based on the results of an original dice roll of 2 and 3, including the possible effect of cowering on the DR2."

We have already proven that if these numbers work, then checking the other 9 possible results isn't worth the time. The examples are the most important bit, do 3-4 at the breakpoints, along with some explanation of why some work and the others don't.

That way it's about as unambiguous as I can think of, and tells you the exact method to use to determine the suitability of the DM placement.

I still disagree about the efficacy of 1 FP for cower-able units, and for inexpereinced units being as effective in some cases as regular units.

 

[alanp]

I still disagree about the efficacy of 1 FP for cower-able units, and for inexpereinced units being as effective in some cases as regular units.

Say a 5-3-6 is stacked with a 7-6-8. It's theorectically possible for the Marines to break and the Newbies to hold firm from the same attack. [sorry to all of the USMC members here! ] It depends on the DRs, not on our assumptions about how our cardboard warriors should/would react.

I think what you're doing is shifting any theoretical fp and them checking results as opposed to checking a 2 or 3 DR result on the appropriate column--which may or may not be the same, taking the possibility of cowering into account.

 

[Ole Boe]

I think we're reaching the saturation point regarding this topic, but not being one to give up easily, I'll answer Peter once more.

Before I go into the details, the point I am trying to make regarding the examples you used is that they are invalid for comparason to one another. A British 1st line rifle squad (good marksmanship) is not the same quality of fire as a Green British squad (less training). Or compare Finns to Russian Conscripts...

I agree. That's why some are immune to cowering, other cower one column (like German elite, 1st and 2nd line squads) and other again cower two columns.

This also has an effect on their ability to inflict DM - even with mine (and Perry's ) interpretation. A british elite/1st line squad will be able to inflict DM using 1+2, 2+3 4+4 etc. attacks, while those subject to cowering need one less positive DRM (or one higher column of FP) to achieve the same.

It happens to be so that the border FP/DRM combination that can achieve an NMC is one higher DRM for the units immune to cowering, while it is the same FP/DRM combination for units that cower one or two columns. I.e. both an elite and a conscript German squad may achieve an NMC on a 2+2 attack, while an elite British squad will may achieve it also on a 2+3 attack.

So the units immune to cowering are[/better] in this regard. It just happens that a conscript squad is just as good as a normal squad - and I see no realism reason for a conscript squad to be worse than a normal squad when it comes to inflicting DM on a 2FP +2DRM attack, while being equal on absolutely all other FP/DRM combinations that are possible in this game - as you think they should be.

Generally speaking Cowering is another random chance to not get what you want from those cardboard troops. Like Sniper direction and distance rolls, or routing units having a "program" to follow; occasionally you don't get the full FP worth from a unit.

I agree, and this does affect the unit's ability of inflicting DM - a unit subject to cowering need one less DRM than those immune to be able to inflict DM.

And yes, occassionally a squad will roll "2" on a 1+1 attack and thereby get no result while a squad immune to cowering will get a 1MC on the same attack - but occassionally the squad immune to cowering will roll 4 or higher on the same attack and not get a MC either. Both are random chances, but neither remove the fact that both attacks could possibly inflict an NMC - even when the possibility of cowering are accounted for.

I extend this reasoning to the DM rule to see if the FP is motivating enough to cause desparation. (As I have explained before.)

And I fully agree to this being the rationale behind the rule. But I don't see why a 1 flat attack (with possble cowering) that has 4/36 chance of getting an NMC is not motivating enough - while a 1+2 attack (immune to cowering) that has 1/36 chance of getting a NMC is.

 

[mgmasl]

My oppinion about that is

A broken troop wants to be out of front position. A shot with posibility of cause real effects means front position -even only causing efects on getting 1,1 or 1,2 or any roll- and attack without no real posibility of cause real effects -even getting 1,1 or 1,2 or any roll- means your troops are out of danger and not in front position and your broken troops can stay there without taking risks.

I think that the question is: Can they be damaged by this particular shot or not? not the porcentages of cause this damage.

Miguel.