A4.63 Dash and Smoke Placement

[zgrose]

But for rule references, read the whole of A8.1 and especially A8.11 carefully. You'll see that the DEFENDER never really has to declare that he is not going to fire, it is just that after a new MP/MF expenditure, it's too late to DFF based on the previous.
But the DEFENDER is free to declare his DFF at anytime betwen the current MF/MP expenditure and the next, including after any non-MF/MP actions.

I disagree. The ATTACKER must give the DEFENDER ample opportunity to declare his fire. That does not give carte blanche to perform retroactive actions. Most players I've observed define "ample opportunity" as waiting until the DEFENDER actively declares his/her intent. YMMV but I don't see much game benefit to be had by allowing time warps. On the other hand, it is more streamlined and consistent to make the game flow sequentially where not explicitly defined as simultaneous.

 

[Ole Boe]

I disagree. The ATTACKER must give the DEFENDER ample opportunity to declare his fire. That does not give carte blanche to perform retroactive actions. Most players I've observed define "ample opportunity" as waiting until the DEFENDER actively declares his/her intent. YMMV but I don't see much game benefit to be had by allowing time warps. On the other hand, it is more streamlined and consistent to make the game flow sequentially where not explicitly defined as simultaneous.

zgrose, I wonder if we're talking past each other, because I certainly don't mean that retroactive actions or time warps are allowed.

Any DFF is performed vs the enemy unit, in exactly the state that the enemy unit is in when the DFF is declared.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you
1) Expend 1 MP - without drawing any fire from me
2) Do one non-MP action.

Then I am allowed to fire based on the 1 MP expended, but in the state you're in after the non-MP action.

So if you expend one MP with a CE tank without drawing any fire, and then goes BU in that Location, then I am still allowed to fire based on the one MP, but in the BU state since my DFF was declared after you went BU.

BTW, CHERDE - no I'm not a lawyer or anything like that. I'm a senior software developer. You can see me playing ASL here

 

[CHERDE]

@zgrose

I dont think that Ole and I propose to allow time warps or retroactive actions.
SL became unattractive for me because of the DF vs Inf allowed after finishing all moves.

But for ASL IMO A 8.11 - the concept of declaring one units MPH over - and the corresponding q+a in annual 96 make it clear that Oles and my proposals are covered by the rules.

I play it this way and the game feeling is right.


@ole
Oh, then You can try for an extra job in the legal branch.

I am kind of a controller and lawyer and by professional skills make it IMHO easier to understand the rules.:smoke:

 

[zgrose]

Any DFF is performed vs the enemy unit, in exactly the state that the enemy unit is in when the DFF is declared.

I think I missed that part in the previous messages. That lowers my :surprise: somewhat. That must have been what you meant by "First, I hope that you like the rule better now that I explained in better."

So what we're saying is that from the (ample) time between the expenditure of 1 MP/MF to the next, the DEFENDER is free to fire at the last moving counter regardless of the number of 0 MF/MP actions.

I can dig it. :smoke:

 

[WaterRabbit]

I disagree with this premise.

So to be presise[sic], the action is:
Me: I'm entering here for 1 MF[sic] {This signals the end of the attacker's MF/MP.}
You: Ok, I don't fire - go on. {This signals the start of the next MF/MP.}

Me: I'm going to shoot my MA at you.
Me: Rolling dice for the TH and possibly for effect
You: Then I'm going to fire based on your 1 MP after all. {Not allowed by D3.3}
Me: Dang :nervous:

The correct course of action is for the defender to wait until all actions assoicated with that MF/MP expenditure to have been declared. Most people I have played with end the Mf/MP when it is stated aloud.

Example,

ME: I move my tank into this hex, I am going CE.
You: I will fire at you as you enter the hex.
Me: I will Gun Duel or Wait unti after your shot to BFF.

Now there are other ways to handle this and as long as both players agree then fine, but the method you have laid out allows retroactive actions by both the attacker and the defender.

 

[zgrose]

It costs MP to do a BFF? I don't see that in D3.3

As to the retroactive bit, as long as the resolution occurs in the "current state", I don't think it is retroactive. The DFF isn't occurring before the 0 MP/MF action. In fact it isn't occurring because of the 0 MP/MF action. Instead it is occurring because the target is still the currently moving counter until something else spends MP/MF or the counter ends its move.

I think you are mentally going down the same track I was going but I think you'll come to the same conclusion that it just sounds retroactive.

 

[Reepicheep]

I think he means, I am doing all three of these actions and it's costing 1 MP combined.

 

[zgrose]

I think he means, I am doing all three of these actions and it's costing 1 MP combined.

D3.3 pretty strongly implies there is a break in the act of moving and the act of firing since the DEFENDER can "intervene" with DFF between the expenditure of MP and the BFF declaration.

As was pointed out to me, the DEFENDER may choose to fire either before or after a 0 MP/MF action; not acting does not prevent further action until another action with uses MP/MF or changes a Target Facing is declared.

It sounds weird at first but I don't think there is any retroactive weirdness going on.

 

[WaterRabbit]

BFF is based upon MP expenditure, that should be obvious. I am not sure why you would think otherwise? Rembember that a good chunk of these rules reside in Chapter C.

D3.3 ...The DEFENDER can intervene to attempt Defensive First Fire after the announcemnent of expenditure of any MP (even Delay MP), but must do so before the announcement of the next MP expenditure or of Bounding First Fire;... {ASLRB v2 pg D8vB.}

This is fairly clear. There is no opportunity for the 'Me Too' that was suggested earlier.

Also, perhaps you had better define more clearly '0 MF/MP actions'. About the only action that I can think of that isn't somehow tied to MF/MP expenditure is dropping a SW before moving. A true 0 MP expendiure is if you fail to set off a Smoke Discharger [D13.2].

Changing CE/BU status is done in conjunction with a MP expenditure. BFF requires a MP expendiure, if it was zero than I could fire an infinite number of times by keeping rate.

I was slightly in error before, so let me correct that.

Attacker expends a MP.
He must declare CE/BU change status while doing so. [D5.33]
Defender must decide if he will shoot. [D3.3]
Attacker may declare Gun Duel in response. [C2.2401]
Attacker BFFs [C5.33]
Next MP

IF Attacker unit decides to BFF without MP expenditure at the start of its MPh, then Defender may declare a Gun Duel. [C5.33]

 

[zgrose]

BFF is based upon MP expenditure, that should be obvious. I am not sure why you would think otherwise? Rembember that a good chunk of these rules reside in Chapter C.

Since you can fire at the start of MPh without spending a MP, I don't think it is very obvious at all. (C5.33 A vehicle wishing to fire at the start of its MPh prior to entry of a new hex...may do so using Case C; it need not expend Delay MP first...)

D3.3 ...The DEFENDER can intervene to attempt Defensive First Fire after the announcemnent of expenditure of any MP (even Delay MP), but must do so before the announcement of the next MP expenditure or of Bounding First Fire;... {ASLRB v2 pg D8vB.}

This is fairly clear. There is no opportunity for the 'Me Too' that was suggested earlier.

It isn't 'Me too' (that would be a gun duel). It is simply declaring an action on the currently moving counter after that counter has taken some action not requiring the expenditure of MP.

Also, perhaps you had better define more clearly '0 MF/MP actions'. About the only action that I can think of that isn't somehow tied to MF/MP expenditure is dropping a SW before moving. A true 0 MP expendiure is if you fail to set off a Smoke Discharger [D13.2].

Changing CE/BU status is done in conjunction with a MP expenditure.

Again, that would preclude one from changing BU status at the start of your MPh which is clearly allowed.

When actions are linked, the rulebook says so. Look at D3.12 "The TCA change much be announced as the MP are expended but can coincide with MP expended for movement, stop, ..."

BFF requires a MP expendiure, if it was zero than I could fire an infinite number of times by keeping rate.

C2.24 states you must spend 1 MP between shots so that doesn't hold up either.

I was slightly in error before, so let me correct that.

1>Attacker expends a MP.
2>He must declare CE/BU change status while doing so. [D5.33]
3>Defender must decide if he will shoot. [D3.3]
4> Attacker may declare Gun Duel in response. [C2.2401]
5>Attacker BFFs [C5.33]
6>Next MP

IF Attacker unit decides to BFF without MP expenditure at the start of its MPh, then Defender may declare a Gun Duel. [C5.33]

D5.33 does not say you must change CE/BU with the MP. I think you are extrapolating here.

It still seems reasonable to allow the DEFENDER to fire at step 5.5, assuming it is still alive based on all the previous discussion in the thread. Simply put, the DFF window of opportunity is not closed on a moving unit until it expends another MF/MP.

 

[Sgt. Przybylo]

Whats the intent?

Guys, what is the intent of the rules here? If a tank rolls into the view of my AT gun, and I wait...wait...wait for a good shot, what have I done? I am essentially hoping (in reality) that I line up the shot just right. If, in the meantime, he takes a shot, goes CE, drops smoke, etc, then I am too late and my shot must come after whatever action was taken.

So, IMO, the rules state the case very well, and the opinion as expressed by zgrose and Ole addresses the issue.

Ex:

"Uh, Sarge...its a Jerry tank."
"Hold your fire Jenkins"
"But Sarge..."
"Hold your damn fire, he's almost here"
"DAMN!! SMOKE!! FIRE! FIRE!"

<Insert rule numbers as appropriate>

Overly simplified, maybe, but I find it easier to get through tough rules situations this way, and it adds to the game for me as well. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ole Boe]

I disagree with this premise.

Ok, I disagree with your disagreement though :devious:

The correct course of action is for the defender to wait until all actions assoicated with that MF/MP expenditure to have been declared. Most people I have played with end the Mf/MP when it is stated aloud.

Do you have any rule reference to support you when stating that this is the correct action, or is it simply your opinion? AFAIK, the defender is free to fire immediately after the MP exp., or to fire after any additional non-MP action should there be any.

For my support, there exists an unofficial Q&A which although not official, at least that some rule gurus in charge disagreed with your statement when writing the answer:

D5.33 Assume defender has indicated ‘no shot’ on the just-spent MP of an AFV. Would placement now of a CE counter allow defender to change his mind and declare D1F on a just-spent MP:
1) before that AFV expends a new MP?
A. Yes, since no new MP expended, this shot would be based on prior MP and vs. CE.
2) before that AFV makes a B1F shot?
A. The moving player could announce that he is taking a B1F shot while going CE which would prevent D1F until after B1F. [Letter98]

This Q&A clearly shows that the CE placement need not be done simultaneous with the MP exp, and also that the defendender could declare his shot both before and after the CE placement. D5.31 more than indicates this too.

Example,

ME: I move my tank into this hex, I am going CE.
You: I will fire at you as you enter the hex.
Me: I will Fire my MA for 1 MP.


Now there are other ways to handle this and as long as both players agree then fine, but the method you have laid out allows retroactive actions by both the attacker and the defender.

I still think that D5.31 in addition to the Q&A says that the CE placement may be both before or after the DFF. Going CE simultaneously with expending MP as in your example is certainly legal, but the ATTACKER is free to do it after having entered the nex hex as well.

Unless you have any rule references to support you...

BTW, I think I've explained pretty well by now that there are no retroactive actions allowed in either case.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Since you can fire at the start of MPh without spending a MP, I don't think it is very obvious at all. (C5.33 A vehicle wishing to fire at the start of its MPh prior to entry of a new hex...may do so using Case C; it need not expend Delay MP first...)

Already addressed this. [last sentence of post you quoted, can you say 'cherry picking' ]

It isn't 'Me too' (that would be a gun duel). It is simply declaring an action on the currently moving counter after that counter has taken some action not requiring the expenditure of MP.

It is exactly a me too situation. D3.3 makes it clear as to the order. A Gun Duel is made by the ATTACKER as a response to the DEFENDER'S declaration of fire. If the DEFENDER decides not to shoot, then he is allowing the ATTACKER to BFF without interference. When the ATTACKER has declared BFF the DEFENDER must wait until the next MP expenditure before he may declare any shots.

Again, that would preclude one from changing BU status at the start of your MPh which is clearly allowed.

No it doesn't. Let us get the order of actions correct before you state this.

D5.33 Such placement/removal of a cheicle CE counter cannot occur in a MPH following Prep or Bounding First Fire by that vehicle/its PRC, not between the time it is named as a target and the time all fire against it allowed by its last MP expenditure is resolved...

This is all very clear. Let' try a couple of examples:

CASE 1:
Start of AFV's MPh. 0 MP are expended so far. AFV declares BU/CE status change. Fine Defender cannot intervene. AFV must declare status change before he declares BFF (by above). If vehicle declares BFF Defender may engage in Gun Duel (C5.33).

CASE 2: Vehicle now expends a MP. He either declares BU/CE status change now or must wait until the Defender has declared if he will fire. The Defender either passes on the shot or takes the shot. However, if the Defender decides to take the shot, the AFV may engage in a Gun Duel with the Defender. Now after vehicle is fired upon or allowed to continue he may change BU/CE status, however he must do so before the declaration of any BFF. He can now BFF if he hasn't already engaged in the gun duel.

No where in here is the allowance for the Defender to declare a shot against the AFV after it has declared BFF (with the C5.33 exception of course). So the sequence of events laid out by Ole that I complained about is incorrect.

D5.33 does not say you must change CE/BU with the MP. I think you are extrapolating here.

See above

It still seems reasonable to allow the DEFENDER to fire at step 5.5, assuming it is still alive based on all the previous discussion in the thread. Simply put, the DFF window of opportunity is not closed on a moving unit until it expends another MF/MP.

This is flat out wrong as I have shown above and D3.3 makes quite clear. The DFF window is closed the minute the Defender decides to give up the shot for that expenditure. He must take his shot (if he is going to) 'before the announcement of the next MP expenditure or of Bounding First Fire' (D3.3)

 

[WaterRabbit]

Do you have any rule reference to support you when stating that this is the correct action, or is it simply your opinion? AFAIK, the defender is free to fire immediately after the MP exp., or to fire after any additional non-MP action should there be any.

Yes see above post.

For my support, there exists an unofficial Q&A which although not official, at least that some rule gurus in charge disagreed with your statement when writing the answer:

You certainly have a love/hate relationship with Q&A. In some posts you claim that official Q&A are no longer relevant. Now in this one you try to justify your position with a 'Q&A' that has no source.

D5.33 Assume defender has indicated ‘no shot’ on the just-spent MP of an AFV. Would placement now of a CE counter allow defender to change his mind and declare D1F on a just-spent MP:
1) before that AFV expends a new MP?
A. Yes, since no new MP expended, this shot would be based on prior MP and vs. CE.
2) before that AFV makes a B1F shot?
A. The moving player could announce that he is taking a B1F shot while going CE which would prevent D1F until after B1F. [Letter98]

I would say this Q&A is no longer valid by even your own reasoning since page D8vB of the second edition rulebook, D3.3 contradicts this.

I still think that D5.31 in addition to the Q&A says that the CE placement may be both before or after the DFF. Going CE simultaneously with expending MP as in your example is certainly legal, but the ATTACKER is free to do it after having entered the nex [sic] hex as well.

There is nothing in D5.31 that reference placement of BU/CE on the DRM for CE status. Yes the Attacker is free to change status after expenditure of a MP, however, he must then wait until the Defender has fired/pass before that status change has any meaning -- D5.33 is quite clear on this point.

Unless you have any rule references to support you...

I was going to ask you the same thing.

BTW, I think I've explained pretty well by now that there are no retroactive actions allowed in either case.

Go back up to my post @13:31 on dec 10 and note my comments on your post in red. You will see what my complaint is and why I don't think you have addressed it. You seem to think there is some slop in the sequence of events; I do not.

 

[CHERDE]

I like the way Sgt. Przybylo plays it... movilike and dramatic.

I sometimes make similar dialogs/speeches mostly involving Commisars and German speaking Russians.


Regarding the rule question I summarize my opinion:

It is legal to react with D1F to 0MF/MP actions of the enemy - if he expanded at least some MF/MP at any point during the current MPh.

 

[zgrose]

This is flat out wrong as I have shown above and D3.3 makes quite clear. The DFF window is closed the minute the Defender decides to give up the shot for that expenditure. He must take his shot (if he is going to) 'before the announcement of the next MP expenditure or of Bounding First Fire' (D3.3)

I guess we are at an impasse. I read D3.3 as saying that you can *intervene* with DFF. That is, you can shoot with DFF before the ATTACKER can shoot with BFF. But once the ATTACKER has shot, you can declare DFF until the next MF/MP expenditure (A8.1).

Guess I'll send in a question to Perry for arbitration.

(edit)
Here is what I sent:

Can the DEFENDER declare FF on the currently moving counter after said counter has done one or more "free" actions prior to its last expenditure of MF/MP but before its next? For example, ATTACKER's AFV moves into a hex. DEFENDER's AFV declines to fire. ATTACKER fires with BFF at the DEFENDER. Assuming the DEFENDER survives, can it now fire on the ATTACKER with DFF since the ATTACKER's AFV is still the currently moving counter?

When I get a reply I'll add it.

 

[Ole Boe]

I'll just add that I still think most of WaterRabbit's interpretation is flat out wrong (and I'm sure some of it is wrong - especially the part about BFF being a MP expenditure).

I have sent Perry a bunch of pretty leading questions along with some reasoning, and I'll let you all know when I get the answers. In the meantime, I think its just as well to let it rest.

 

[Treadhead]

So to be presise, the action is:
Me: I'm entering here for 1 MF
You: Ok, I don't fire - go on.
Me: I'm going to shoot my MA at you.
Me: Rolling dice for the TH and possibly for effect
You: Then I'm going to fire based on your 1 MP after all.
Me: Dang :nervous:

Ole, this is simply wrong.

D3.3: "The DEFENDER can intervene to attempt Defensive First Fire after the announcement of expenditure of any MP... but must do so before the announcement of ... Bounding First Fire;"

If the DEFENDER declines to fire at the MP expenditure, and then the enemy uses Bounding First Fire, the DEFENDER has lost the chance of firing based on that MP. It must wait until the ATTACKER expends another MP.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

In general I agree with your reasoning and assertions. However...

Changing CE/BU status is done in conjunction with a MP expenditure.

I could find no reference to a change of CE status having to coincide with a MP expenditure. There are restrictions (D5.33), but nothing like what you've stated here. Intuitively, I would like to agree that you are correct about this, but I can find nothing in the ASLRB to actually support it.

Otherwise, I agree with your concerns regarding "non-MP actions".

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

I have sent Perry a bunch of pretty leading questions along with some reasoning, and I'll let you all know when I get the answers.

Some "leading questions", eh? I'm not sure I like that... It seems the questions should be more objective.

In the meantime, I think its just as well to let it rest.

Ah, you're no fun!

Regards,
Bruce Bakken