A7.211 who attacks first in an OVR

[KenYoung]

The followings are less rule arguments than they are anecdotal evidence

(1)
If some units can use DFF normally against an OVR. Why is an unmarked GUN forced to risk a TH/MC DR to do the same thing C5.641
Where is the logic here that a highly trained crew in +2 Emplacement TEM is at risk. But a 426 in the same hex with 0 TEM can fire away with no worries.

Because in my opinion. Both should be required to use Reaction Fire (after the OVR).
But the Gun can invoke C5.641 to get a shot off before the OVR (but at a risk).

(2)
For the players who argue that. Once the MP are spent. The DEFENDER is allowed to DFF on these MP. We already have an example where the effects dr is made before any DFF.

A squad can spend the MF to place smoke in it's own hex. The DEFENDER must wait for the smoke placement dr. before he can attack.

How is that much different than.

Having an AFV spend the MP for an OVR. Make the target of the OVR wait till the OVR is resolved. Before it can attacks.

Both are done in the MPh. Each need MP/MF to be spent. Both should require the effects DR/dr to be resolved before any type of DFF.

One of these rules may not be able to change the mind of some. But, hopefully all five rules should give people a pause for thought.

If anyone would like to suggest any rules I should add. Or suggest a rewording of the question. Please post them so I may add or change things before I send them to Perry.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Since you've already laid out the rules references in this thread, it's probably enough to include a reference to it in the email to MMP.

Also, might I ask why this has come up again now, five-six years after that Q&A was asked (more-or-less) to verify the original Annual 93a Q&A. Just curious, that's all.

 

[KenYoung]

Also, might I ask why this has come up again now, five-six years after that Q&A was asked (more-or-less) to verify the original Annual 93a Q&A. Just curious, that's all.

The reason for the new question. Is that after 5+ years.
The sections in red that I showed in the rule quotes still exists.
Without them my point of view would have no support and there would be no conflict with the OVR Flow Chart.
The eASL Rule Book was released with these sections still intact.

But, the rub is.
If rule book needs to have sections removed (or cut up).
To support the OVR Flow Chart, claim that the target of the OVR can use normal DFF (before the OVR), instead of Reaction Fire (after the OVR).
Was that part of the OVR Flow Chart, correct to start with?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Thank you for the input.

 

[MichalS]

Hello Ken,

it seems to me that your whole confusion stems out of missing a single sentence at the end of D7.2: "Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR."

Any fire that occurs in response to the MP expenditure is treated as normal DFF/SFF/FPF. This includes LATW, as the chart correctly lists.
Then the OVR IFT attack occurs. (If after all the DF fire the AFV/PRC are intact at full power, otherwise half power.)
Then reaction fire occurs - as a reaction to a conducted OVR (i.e. not as a reaction to expended MP, since these are covered by regular DF rules). Mind you this is consistent with CC RF options being available only after the OVR resolution in the chart.

You seem to expect that LATW or IFT attack is either-or (either regular DF or RF), where it can be both - depending when relative to the OVR.

Does this help?

P.S.: I would recommend treating the (OVR) charts as a memory aid if you have mastered the rules themselves - but the rules take precedence and the charts might not be self-explanatory and thus lead to confusion.

P.P.S.: Also, was there any response by Perry? Thanks!

 

[MichalS]

Also please note that the argument "who attacks first" in D7.211 is clearly in reference to Reaction Fire only (i.e. within the scope of the section D7.2, dealing with RF).

 

[Doug Leslie]

Also please note that the argument "who attacks first" in D7.211 is clearly in reference to Reaction Fire only (i.e. within the scope of the section D7.2, dealing with RF).

Do you mean A7.211? That is the rule that is causing the problem. It says nothing about reaction fire.

 

[MichalS]

Aha sorry, my mistake - and apologies to Ken as well. I should get off my high horse.

Correct, that sentence is a bit problematic: "The Moving units [EXC: BU PRC] may attack first as part of an OVR or in turn during their AFPh with both Area and TPBF if they are able to."

One could read it as "the moving units may declare an OVR attack first". Or just treat the "first" as an omission - I think the intent of the sentence is to say that the moving units are supposed to choose between two different points in time when they can time their attack, but not "first" as in "before any DF".

 

[Doug Leslie]

Aha sorry, my mistake - and apologies to Ken as well. I should get off my high horse.

Correct, that sentence is a bit problematic: "The Moving units [EXC: BU PRC] may attack first as part of an OVR or in turn during their AFPh with both Area and TPBF if they are able to."

One could read it as "the moving units may declare an OVR attack first". Or just treat the "first" as an omission - I think the intent of the sentence is to say that the moving units are supposed to choose between two different points in time when they can time their attack, but not "first" as in "before any DF".

I think that is right but the word “first” , implying precedence over DFF attacks, is what causes the problem. Would the confusion perhaps be resolved if “first” we’re to be replaced by “firstly”?
Even then, the rule does not tie in with the OVR flowchart which makes it clear that the non-overrunning vehicle can use bounding fire and doesn’t have to wait until the AFPh to attack.

 

[BattleSchool]

I think that if we are to give this a fair hearing, we need to dispense with the OVR Flowchart, as it was not in existence at the time the passage in Chapter A was written.

Moreover, the sentence causing so much consternation in A7.211 was not modified from its original in the first edition rules. Removing it because its presence is an uncomfortable contradiction seems premature.

Therefore, it's arguably better to examine "Moving units [EXC: BU PRC] may attack first as part of an OVR or in turn during their AFPh with both Area and TPBF if they are able to" within the confines of the rules in the rulebook proper, particularly as it was originally written in 1985. The authors included it for a reason. It behooves us to discover why before drawing any lasting conclusions about the interrelationships of OVR, DFF, and Reaction Fire.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I think that if we are to give this a fair hearing, we need to dispense with the OVR Flowchart, as it was not in existence at the time the passage in Chapter A was written.

Except the charts are the rules. We have to assume the chart makers knew of the rule and still the charts are there. So if anything is "wrong" it is just as reasonable to assume the rule is incorrect or we are reading it incorrectly as it is to assume the charts are wrong. IMO, the charts carry even more weight, likely clarifying the intent of the written rule. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[BattleSchool]

Except the charts are the rules.

But there was no OVR Flowchart when the first edition rules were released in 1985. The Chart first appeared in ASL Action Pack 2 in 1999. Not only is this some 14 years after the release of the original ASLRB, and before the publication of the ASLRB2. Moreover, the Chart was one of the first charts published by MMP. IOW, it was not an AH product, unlike the passage in A7.211 which was, and incriminatingly, remains part of the current RB.

Again, if we are to get to the bottom of this impasse, we need to ignore the OVR Flowchart for the purposes of determining what A7.211 is trying to tell us.

 

[Sparafucil3]

But there was no OVR Flowchart when the first edition rules were released in 1985. The Chart first appeared in ASL Action Pack 2 in 1999. Not only is this some 14 years after the release of the original ASLRB, and before the publication of the ASLRB2. Moreover, the Chart was one of the first charts published by MMP. IOW, it was not an AH product, unlike the passage in A7.211 which was, and incriminatingly, remains part of the current RB.

Again, if we are to get to the bottom of this impasse, we need to ignore the OVR Flowchart for the purposes of determining what A7.211 is trying to tell us.

I know the timing which is why I say the chart was made with the full knowledge of the rules as written. Why would I dismiss the chart knowing it was made so long after the rules. As I said up thread, it is more likely they are clarifying the rule as written than it is they simply got it wrong. I don't rule out the possibility they got it wrong, but your path just flatly assumes they did. On top of that, it's been 22 years since the release of the chart in all that time, it hasn't been corrected in either place. Perhaps the chart IS trying to tell you how you should read A7.211. As always, this is JMO. YMMV. -- jim

 

[Doug Leslie]

I know the timing which is why I say the chart was made with the full knowledge of the rules as written. Why would I dismiss the chart knowing it was made so long after the rules. As I said up thread, it is more likely they are clarifying the rule as written than it is they simply got it wrong. I don't rule out the possibility they got it wrong, but your path just flatly assumes they did. On top of that, it's been 22 years since the release of the chart in all that time, it hasn't been corrected in either place. Perhaps the chart IS trying to tell you how you should read A7.211. As always, this is JMO. YMMV. -- jim,

I think that the starting point is to establish whether a "Perry Sez" is decisive with regard to regard to rules interpretation or just highly persuasive. This very forum describes "Perry Sez" as unofficial, which tends to suggest the latter. The issue here is that the overflow chart appears to be based in this regard on a "Perry Sez" which might arguably not square with the rulebook and A7.211 in particular. The "Perry Sez" in question only responded to a query about the interpretation of D7.1 and D7.2 which made no reference to A7.211. This therefore begs the question whether Perry perhaps missed the possibility that his answer contradicted a rule that he had not even been asked to consider and might have overlooked. He is, after all, only human. My recollection is that the overflow chart was not originally an official product but was adopted when it was included in the Action Pack release. If the "Perry Sez" doesn't square with A7.211, what is the effect of an overflow chart which repeats the same error, if that is what it is? Anyone who didn't buy the relevant Action Pack would not necessarily even be aware of its existence.

 

[BattleSchool]

I know the timing which is why I say the chart was made with the full knowledge of the rules as written.

Whether the OVR Flowchart was or wasn't "made with the full knowledge of the rules as written" is irrelevant. The A7.211 rule was written without the OVR Flowchart, and was intended to stand on its own, without the need for additional clarification in an OVR Flowchart.

Why would I dismiss the chart knowing it was made so long after the rules.

Because the chart confuses the issue. It's not contemporaneous, and therefore should not be considered for the purposes of determining the intent of A7.211.

As I said up thread, it is more likely they are clarifying the rule as written than it is they simply got it wrong.

This is conjecture at this point. Neither of us can say with any certainty what the intent of A7.211 is.

I don't rule out the possibility they got it wrong, but your path just flatly assumes they did.

Au contraire confrère. I'm not passing any judgement on the correctness of the OVR Flowchart. I'm simply arguing that we leave it out of the determination and stick with the original text in A7.211, none of which (unlike the rules for concealment) referred players to a chart for clarification.

On top of that, it's been 22 years since the release of the chart in all that time, it hasn't been corrected in either place.

That's hardly an argument. By that measure, we should simply delete the contrarian sentence in A7.211, as if it were a remnant of Flat Earth Society proceedings. But it isn't. It's part of the original RB, unlike the OVR Flowchart.

Perhaps the chart IS trying to tell you how you should read A7.211.

It may well be. But the question at hand is not what the chart may or may not be trying to tell us, or whether it's right or wrong. The objective here, as I see it, is to determine what the intent of A7.211 was at the time is was written in the 1980s. This is, and should remain, the focal point of the investigation. What we do with this information is another matter.

Your OVR milelage may vary.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Whether the OVR Flowchart was or wasn't "made with the full knowledge of the rules as written" is irrelevant. The A7.211 rule was written without the OVR Flowchart, and was intended to stand on its own, without the need for additional clarification in an OVR Flowchart.

On the contrary, the very fact it came second suggests they felt the need to clarify A7.211. At least that is more likely IMO than the idea the chart is wrong.

The objective here, as I see it, is to determine what the intent of A7.211 was at the time is was written in the 1980s. This is, and should remain, the focal point of the investigation. What we do with this information is another matter.

See, I think the chart already does what you're asking for. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

I think that the starting point is to establish whether a "Perry Sez" is decisive with regard to regard to rules interpretation or just highly persuasive. This very forum describes "Perry Sez" as unofficial, which tends to suggest the latter. The issue here is that the overflow chart appears to be based in this regard on a "Perry Sez" which might arguably not square with the rulebook and A7.211 in particular. The "Perry Sez" in question only responded to a query about the interpretation of D7.1 and D7.2 which made no reference to A7.211. This therefore begs the question whether Perry perhaps missed the possibility that his answer contradicted a rule that he had not even been asked to consider and might have overlooked. He is, after all, only human. My recollection is that the overflow chart was not originally an official product but was adopted when it was included in the Action Pack release. If the "Perry Sez" doesn't square with A7.211, what is the effect of an overflow chart which repeats the same error, if that is what it is? Anyone who didn't buy the relevant Action Pack would not necessarily even be aware of its existence.

The charts are not a Perry Sez. Furthermore

... Also included are the Night (E1.) aid from Pegasus Bridge, the Offboard Artillery Player Aid from Action Pack #1, and the Overrun Flowchart from Action Pack #2. These acclaimed playing aids help take the mystery out of the rules for night, OBA, and Infantry vs AFV combat, sections that even experienced players stumble over sometimes. ...

The very purpose of including the OVR flowchart was to "help take the mystery out of the rules for night, OBA, and Infantry vs AFV combat, sections that even experienced players stumble over sometimes".

Next:

So we had a starting point. We would incorporate all the Q&A/Errata, but just the official Q&A (mostly). We had already been through the unofficial Q&A to evaluate what should be made official, but we would do so again just to make sure. Completely rewrite the Wall rules, but no other major rewrites. And no changes just for the sake of change. If a rule worked and was readily understood, leave it alone. If it worked but was subject to misinterpretation, reword the rule, don't reinvent it.

So the v1 Q&A which is questioned was considered and the inclusion in the OVR flowchart was apparently a conscious decision. I don't think you can dismiss the Perry Sez or the chart. In fact, if you read the literature I posted here, there is little room to argue the chart should be dismissed. -- jim

 

[BattleSchool]

The D7. rule section was expanded considerably in the ASLRB2. One could make the argument that these changes helped legitimize the OVR Flowchart, which was published a year earlier. It's equally plausible that the chart and the expanded Chapter D rules were developed concurrently. However, it's not clear that these developments took A7.211 into consideration. Had they, one may have expected some clarification of A7.211 at the same time.

This leads me to believe that A7.211 was either overlooked (although there may well be one, I have not found a direct reference to A7.211 on the OVR Flowchart--the closest is A7.21), or that the "troublesome" sentence was interpreted to mean something else.

As MMP wrote in the intro to the second edition, "If a rule worked and was readily understood" they did not change it. If that's the case, the rule should stand on its own--without recourse to a chart that doesn't explicitly cite A7.211--because the rule is "readily understood."

Be that as it may, Doug Leslie has approached this from another perspective (in Post 74), one that likewise casts doubt upon whether A7.211 was scrutinized before the adoption of the OVR Flowchart, because "the "Perry Sez" in question only responded to a query about the interpretation of D7.1 and D7.2 which made no reference to A7.211."

Again, I don't know what to make of A7.211. Nor am I comfortable with the wording of this rule. But I am wary of attempts to determine the intent of A7.211 by working backwards from the OVR Flowchart.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that we throw away the OVR Flowchart. I'm simply asking that we try to come to a conclusion about A7.211 without referring to the chart.

As the OP noted elsewhere, the OVR Flowchart already contains an error--calling for the application of Case A to BFF from Bypass, when Case A is NA per C5.13. Therefore, the chart is not flawless.

The OP could be wrong about A7.211. But, IMO, it should be the intent of the original rules, not a Johnny-come-lately chart, that proves him wrong.

 

[Sparafucil3]

This leads me to believe that A7.211 was either overlooked (although there may well be one, I have not found a direct reference to A7.211 on the OVR Flowchart--the closest is A7.21), or that the "troublesome" sentence was interpreted to mean something else.

As MMP wrote in the intro to the second edition, "If a rule worked and was readily understood" they did not change it. If that's the case, the rule should stand on its own--without recourse to a chart that doesn't explicitly cite A7.211--because the rule is "readily understood."

I believe it was either interpreted differently or simply overlooked. As I have said, IMO, it should be struck as it is confusing. The intent of the OVR flowchart was to make the rules clear. The Q&A in question clearly played a part in the OVR flowchart and the chart is consistent with the Q&A. Even if the sentence had a different understanding, it is clearly confusing today as that understanding has been lost to time.

Lastly, nothing in ASL is flawless. Not the players, not the charts, not the dice, nothing. All we can do is our best to try and play the game correctly. I recently got Perry to clarify A7.55 Turns out we have all been playing it wrong since the beginning and errata needs to be issued That rule has fewer follow on effects and interactions with other rules and still it hid there for decades. No one looked. Taken as a whole--A7.211, the Q&A, and the OVR flowchart--the rule as written is not how the game has been played for at least as long as I have been playing it (FWIW, A7.55 wasn't played as written either and when I approached a lot of long-time players they were all surprised to find the game was played different than to the rule as written as well). I find it SUPER frustrating that two reasonable people can sit at the table and have a different understanding of the rules. It's tough to enjoy something when you're both playing different games. I hope someone has submitted Q&A and I hope Perry answers it. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. Striking the sentence is the easiest fix but if MMP wants to correct the chart and re-issue, I would likely buy it. -- jim

 

[MajorDomo]

As a late comer to theses apparent conflicting rules ( or interpretations), my playing experience has always allowed First Fire, SFF, FPP, Latw, SW, PF... before the overrun. Then after the overrun, various forms of reaction fire for infantry and guns.

That just seems consistent to me:

A. A vehicle enters your hex without declaring an overrun, you can fire away on all the MP the vehicle expended ( both from outside and inside the location) before the vehicle can BFF.

B. A vehicle enters your hex declaring an overrun, you can fire away on all the MP the vehicle expended ( both from outside and inside the location) before the overrun attack.