A7.302 Quickie

[djohannsen]

I am a bit befuddled by the language in A7.302, K/#:

"At least one target unit suffers Casualty Reduction in each specifically targeted Location and all other units (including any just-Reduced HS) must take a MC,..."

So, the two bold underline phrases above seem mutually contradictory. "All other units" seems to indicate those other than the one (or more, due to RS) MMC that suffered Casualty Reduction, while "including any just-Reduced HS" seems to indicate that the unit (or units) Casualty Reduced must also take a (modified) MC. I'm sure that I'm just being daft here, but I would be grateful to anyone who could explain to me how to parse this prose.

 

[jrv]

The reason for the parenthetical is because it is easy to read "all other units" as excluding any just-reduced halfsquads, and that is not the intention. Any hs/crew that takes a CR is, of course, eliminated. Any squad that takes a CR is reduced to a halfsquad, which then has to take the corresponding MC. Any SMC that takes a CR makes a wound severity dr, but does not take the corresponding MC.

JR

 

[djohannsen]

Any squad that takes a CR is reduced to a halfsquad, which then has to take the corresponding MC.

I assumed that this was the intention, but would have preferred omission of the word "other" in the rule. Again, sir, thank you for all the help.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I assumed that this was the intention, but would have preferred omission of the word "other" in the rule. Again, sir, thank you for all the help.

Without the "other" there, SMC being wounded by a K# would have to take the MC as well (which they don't have to take).

 

[djohannsen]

Without the "other" there, SMC being wounded by a K# would have to take the MC as well (which they don't have to take).

I'm a bit confused (though not about whether SMC take a MC). In my ignorance, I can only read "all other units" as meaning "other than the one that was just Casualty Reduced" (though the following "including any just-Reduced HS," then contradicts what I have averred is the only possible parsing of the word "other" in the phrase). As there is unanimous consent on the interpretation of the rule, I am not disputing the rule, only saying that it is poorly written (I checked for errata prior to posting here, assuming that the word "other" was erroneous). Anyway, what now has me at sea is how the phrase "all other units" precludes the MC by SMC. SMC possess MF, so , I believe, are units. The procedure for K/# for SMC is spelled out immediately following, so I don't have any doubt about the rule; just how the use of "other" precludes the MC for SMC.

 

[Hemaelstrom]

All other units as well as any just-reduced HS. If the unit in question is not a just-reduced HS or one of the other units not just CRd, then it is exempt from the MC. The parentheses do not qualify, but rather add to the phrase all other units. Just another way of saying what Klas said. Hope it is useful!

 

[Hemaelstrom]

And not wrong ...

 

[djohannsen]

Thanks everyone. This is just "angels on the head of a pin" parsing of grammar on my part. The rulebook generally does a wonderful job of being concise and precise and clear. For me, the appearance of the word "other" in the rule serves no grammatical purpose other than to introduce unnecessary ambiguity, but I'm not such a pedant that I can't move on. Again, thank you to all who helped me interpret the meaning of the rule (my recollection is of always playing the rule correctly, but I was solitaire playing last night and when I reread it without having an "ASL adult" present I was momentarily shocked/stunned ).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Thanks everyone. This is just "angels on the head of a pin" parsing of grammar on my part. The rulebook generally does a wonderful job of being concise and precise and clear. For me, the appearance of the word "other" in the rule serves no grammatical purpose other than to introduce unnecessary ambiguity...

I am not saying that the rule couldn't have been written better/more-clear, but if "other" is removed, the meaning of the rule changes.

 

[WuWei]

Just to make this clear for me: A leader that is hit for a K/3 is only casualty reduced? So he has to make a wound check, and if he rolls 4 or less (assuming he is not wounded already) is only wounded, not broken, nothing else?

 

[clubby]

Correct. The rule specifically includes ALL OTHER UNITS including any just reduced HS.

 

[djohannsen]

I am not saying that the rule couldn't have been written better/more-clear, but if "other" is removed, the meaning of the rule changes.

I think that the correct meaning is conveyed much more unambiguously without the "other":
At least one target unit suffers Casualty Reduction in each specifically targeted Location and all units (including any just-Reduced HS) must take a MC,..."
Now, it is absolutely clear that even the unit that was Casualty Reduced must take the MC. Deleting the word "other" obviates the need for the parenthetical comment, though retaining it amplifies the necessity for the CR unit to take the MC.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think that the correct meaning is conveyed much more unambiguously without the "other":
At least one target unit suffers Casualty Reduction in each specifically targeted Location and all units (including any just-Reduced HS) must take a MC,..."
Now, it is absolutely clear that even the unit that was Casualty Reduced must take the MC. Deleting the word "other" obviates the need for the parenthetical comment, though retaining it amplifies the necessity for the CR unit to take the MC.

But that's just the thing - if the unit that was Casualty Reduced was a SMC (i.e., wounded) he does not have to take the MC. If you remove "other" he will - i.e., the rule is changed.


There is an example of this, but it is hidden away in rule A.9:
"EX: A leader, crew, HS, and squad are stacked in that order from top to bottom in a hex which has just been attacked on the IFT yielding a K/1 result (7.302). The Random Selection dice are thrown and result in a white 3, a green 1, a red 2, and a black 3. As a result, the leader is wounded and the squad Reduced to a HS. The crew and both HS suffer a 1MC"

 

[djohannsen]

But that's just the thing - if the unit that was Casualty Reduced was a SMC (i.e., wounded) he does not have to take the MC. If you remove "other" he will - i.e., the rule is changed.


There is an example of this, but it is hidden away in rule A.9:
"EX: A leader, crew, HS, and squad are stacked in that order from top to bottom in a hex which has just been attacked on the IFT yielding a K/1 result (7.302). The Random Selection dice are thrown and result in a white 3, a green 1, a red 2, and a black 3. As a result, the leader is wounded and the squad Reduced to a HS. The crew and both HS suffer a 1MC"

Ah, now the scales are falling from my eyes! I was failing to make the distinction between wounding and casualty reduction. Thanks for your patient explanations.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Just to make this clear for me: A leader that is hit for a K/3 is only casualty reduced? So he has to make a wound check, and if he rolls 4 or less (assuming he is not wounded already) is only wounded, not broken, nothing else?

Yes.
See A.9 example :

EX: A leader, crew, HS, and squad are stacked in that order from top to bottom in a hex which has just been attacked on the IFT yielding a K/1 result (7.302). The Random Selection dice are thrown and result in a white 3, a green 1, a red 2, and a black 3. As a result, the leader is wounded and the squad Reduced to a HS. The crew and both HS suffer a 1MC.

 

[Philippe D.]

The "other" kind of makes sense if one assumes that the surviving HS from a squad is a different unit - so it's among the "other" units when it comes to the MC. A SMC surviving the Wound dr, OTOH, is the same unit, and so does not take the MC.

Not sure if this is the reason for the rule's wording; I know this is how it's supposed to work.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Correct. The rule specifically includes ALL OTHER UNITS including any just reduced HS.

Ah, yes, but then a just reduced HS would be eliminated as I don't believe you can reduce a HS further!

 

[clubby]

Ah, yes, but then a just reduced HS would be eliminated as I don't believe you can reduce a HS further!

If my post was ambiguous, it should have said the rule about taking a #MC.

 

[GeorgeBates]

hey, i thought the OP said this was a "quickie?"