A9.22 Firelane questions

[pward]

Well, all it says is:

7.55 MANDATORY FG: If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same "simultaneous" [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).

So, your guess is as good as mine as to what "EXC: Fire Lane" is supposed to mean, but I can only assume it applies to firelanes in general, both their placement and resolution.

You don't have a fire lane until after the attack that created it. Declare attack and intent to place FL, roll, resolve initial attack, place FL marker. (Now the FL exists.)

Multiple MG placing FL in the same hex-grain attack individually, not as one big fire group. That's why there's an exception for fire lanes.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

You don't have a fire lane until after the attack that created it. Declare attack and intent to place FL, roll, resolve initial attack, place FL marker. (Now the FL exists.)

Multiple MG placing FL in the same hex-grain attack individually, not as one big fire group. That's why there's an exception for fire lanes.

I fundamentally agree with what you're saying and play that way, but...

That [EXC: Firelanes] certainly does NOT spell that out nor does A9.22 do anything to clarify the matter. That leaves a lot of interpretation for the reader unfortunately, although I'd bet on a submitted Perry Sez agreeing with your viewpoint...

 

[pward]

I fundamentally agree with what you're saying and play that way, but...

That [EXC: Firelanes] certainly does NOT spell that out nor does A9.22 do anything to clarify the matter. That leaves a lot of interpretation for the reader unfortunately, although I'd bet on a submitted Perry Sez agreeing with your viewpoint...

I think the fire lane rules spell it out quite clearly. The fire lane doesn't exist until the attack creating it is resolved completely. Breaking the MG, cowering, or activating a sniper that hits the MG owner can wreck it before it even comes into play. The FL doesn't affect the unit that's being shot at, just the FP from the initial attack of the MG does. (Which must be in a mandatory FG.) After that, the FL rules are quite clear that each is an individual attack, even if they apply to the same hex.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Thanks, but I know how firelanes work...

The issue is the firelane rule does not give any indication what "[EXC: Firelanes]" in the mandatory firegroup rule really means. There's no indication whatsoever if "placing a firelane" is an exception or merely the subsequent fire lane attacks themselves are meant to be exceptions.

I could certainly argue that placing a Firelane could exempt me from mandatory FG based on the EXC - I don't believe it to be true, but I cannot point to a rule that clearly says it is not true. Basically I don't think the firelane rule actually clarifies your contention of "(Which must be in a mandatory FG.)" - your belief is that laying a firelane isn't actuallly a firelane yet and thus shouldn't be subject to the EXC, correct? But I don't see it stated in the firelane rules that attempting to lay a firelane isn't subject to Firelanes A9.22 - since of course it is given how else would we know how to attempt to lay a firelane? Basically I think that's doing some creative reading between the lines on a ridiculously terse EXC, unfortunately.

Again I agree with your rules viewpoint, but don't think the rules are crystal clear in this case...

 

[Jazz]

Thanks, but I know how firelanes work...

The issue is the firelane rule does not give any indication what "[EXC: Firelanes]" in the mandatory firegroup rule really means. There's no indication whatsoever if "placing a firelane" is an exception or merely the subsequent fire lane attacks themselves are meant to be exceptions.

I could certainly argue that placing a Firelane could exempt me from mandatory FG based on the EXC - I don't believe it to be true, but I cannot point to a rule that clearly says it is not true. Basically I don't think the firelane rule actually clarifies your contention of "(Which must be in a mandatory FG.)" - your belief is that laying a firelane isn't actuallly a firelane yet and thus shouldn't be subject to the EXC, correct? But I don't see it stated in the firelane rules that attempting to lay a firelane isn't subject to Firelanes A9.22 - since of course it is given how else would we know how to attempt to lay a firelane? Basically I think that's doing some creative reading between the lines on a ridiculously terse EXC, unfortunately.

Again I agree with your rules viewpoint, but don't think the rules are crystal clear in this case...

I gotta agree with Bret. Mandatory fire groups in effect for the initial shot is how I have always played it. I do see how someone could and would interpret the wording and context of the exception in Mandatory Fire Groups for firelanes differently and quite frankly, I do not see how I could refute that interpretation based on a strict reading of the rules, as much as I know it is incorrect.

This would most probably come up when playing a newer ASL player who has finally begun to read and intepret the rules for themselves, but does not have the play time under their belt to add experience and judgement. In these sorts of cases, I try to make a point of following a logical progression through various rules to justify how things are done, and I would find it difficult to do so in this instance.

 

[Tater]

I gotta agree with Bret. Mandatory fire groups in effect for the initial shot is how I have always played it. I do see how someone could and would interpret the wording and context of the exception in Mandatory Fire Groups for firelanes differently and quite frankly, I do not see how I could refute that interpretation based on a strict reading of the rules, as much as I know it is incorrect.

Easy...no "Firelane" exists until the FL counter is placed...no such counter is present during the initial attack thus the initial attack is NOT a "Firelane".

This would most probably come up when playing a newer ASL player who has finally begun to read and intepret the rules for themselves, but does not have the play time under their belt to add experience and judgement. In these sorts of cases, I try to make a point of following a logical progression through various rules to justify how things are done, and I would find it difficult to do so in this instance.

The initial shot is not a "Firelane"...it does not meet the criteria to be considered a "Firelane" attack. It is just a regular attack. The only difference is that one is declaring the placement of a "Firelane" AFTER the initial attack.

I just don't see any valid, defensible argument for calling the initial attack a "Firelane"...BUT, me being me, I sure hope someone tries! :devious:

 

[pward]

I don't see any gray area in either rule, if you actually take both as a part of the rules. I haven't reread the rules for this discussion, but I don't think there is any ambiguity between the initial attack that permits a fire lane placement, and a residual attack by that fire lane.

 

[Jazz]

I don't see any gray area in either rule, if you actually take both as a part of the rules. I haven't reread the rules for this discussion, but I don't think there is any ambiguity between the initial attack that permits a fire lane placement, and a residual attack by that fire lane.

I don't either....thats why I play it as you do.

I do think that someone who lacks a lot of experience in reading and interpreting the rules might not see it quite that way....and there's nothing worse than a newer player feeling his oats now that he's reading the rules and wants to catch a groggie on a rules interpretation.....I have been there on both sides of that type of exchange. Mark Nixon was so indulgent it's embarrasing to remember it now....:upset:

 

[pward]

I do think that someone who lacks a lot of experience in reading and interpreting the rules might not see it quite that way....and there's nothing worse than a newer player feeling his oats now that he's reading the rules and wants to catch a groggie on a rules interpretation.....I have been there on both sides of that type of exchange. Mark Nixon was so indulgent it's embarrasing to remember it now....:upset:

And just as possible that the noob may be right now and again.

 

[Tater]

I don't either....thats why I play it as you do.

I do think that someone who lacks a lot of experience in reading and interpreting the rules might not see it quite that way....and there's nothing worse than a newer player feeling his oats now that he's reading the rules and wants to catch a groggie on a rules interpretation.....I have been there on both sides of that type of exchange. Mark Nixon was so indulgent it's embarrasing to remember it now....:upset:

Yeah, but that is an issue with pretty much 99.9% of the whole ASLRB. It just takes a while to "get" the SOP of reading ASL rules. Short of another complete rewrite of the ASLRB to a ASLSK level I am not sure what could be done to prevent newbies from screwing up rules. I certainly don't think we ought to go down the path of Q&A/Errata based on the potential for a rule to be "newbied".

You agree that the rule isn't ambiguous (newbieness aside), pward agrees, Bret agrees and I agree...that being the case, what is the real question here?

Bottom line, the initial attack is NOT a FL attack...if the newbie can't understand such a simple (relative to the bulk of ASL rules) answer then it may be time to suggest taking up a different hobby.

 

[Jazz]

And just as possible that the noob may be right now and again.

Exactly why I make a point of going through the chain of rules reasoning even for things that I've been playing that way for a long time. I'm not surprised often, but it has happened.

 

[Jazz]

Bottom line, the initial attack is NOT a FL attack...if the newbie can't understand such a simple (relative to the bulk of ASL rules) answer then it may be time to suggest taking up a different hobby.

I don't think that a quorum of experienced players disagree on how the the rule should be played to be done correctly. I don't know how much playing time bos has and I haven't heard from him lately. I'd be curious as to what his take on the discussion is as he brought it up initially.

I think most of the discussion lately has been around just how ambiguous the rule is to 1) an experienced ASL player and 2) a mere mortal Engish speaker off the street.

 

[bos]

I don't think that a quorum of experienced players disagree on how the the rule should be played to be done correctly. I don't know how much playing time bos has and I haven't heard from him lately. I'd be curious as to what his take on the discussion is as he brought it up initially.

I agree with ya'll now.

Though, I think "Fire Lane residual" would be clearer than just Fire Lane.

 

[Tater]

I think most of the discussion lately has been around just how ambiguous the rule is to 1) an experienced ASL player and 2) a mere mortal Engish speaker off the street.

But that leaves you and I out...

 

[pward]

I agree with ya'll now.

Though, I think "Fire Lane residual" would be clearer than just Fire Lane.

Fire Lane is by definition a residual fire attack, and there is only one Fire Lane attack to begin with. It would be clearer, but also redundant. If that sort of thing applied everywhere, we would have a much larger rulebook.

 

[bos]

Fire Lane is by definition a residual fire attack, and there is only one Fire Lane attack to begin with. It would be clearer, but also redundant. If that sort of thing applied everywhere, we would have a much larger rulebook.

Like the whole A9.22 section, which uses "Fire lane residual" throughout?

Edit: It's also curious that there would even need to be an exception for firegroups for firelane residual, when A7.5 states that firegroups are for units/weapons (and A7.55 is talking about mandatory firegroups for units/weapons). Residual FP is neither a unit nor a weapon. The fg rules need an exception for firelanes to mandatory fg's about as much they need an exception saying you can't firegroup vanilla residual fp with a first-fire attack from an adjacent unit.

 

[pward]

Like the whole A9.22 section, which uses "Fire lane residual" throughout?

Edit: It's also curious that there would even need to be an exception for firegroups for firelane residual, when A7.5 states that firegroups are for units/weapons (and A7.55 is talking about mandatory firegroups for units/weapons). Residual FP is neither a unit nor a weapon. The fg rules need an exception for firelanes to mandatory fg's about as much they need an exception saying you can't firegroup vanilla residual fp with a first-fire attack from an adjacent unit.

But it still makes use of the original firing weapons B/X numbers and will break the weapon if they are rolled. That carries the implication that the FL residual is just an attack that can't bust your rate no matter how many attacks it makes. (Short of a breakdown or elimination.)

 

[bos]

But it still makes use of the original firing weapons B/X numbers and will break the weapon if they are rolled. That carries the implication that the FL residual is just an attack that can't bust your rate no matter how many attacks it makes. (Short of a breakdown or elimination.)

I though the goal was not to cater to possible newbification of the rules?

 

[pward]

I though the goal was not to cater to possible newbification of the rules?

It is, but there is a difference between FL resid and "normal" resid. Normal resid doesn't go back and break weapons...

 

[Eagle4ty]

A bit of a digression but in a similar vein, if you boresight a hex with a MG, you do not get the -2 DRM if there are any other units shooting on that shot.....and mandatory firegroups do apply. Note also that MG bore sighting can only be used in First/Subsequent/Final Fire (not Prep Fire).

Mostly right, You are limited to only getting the -2 DRM during your DF if vs Inf. In all other cases, MGs vs AFVs, etc, you could claim the -2 during the PFPh/AFPh as well. (pretty sure you ment that anyway-but a good point to bring out).:laugh::laugh: