Allocation of new mtr spotter

Simon62

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
478
Reaction score
65
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hi all
Came across what seemed to be a contradiction in therules - probably just us but thought we should check.

Situation is a mtr spotter goes berserk following a HOB :

rule C9.3 states: a new spotter may not be designated until the original spotter is eliminated, broken or captured.

ASOP states in 3.1 start of movement phase: may designate new mortar spotter for one eliminated or not in good order.

index definition of good order: a personnel unit that is neither broken, BERSERK etc

So can a new mtr spotter be allocated? Which takes precedence C9.3 or ASOP or have we just missed something else??

Any help appreciated

Simon
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Good spot!

My best guess is that the possibilty of a MTR Spotter going Berserk and the impending consequences for designating a new Spotter (or not) have been overlooked when formulating either the ASOP or C9.3.

IMHO this is a candidate for a 'Perry Sez'.

If I had to place a bet, I'd go for the option of allowing a new Spotter to be designated as a replacement for the non-GO Berserker. But I am not sure for sure...

von Marwitz
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I would say the issue is with the C9.3 rule rather than the ASOP.

I would also go with the ASOP as it details the activities within the turn and does not normally change/add rules. One could argue the rule section should have had simply allowed spotter reassignment if the current spotter was no longer in GO (understanding there might be exceptions involved).
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
It's amazing after 25 years and thousands of scenarios that such things still pop up. What a fantastic game!

FWIW my money is on the ASOP.
 

Simon62

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
478
Reaction score
65
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Ok thanks we will go with the ASOP and we will ask Perry
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
978
Reaction score
567
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
I think you cannot designate new spotter unless eliminated, broken (not in good order) or captured (not in good order).

You cannot change the spotter if it held in melee or berserk (both not good order), because the rules demands that it must be eliminated, broken or captured.
I dont think there is any contradiction
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I think you cannot designate new spotter unless eliminated, broken (not in good order) or captured (not in good order).

You cannot change the spotter if it held in melee or berserk (both not good order), because the rules demands that it must be eliminated, broken or captured.
I dont think there is any contradiction
The ASOP is part of the rules and further lays out the sequence of events that have to be performed. It's interesting that you take the position that a Spotter being Berserk would not entail a chance to re-designate a new Spotter but it is simply not supported by the rules (ASOP).
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
978
Reaction score
567
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
Do you really think that the rules and the ASOP are one against the other? I don‘t.

When the ASOP sends (remite) to the not good order units that can get new spotter points (señala) rule C9.3, that specifically mentions some (not all) not good order units. Thinking that the ASOP was written because wanted that all not good order spotters could be relieved of its duty, dont stand by the letter of the same ASOP when it points specifically C9.3. I think the wording of the ASOP was a deliberate, and used just for economy. Two situations (broken or captured) that could be spelled in just one, not good order of C9.3.
Otherwise, the rule or the ASOP are wrongly written.
Maybe its different in other countries, but when a rule (law) can be understand (interpretada) without breaking another one, that middle point is the proper one. But I‘m at a great disavantage here, english (the language of the rules, and nowadays world’s lingua franca ) is for me a foreign language (I could say alien language, like Klingon). Maybe I’m wrong (I dont know the rules and almost everyday I learn something about them). You could send the Perry question.
 

bluedogpete

Recruit
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
26
Reaction score
17
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I recall the following from the 2nd Edition Rules ASOP:

"... Should the order of actions given in the body of the rules conflict with the ASOP, the latter takes precedence. ..."

As the ASOP is, I believe, considered part of the rulebook, then this could well have a bearing on the issue.
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
978
Reaction score
567
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
Ithink it is not about the order of actions... It is if all not good order spotter can be changed for another spotter or just broken or capured (that are also not good order, and its what the rules, not the asop, points)
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
They'll wait for the berserk unit to kill the King Tiger with 3 838's in the hex....
He'll bring back some coffee and biscuits.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
There is a Q&A on this:

"C9.3
A Spotter must be Good Order to spot. A new Spotter may not be designated until the original Spotter is "eliminated, broken or captured". Does this mean that a berserk spotter forfeits any possibility of designating another Spotter, at the same time as it, being no more in Good Order, cannot spot. And thus, does one have to wait, either its elimination, either its return to normal (most often after having charged the ENEMY and being no more adjacent to the mortar it originally spotted for)?
A. Yes."

 
Last edited:

Kijug

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
418
Reaction score
390
Location
Texas
First name
Matt
Country
llUnited States
I always thought the ASOP overruled the RB? A3.0 says, “and a more detailed version is provided on the Advanced Sequence of Play (ASOP) divider.” which I always took to mean it had “the answer” as to what to do/what is allowed.

But arguably C3.9 is later then A3.0...but the ASOP is later then all? Or equivalent in rule order to A3.0?
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
I always thought the ASOP overruled the RB? A3.0 says, “and a more detailed version is provided on the Advanced Sequence of Play (ASOP) divider.” which I always took to mean it had “the answer” as to what to do/what is allowed.

But arguably C3.9 is later then A3.0...but the ASOP is later then all? Or equivalent in rule order to A3.0?
Only for certain things.....i.e. when we feel like it.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I always thought the ASOP overruled the RB? A3.0 says, “and a more detailed version is provided on the Advanced Sequence of Play (ASOP) divider.” which I always took to mean it had “the answer” as to what to do/what is allowed.

But arguably C3.9 is later then A3.0...but the ASOP is later then all? Or equivalent in rule order to A3.0?
Basically, I am with you. But IMHO a 'Perry Sez' is the ultimate ruling if one is available.

von Marwitz
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I always thought the ASOP overruled the RB? A3.0 says, “and a more detailed version is provided on the Advanced Sequence of Play (ASOP) divider.” which I always took to mean it had “the answer” as to what to do/what is allowed.

But arguably C3.9 is later then A3.0...but the ASOP is later then all? Or equivalent in rule order to A3.0?
I wonder if the Q&A that I referred to earlier would have come up with the same answer if the ASOP had been referenced? To me, the sensible rule and the closest to reconciling C9.3 with the ASOP would be that a new spotter can’t be designated as long as the original one remains in the same hex in an unbroken state, regardless of its GO status. Once it goes berserk and leaves the hex, a new spotter can be allocated at the start of the attacker’s next MPh unless the original unit has returned to GO status by eliminating its target. The Q&A however just gives a literal interpretation of the rule without considering the terms of the ASOP and what happens if the berserk unit remains in melee or it doesn’t reach a qualifying target in its charge. Definitely worth a Perry Sez since it seems impossible to reconcile the contradiction.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I wonder if the Q&A that I referred to earlier would have come up with the same answer if the ASOP had been referenced? To me, the sensible rule and the closest to reconciling C9.3 with the ASOP would be that a new spotter can’t be designated as long as the original one remains in the same hex in an unbroken state, regardless of its GO status. Once it goes berserk and leaves the hex, a new spotter can be allocated at the start of the attacker’s next MPh unless the original unit has returned to GO status by eliminating its target. The Q&A however just gives a literal interpretation of the rule without considering the terms of the ASOP and what happens if the berserk unit remains in melee or it doesn’t reach a qualifying target in its charge. Definitely worth a Perry Sez since it seems impossible to reconcile the contradiction.
The Q&A is a 'Perry Sez'...

For what it's worth, I could go with either interpretation. Berserkers might not be particularly prone to informing MTR crews that they would now please like to hand over spotting duties to a successor because they feel the urgent desire to venture forth for stabbing a quite irritating adversary right over yonder. On the other hand, a MTR crew could just see the Berserkers go and shout out for some other blokes nearby to take their place.

For the time being, I'll follow the 'Perry Sez'.

von Marwitz
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
As I said, I just wonder if he would have given the same answer if the ASOP had been drawn to his attention? Or is his ruling based on the higher numbered rule prevailing? I guess that it has to without re-writing the rule book.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
As I said, I just wonder if he would have given the same answer if the ASOP had been drawn to his attention? Or is his ruling based on the higher numbered rule prevailing? I guess that it has to without re-writing the rule book.
Of course since "Perry Says" rule determinations are optional upon agreement and the fact several have been reversed or further clarified upon further review, I would suggest a revisit of the question provided with additional information.
 
Top