B9.321 Wall Advantage

[Blackcloud6]

B9.321 is not clear to me in what it means when read in context to B9.322.

The rule says a unit always has WA over all possible wall/hedge hexsides of it's hex...

But B9.322 says a unit claiming WA must always be marked with "Wall advantage" counter and can only do so at the five times mentioned in the rules.

So why does a unit have to claim it, if it already has WA?

Say a unit (no WA marker onit) is in a building hex with walls on all hexsides around it. There are no enemy unit adjacent, B9.321 implies that this unit already has WA. But if not marked and an enemy unit moves adjacent doe it or does it not have WA.

I've seen this played both ways by experienced players by the way...

 

[skink]

NRBH, but I believe B9.321 is saying that if you have WA, you have WA for all wall hexsides in that hex. You can't have WA along, say, one hexside but not have WA along another hexside (Deluxe ASL excepted).

So, it's not that you always have WA, it's that if you have WA, you always have WA over all hexsides in that hex.

 

[Sparafucil3]

In your example (building walls all around): B9.321 only says you WA over all sides if you are actually claiming WA per B9.32. Since you have in-hex TEM you have to claim WA by placing a WA marker on your unit claiming WA. If there were no in-hex TEM, mandatory WA would apply (B9.323) so you would not need a WA marker to stake your claim. If your unit is not marked with a WA counter and a unit comes ADJACENT, they can claim WA since you can not arbitrarily claim it to deny them the +2 TEM. When under the WA marker, you can not drop it and claim +3 TEM when being attacked since you can not arbitrarily gain it. -- jim

 

[Ole Boe]

B9.321 is not clear to me in what it means when read in context to B9.322.

The rule says a unit always has WA over all possible wall/hedge hexsides of it's hex...

The full sentence is: "A unit always has WA over all possible (as per 9.32) wall/hedge hexsides of its hex; if it forfeits/is-denied WA over one of those wall/hedge hexsides it cannot claim WA over any other hexsides [EXC: in Deluxe ASL, WA is claimed/retained/lost per hexside - not hex]"

When reading the sentence in full, you see that "A unit always has WA..." really means "If a unit has WA, it always has WA over all..." - as others have said here.

But B9.322 says a unit claiming WA must always be marked with "Wall advantage" counter and can only do so at the five times mentioned in the rules.

That's correct (with the normal additional exceptions of course )

So why does a unit have to claim it, if it already has WA?

As implied above, it does not have WA, but if it claims it, it claims it for all possible hexsides. If it (due to an enemy unit having WA) cannot claim it for even one of its up to eight hexsides, then it cannot claim it for any of them.

Say a unit (no WA marker onit) is in a building hex with walls on all hexsides around it. There are no enemy unit adjacent, B9.321 implies that this unit already has WA. But if not marked and an enemy unit moves adjacent doe it or does it not have WA.

I've seen this played both ways by experienced players by the way....

I think WA was the rule that historically has been played most incorrectly, and it's no surprise that many inexperienced players play the way they did before the 2nd. edition clarification. The rules was completely updated for 2nd edition, but I think many players still play as they did before, not following the strict rules of having to claim WA and place a WA counter (unless mandatory WA applies). So if an enemy unit enters adjacent to the above building hex, there's no oppurtunity then of claiming WA for the DEFENDER.

Think of the rule in term of surpressing fire and movement. During the RPh, the DEFENDER in the building has a choise between claming WA or not. If it claims it, it will be more vulnerable to enemy Prep Fire since the building TEM is NA, but if he doesn't, any possible moving enemy unit may move adjacent an claim WA, thereby getting +1/+2 TEM instead of -1 FFMO. A difficult but interesting choise at times.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think WA was the rule that historically has been played most incorrectly, and it's no surprise that many inexperienced players play the way they did before the 2nd. edition clarification.

Since the rules for WA were changed/clarified over the years via Q&A/2nd edition/etc. IMO it is more like it was played differently than incorrect earlier.

 

[Blackcloud6]

When reading the sentence in full, you see that "A unit always has WA..." really means "If a unit has WA, it always has WA over all..." - as others have said here.

This is important and clarifies the whole rule better. maybe something to consider for the next set of errata.

Think of the rule in term of surpressing fire and movement. During the RPh, the DEFENDER in the building has a choise between claming WA or not. If it claims it, it will be more vulnerable to enemy Prep Fire since the building TEM is NA, but if he doesn't, any possible moving enemy unit may move adjacent an claim WA, thereby getting +1/+2 TEM instead of -1 FFMO. A difficult but interesting choise at times.

I was wondering why the rule was not written to just automatically say a unit has WA, but with your explanation I see the tactical choice that a player has to make: Control the wall and cause the enemy to get - 1 FFMO, but risk less cover from prep fire; or take the building TEM and allow the enmy to close. What is important is this decsion must be made in the RPh!

Thanks much to all who answerd, I now have my head wrapped around this one.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I was wondering why the rule was not written to just automatically say a unit has WA, but with your explanation I see the tactical choice that a player has to make: Control the wall and cause the enemy to get - 1 FFMO, but risk less cover from prep fire; or take the building TEM and allow the enmy to close. What is important is this decsion must be made in the RPh!

If I'm not misstaken, even a unit that claims WA during the RPh, can still drop it (and get e.g. building TEM) during the PFPh as long as no attack has been declared vs. it.

A9.322:
"WA must be forfeited immediately if a unit no longer fulfills 9.32 and may be forfeited at any other time. Claiming/forfeiting WA is not considered an action for RPh limits (A3.1) or concealment loss (A12.141). Claiming/forfeiting WA can never be done between an enemy action being declared and that action being completed, e.g., fire vs the unit claiming WA."

 

[Blackcloud6]

If I'm not misstaken, even a unit that claims WA during the RPh, can still drop it (and get e.g. building TEM) during the PFPh as long as no attack has been declared vs. it.

OK, and this whole rule sub-system makes sense because by putting WA on a unit in RPh puts a decision burden on the attacker. He has to decide to prep fire to possibly force the defender to drop the WA in the PFPh to gain the stone building TEM.

It does leave me wonder though, why one would not put WA markers on all eligible units when it can be dropped at anytime?

 

[Ole Boe]

OK, and this whole rule sub-system makes sense because by putting WA on a unit in RPh puts a decision burden on the attacker. He has to decide to prep fire to possibly force the defender to drop the WA in the PFPh to gain the stone building TEM.

Actually, the unit with WA can drop it pretty much anytime (unless Pinned).

It does leave me wonder though, why one would not put WA markers on all eligible units when it can be dropped at anytime?

Mostly for one important reason. Anytime does not include the time between the declaration of an action and the execution of same action.

So if you have WA on your unit in the building and the opponent declares a Prep fire attack with LOS that doesn't cross the wall, you are stuck with WA and no TEM until that Prep fire attack is resolved. You are of course free to drop it immediately after this attack - before the opponent declares a second attack though.

In other words, there is no opportunity for a situation like this:
ATTACKER: I attack your WA unit from x with zero TEM.
DEFENDER: Then I drop WA before your attack and receive +3 TEM.
ATTACKER: Then I don't attack it.
DEFENDER: Then I don't drop WA.
ATTACKER: Then I attack it anyway...
etc. :clown:

This is even more important if the WA is instead over a Bocage that the enemy LOS crosses. In this case the DEFENDER unit becomes out of LOS (and immune to the attack) if he drops WA. So he needs to decide between having WA (and be vulnerable to attacks) or drop it (and not be able to attack any moving non-adjacent enemy units). He cannot decide to drop WA after an attack has been declared against it and thereby become immune to that same attack.
But an ATTACKER can always choose WA over the Bocage in the RPh, use Prep Fire and then drop WA before the enemy DFPh, and then be completely immune to the enemy attacks.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

OK, and this whole rule sub-system makes sense because by putting WA on a unit in RPh puts a decision burden on the attacker. He has to decide to prep fire to possibly force the defender to drop the WA in the PFPh to gain the stone building TEM.

It does leave me wonder though, why one would not put WA markers on all eligible units when it can be dropped at anytime?

One situation I can think of is where you might get hit with the first declared fire attack in the Prep Fire Phase and then you cannot vol. drop it.

Another is if you are close to an enemy Spotting Round that might be converted into a FFE and drop on the unit in question.

Not sure how to handle OBA with regard to this though - would the whole OBA process (radio, battery access, placing, converting) be considered one action, or is each step an individual action with regards to A9.322.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

But an ATTACKER can always choose WA over the Bocage in the RPh, use Prep Fire and then drop WA before the enemy DFPh, and then be completely immune to the enemy attacks.

Unless B9.323 MANDATORY WA applies of course (Man. WA still applies to Bocage, right ?).

 

[Ole Boe]

Not sure how to handle OBA with regard to this though - would the whole OBA process (radio, battery access, placing, converting) be considered one action, or is each step an individual action with regards to A9.322.

My gut feeling is that whenever the opponent have some new choise (something new to declare), you may step in and drop WA before he has declared this step, but you cannot do it inbetween automatic steps of the OBA process.

I.E., if your enemy has a SR in place and is going to correct and convert it, you may drop WA:
* Before radio DR is declared
* Between radio DR and declaration of correction/convertion
* After OBA attacks.

However, when your opponent has declared that he will correct it to your Location and convert it there, you cannot intervene and drop WA before the action your opponent declared is completed. It makes sense really because he declared correction/convertion before you declared WA forfeiture, so he gets to execute it first as well.

I will go as far as stating a general ASL principle. If an action is declared/started before another action is declared, the first action will always be executed first. Examples of this are:

1) I declare that I drop WA and you declare an attack immediately after, but before my WA counter has been removed. The WA is still dropped before the shot is made.

2) I declare that my CE AFV goes CE and you declare an attack immediately after, but before my CE counter has been removed. The AFV still become BU before the shot is made.

3) I declare the placement of an OBA AR in a hex that is not adjacent to any of your non-HIP units. You declare that you will place a HIP unit onboard concealed to force the additional chit draw, but the AR is still placed (without the chit draw) before the HIP unit is placed onboard - and the same is true for the following SR-FFE convertion if that was declared at the same time I declared placement of the AR.


At least, this is what I think makes sense...

 

[Ole Boe]

Unless B9.323 MANDATORY WA applies of course (Man. WA still applies to Bocage, right ?).

Right

I assume those units are so afraid of being in the middle of a 40m open area that they instead prefer being close to the Bocage where they can be seen and shot by enemy units.

 

[Blackcloud6]

This notion of when you actually can drop WA is interesting. The way the first example of WA on page B8 is written implies that the German has a choice of which TEM to take before the shot is rolled. It never specifically says precsisely when this choice is made. B9.3222 says WA can be dropped at any time. Whats does "anytime" mean?

 

[Ole Boe]

This notion of when you actually can drop WA is interesting. The way the first example of WA on page B8 is written implies that the German has a choice of which TEM to take before the shot is rolled. It never specifically says precsisely when this choice is made.

I agree that the first B9.321 example is unfortunate by seemingly implying that the WA may be dropped after the shot has been declared, but before the shot is made. This is not correct though (see below).

B9.3222 says WA can be dropped at any time. Whats does "anytime" mean?

Pretty much anytime, but the last sentence of B9.322 holds a very important restriction: "Claiming/forfeiting WA can never be done between an enemy action being declared and that action being completed, e.g., fire vs the unit claiming WA."

 

[jimfer]

I agree that the first B9.321 example is unfortunate by seemingly implying that the WA may be dropped after the shot has been declared, but before the shot is made. This is not correct though (see below).

Pretty much anytime, but the last sentence of B9.322 holds a very important restriction: "Claiming/forfeiting WA can never be done between an enemy action being declared and that action being completed, e.g., fire vs the unit claiming WA."

Sic 'em Ole
Seems we are trying to nit pick rules instead of making sure the game play is as it should be.
Good job Ole Jimfer

 

[James Taylor]

Sic 'em Ole
Seems we are trying to nit pick rules instead of making sure the game play is as it should be.
Good job Ole Jimfer

Careful Jim, you wouldn't want to be accused of being *elitist*.

Any how the nits are there to be picked. How can we play the game as it should be without understanding the rules?

JT

 

[Blackcloud6]

Ole Boe, thanks for the clarification.

Jimfer: Bite me! You are /I]an elitist. Probably a self-imposed know-it-all too!

JT: Thanks. I didn't understand something, and the good guys helped me figure it out. The other.. well.. read a few lines above.