Broken Units and SW Posession

griffitz62

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Country
llUnited States
I've been following this thread and now I have couple of questions. A SMC has an IPC of 1 and can't ever carry more than 2PP worth of SW (A4.42). So a SMC would have 5MF if it were carrying a 2PP SW and could move during the Advance Phase. I guess my question is this: is posession and portage two different things? In other words, can a SMC posess and use any SW out there regardless of PP, but just not move with it if it has >2PP?
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
griffitz62 said:
I guess my question is this: is possession and portage two different things?
Yes, that is correct. Possession refers to the ability to potentially use a SW/Gun. A unit may possess any number of SW/Guns (A4.43) regardless of Portage Capacity. A unit must possess a SW/Gun to use it.

Portage refers to a unit's ability to move a SW (and certain Guns that can be dismantled, primarily 76-107 mm mortars). The portage chart from RB v.2 really lays this out (see attached).

griffitz62 said:
So a SMC would have 5MF if it were carrying a 2PP SW and could move during the Advance Phase.
A SMC carrying 2 PP would have 5 MF in the MPh. He could Advance into a hex without becoming CX that costs 3 MF or less (excluding SMOKE). If he were Wounded, his IPC would be 0 PP. If he possessed a 2 PP SW, he would only have 1 MF to spend during the MPh (3 MF - 2 PP = 1 MF). He would become CX if he advanced at all (since any advance is at least 1 MF).
 
Last edited:

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
A leader only has 2 PP...
Technically speaking, this is incorrect. An SMC has an IPC of one. An SMC may never Portage more than two PP. MMC and SMC have an Inherent Portage Capacity, while SW are rated for their portage cost by a value known as Portage Points.

I understand that the end result is the same as what you're saying...

However, seeing as the ASLRB is buggered up enough as it is, it would avoid any unnecessary confusion to at least use the correct terminology that does exist.

Call me anal about such things. I don't apologize for it. :)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
But the leader must have been stacked with the unit. For example, if the leader was in the hex and the MMC carrying the MG entered the hex and was eliminated by DFF, then the leader may not attempt Recovery until his MPh and only with a 1 MF expenditure plus dr (assuming he hasn’t already moved). If they were moving together or they were in the same Location during DFPh when the MMC was eliminated he could attempt Recover without MF expenditure.
I am unfamiliar with this restriction, and couldn't find it.

Rule reference?

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
For example, if the leader was in the hex and the MMC carrying the MG entered the hex and was eliminated by DFF, then the leader may not attempt Recovery until his MPh and only with a 1 MF expenditure plus dr (assuming he hasn’t already moved). If they were moving together or they were in the same Location during DFPh when the MMC was eliminated he could attempt Recover without MF expenditure.
I will amend my prior post (rather than edit it).

In your example, I would agree that once a SW is portaged and its possessing unit is eliminated, a leader could not then Recover the SW and then portage it during the same phase (i.e. expend MF while possessing the SW.)

However, the leader could Recover the SW and simply possess it, without expending further MF.

I think now that is the point you were trying to make; I wish I had realized that before making my last post. (Or maybe that wasn't the point you were making, in which case... )

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

griffitz62

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Country
llUnited States
Now that I'm looking a little closer, the rulebook does actually address portage and posession as two different things. A4.4 is Portage and 4.43 is Possession. Those two paragraphs seem to make the difference quite clear. Somehow, I didn't think this rule was that complicated. I guess you learn something everyday. :)
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Bruce,
I have no idea what point your are trying to make. This stream of consciousness spamming has completely obfuscated your argument (which seems to be with yourself). Your getting as bad as Olé here.

Could you please respond with a coherent counter-argument? Especially since it took you less than 23 minutes to read, write, research, and formulate a conclusion. You normally don't come of so "half-cocked", perhaps you didn't bother reading the whole thread before posting?

Once Olé posted his initial objection, I went back and dotted the "iees" and crossed the "tees". So, my "so-called" interpretation is based on the rules as presented in section A4.4-A4.44, published Q&A, errata, and ‘Perry-sez’ as posted on Sam's website. It is also consistent with A4.2 and A10.7. The position that I think you are trying to make is not, but I cannot fathom exactly what that position might be.

As far as your first post is concerned, you are correct and I have amended the wording.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
WaterRabbit said:
Bruce,
I have no idea what point your are trying to make. This stream of consciousness spamming has completely obfuscated your argument (which seems to be with yourself). Your getting as bad as Olé here.
Thanks for the not-very-polite hint about keeping short. My name is Ole, not Olé, btw.

Once Olé posted his initial objection, I went back and dotted the "iees" and crossed the "tees". So, my "so-called" interpretation is based on the rules as presented in section A4.4-A4.44, published Q&A, errata, and ‘Perry-sez’ as posted on Sam's website. It is also consistent with A4.2 and A10.7. The position that I think you are trying to make is not, but I cannot fathom exactly what that position might be.
We all agree that a SW cannot be portaged more than once during a MPh. But I still see no rule than even vaguely hints that a non-moving leader cannot recover a SW from a moving unit (in its Location) that is eliminated by DFF.

You list a number of rules, but without any argument of where and why those rules combined say what you think, those rule references are pretty meaningless.

A4.44 says "Only a SMC can Recover a SW/Gun possessed by a friendly broken unit ... if a unit surrenders, is eliminated, or routs away and cannot carry its SW, an Infantry SMC can immediately Recover one of that Infantry unit's SW/Guns in this same manner but regardless of phase. "

There is absolutely no hint of requiring the eliminated unit to beling in the same moving stack as the SMC in this rule, so unless you can quote such a requirement in another rule, there is no such requirement. COWTRA.

The fact that the SMC later cannot move with this SW due to A4.4 doesn't prevent the SMC from picking it up in the first place.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
griffitz62 said:
Now that I'm looking a little closer, the rulebook does actually address portage and posession as two different things. A4.4 is Portage and 4.43 is Possession. Those two paragraphs seem to make the difference quite clear. Somehow, I didn't think this rule was that complicated. I guess you learn something everyday. :)
But it makes sense though.

Have you seen the film "For whom the bell tolls"? At the end, the wounded hero is left behind with a MG. He cannot move with it, but that doesn't prevent him from firing at the enemy.

In ASL terms, this means that he is possessing the MG (and thus able to fire it), but unable to portage it.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Ole Boe said:
Thanks for the not-very-polite hint about keeping short.
Actually, you missed my point. My objection is to 'spamming' -- posting one post after another without any intervening post by other people -- especially when it appears that you are arguing with yourself. If you consider my hint to be ‘not-very-polite’ then consider that spamming is an egregious breach of forum etiquette.

I really don't care if your posts are long. If you have something to say, I'd rather you erred on the long side if it makes your point more clear. I would say that in general, your posts have a higher signal than noise ratio. Your insights in the overrun thread were interesting, so please don’t take this as any more than a friendly jibe.

Ole Boe said:
We all agree that a SW cannot be portaged more than once during a MPh.
Since this is your first post to my rebuttal, I had yet to see such agreement. IMO, your interpretation allows for the chain SW move by leaders. I hadn't posted additional arguments, since you had yet to even refute this point.

Ole Boe said:
But I still see no rule than even vaguely hints that a non-moving leader cannot recover a SW from a moving unit (in its Location) that is eliminated by DFF.

You list a number of rules, but without any argument of where and why those rules combined say what you think, those rule references are pretty meaningless.
Huh? I posted reference to A4.4-44 plus direct Q&A. Clearly relevant.

The other two references:

A4.2 Mechanics of Movement. Your interpretation requires an unprecedented exception to the mechanics of movement. I have read 4.44 fairly thoroughly and IMHO there is no such exception here. The only phrase you have to support such an exception is ‘but regardless of phase’. I don’t see this as an exemption from other constraints provided by the rules.

A10.7 Leadership: Now I used the word ‘consistent’ here fairly pointedly. I can come up with no other example that would allow a leader to affect a unit that he cannot apply his leadership modifier to. I am not saying that this rule creates an exception to A4.44 here. What I am saying is that is certainly is more than a 'vague hint'. My interpretation is more consistent with this general constraint that the one you appear to support.

Ole Boe said:
I find this acronym mainly used to mean "because I said so". I also see it as an echo of ASLML elitism.

I don't think the rules allow a non-acting leader to interrupt the movement phase of another friendly unit. A leader stacked with the MMC from the get go is sharing its MPh with that unit (and the risk). It is obvious that his movement ends if he takes possession of a SW in this manner.

Ole Boe said:
The fact that the SMC later cannot move with this SW due to A4.4 doesn't prevent the SMC from picking it up in the first place.
It is not later, it is immediately. His action is interrupting a friendly unit’s MPh. If we go with your interpretation, the leader’s MPh must be immediate. Would an enemy unit get to shoot at him? Consider this Q&A:

[QUOTE='96 Annual]A4.43 If an unbroken unit wishes to do nothing during its MPh except drop a SW, can it do so at the cost of one MF?
A. It would do so at no MF cost--but it could then become the (non-moving) target of Defensive First Fire. {96}[/QUOTE] In the long run, I don't think this has ever come up in any game that I have played or officiated. It is mainly an intellectual argument here. If I was playing a game and someone insisted on playing it your way I would just go with it since the impact on play is so negligible. However, if he tried moving the leader after taking possession then I'd have a problem.

However, I am willing to bet that a printed official Q&A would fall in my direction, since it is most logical within the overall framework of the rules. ;)
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
Bruce,
I have no idea what point your are trying to make. This stream of consciousness spamming has completely obfuscated your argument (which seems to be with yourself).
WaterRabbit,
I will admit that a couple of my posts were contrary to each other; I even stated in the latest post that, rather than edit the prior one, I would simply amend it. I have deleted the "obfuscated" one. As far as "spamming" is concerned, well... you have a peculiar definition of "spamming".

WaterRabbit said:
Could you please respond with a coherent counter-argument?
Okay, let me try to be less "obscure".

WaterRabbit said:
Once Olé posted his initial objection, I went back and dotted the "iees" and crossed the "tees". So, my "so-called" interpretation is based on the rules as presented in section A4.4-A4.44, published Q&A, errata, and ‘Perry-sez’ as posted on Sam's website. It is also consistent with A4.2 and A10.7.
Would this reference be to your statement: "For example, if the leader was in the hex and the MMC carrying the MG entered the hex and was eliminated by DFF, then the leader may not attempt Recovery until his MPh and only with a 1 MF expenditure plus dr (assuming he hasn’t already moved)."

To which Ole replied: "I agree with the rest, but cannot see this restriction in the rules."

Were you "dotting your i's and crossing your t's" when you responded with: "Primarily because of A4.4: 'No item can be portaged more than once per phase except as allowed by combined Infantry and vehicle portage within a single phase.'"

If that is your argument in response to Ole's question, then I must state quite frankly that I believe you are mistaken.

A4.44 allows a leader to Recover a SW from an eliminated unit regardless of phase . The restriction that you add about them being part of the same moving stack during DFF is mentioned ... nowhere.

Is this the Q&A you are talking about: "A4.4 & A4.44 If a unit Recovers the SW at the end of its MPh (i.e., it expends no MF after gaining possession of the SW), is the portage cost assessed? A. No. {96}"

I fail to see what this Q&A has to do with Recovery of a SW by a leader in the circumstances under discussion.

I find your arguments to be unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
My objection is to 'spamming' -- posting one post after another without any intervening post by other people -- especially when it appears that you are arguing with yourself. If you consider my hint to be ‘not-very-polite’ then consider that spamming is an egregious breach of forum etiquette.
First of all, this was not "spamming". "Spamming" involves sending replies or emails that have no relevance to the subject matter at hand, and that makes no attempt to.

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that each of my posts was a direct reply to a prior post; i.e. I responded directly by quoting each individual post. What results is a series of replies, one after another, without an intervening post by someone else. It happens, do to the nature of the medium.

"Spamming" is indeed a breech of forum etiquette. I was not spamming, unlike many other threads in this forum where certain individuals reply one after another -- sometimes using only one or two sentences per post -- without adding anything even relevant to the thread.

WaterRabbit said:
Since this is your first post to my rebuttal, I had yet to see such agreement. IMO, your interpretation allows for the chain SW move by leaders. I hadn't posted additional arguments, since you had yet to even refute this point.
Well, I agree with Ole.

As regards your "chain SW move", it's ridiculous. No one has claimed such a thing is possible. A SW may only be portaged once per phase, and no one has claimed otherwise.

The objections that Ole and I have raised have to do with your assertion that Recovery of a SW from an eliminated unit is not allowed by a leader unless that leader is a part of the same moving stack. Your arguments do not support your assertion.

Neither one of us has stated that the leader may continue moving with the SW.

WaterRabbit said:
Huh? I posted reference to A4.4-44 plus direct Q&A. Clearly relevant.
I did not find your Q&A reference to be relevant.

WaterRabbit said:
A4.2 Mechanics of Movement. Your interpretation requires an unprecedented exception to the mechanics of movement. I have read 4.44 fairly thoroughly and IMHO there is no such exception here. The only phrase you have to support such an exception is ‘but regardless of phase’. I don’t see this as an exemption from other constraints provided by the rules.
Recovery of a SW from an eliminated unit, without the expenditure of MF, is not movement. It could occur during any fire phase -- and is not movement. Using A4.2 in this instance is not relevant to what is allowed by A4.44... you know, that bit about "regardless of phase".

WaterRabbit said:
I find this acronym mainly used to mean "because I said so".
You were responding to Ole's use of "COWTRA".

I must ask you, WaterRabbit, how long have you been playing ASL?

The phrase "COWTRA" has been a part of ASL practically since the beginning, if not from the very beginning.

COWTRA does not mean "because I said so". You seem to demonstrate here that you do not have any understanding of the principle of COWTRA, which really is telling us that the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting us from doing something is not the same as allowing us to do it.

Why don't you do a little more research into "COWTRA", eh? I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum that could direct you to a good resource. I'm not going to help you, though, because of your attitude about COWTRA.

WaterRabbit said:
I also see it as an echo of ASLML elitism.
Friend, COWTRA has been around long before there was a mailing list, or a forum. Or even the Internet, for that matter.

Here you are demonstrating your bias against the ASLML. You are entitled to your opinion. But to call COWTRA "elitism" displays a certain ignorance about the principle, and about how responsible players use COWTRA to clarify rules.

WaterRabbit said:
I don't think the rules allow a non-acting leader to interrupt the movement phase of another friendly unit. A leader stacked with the MMC from the get go is sharing its MPh with that unit (and the risk). It is obvious that his movement ends if he takes possession of a SW in this manner.
Here's the flaw in this argument: the friendly unit's MPh was interrupted by the act of being eliminated . There is no more definitive way to end a unit's MPh, now is there? So by the time the leader Recovers the SW, the leader isn't interrupting anything. Elimination interrupted the unit's movement.

WaterRabbit said:
However, I am willing to bet that a printed official Q&A would fall in my direction, since it is most logical within the overall framework of the rules.
Don't hold your breath. What you suggest would require an errata, not merely a Q&A.

Please, feel free to ask the question, and then post it into an unofficial resource. But don't bet the bank on it becoming Official without an Errata to go with it.

Bruce Bakken
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
WaterRabbit said:
Actually, you missed my point. My objection is to 'spamming' -- posting one post after another without any intervening post by other people -- especially when it appears that you are arguing with yourself. If you consider my hint to be ‘not-very-polite’ then consider that spamming is an egregious breach of forum etiquette.
When I reply to several different posts (usually by different posters), I think its prefereable to do this in several posts, and not lump it into one post, and calling that spam is making far more of it than it is. I appreaciate costructive critisism though, and will keep in mind that some prefer fewer posts...


Anyway, I wrote:
We all agree that a SW cannot be portaged more than once during a MPh.
Since this is your first post to my rebuttal, I had yet to see such agreement. IMO, your interpretation allows for the chain SW move by leaders. I hadn't posted additional arguments, since you had yet to even refute this point.
The rule about not portaging a SW more than once during a MPh is clearly stated in the last sentence of A4.4. I don't understand why anyone should even question that, or why you think I do.

And no, my interpretation does not allow for the chain SW move, since nothing in my interpretation overrides the last sentence in A4.4. You might as well say that to allow movement of more than one unit per MPh open up for chain SW move. It would, if it weren't for the last sentence of A4.4, which we all agree applies.

I then asked for releveant rule quotes/arguments:
Huh? I posted reference to A4.4-44 plus direct Q&A. Clearly relevant.
I didn't see any Q&A or sentence in A4.4-44 which restricts the "free" recovery to the same moving stack. I have twice qouted the rule which allows it. Quoting rule numbers is easy, but unless you can quote/explain what in those rules that restricts the free recovery, then rule numbers are meaningless.

A4.2 Mechanics of Movement. Your interpretation requires an unprecedented exception to the mechanics of movement. I have read 4.44 fairly thoroughly and IMHO there is no such exception here. The only phrase you have to support such an exception is ‘but regardless of phase’. I don’t see this as an exemption from other constraints provided by the rules.
I guess you think of "all members of that moving stack must end their MPh before another unit not in that stack may move" in A4.2. This would restrict the free recovery if (and only if) the SMC performing the recovery is considered to move. But its not. So this isn't relevant.

A10.7 Leadership: Now I used the word ‘consistent’ here fairly pointedly. I can come up with no other example that would allow a leader to affect a unit that he cannot apply his leadership modifier to. I am not saying that this rule creates an exception to A4.44 here. What I am saying is that is certainly is more than a 'vague hint'. My interpretation is more consistent with this general constraint that the one you appear to support.
I hope you don't argue that the leader attempting the recovery is affecting the now-eliminated unit? A10.7 stops the leader from affecting a moving unit, but that's hardly relevant when it comes to recovering a SW left by an eliminated unit, is it?
You think that since A is restricted by B, then C and D should be restricted by B as well. That's not how ASL rules work. If A is restricted by B, then A and only A is restricted that way - unless explicitely stated.

My point is that A4.44 allows this recovery without any restrictions. Any restrictions must therefore be spelled out in the rules. Its not enough with a "feeling" that it should not be allowed. It needs to be spelled out.

I then mentioned COWTRA:
I find this acronym mainly used to mean "because I said so". I also see it as an echo of ASLML elitism.
So you think itsm elitism to "Consentrate on what the rules allow" (as written in the ASLRB introduction)? :crosseye:

The rule allow recovery regardless of phase, and without any restriction about being in the same moving stack. I consentrate on that. If you think its an echo of elitism to point out that your interpretation isn't spelled out in the rules, then let it be so.

I don't think the rules allow a non-acting leader to interrupt the movement phase of another friendly unit. A leader stacked with the MMC from the get go is sharing its MPh with that unit (and the risk). It is obvious that his movement ends if he takes possession of a SW in this manner.
I understand that you don't think so. But can you qoute a rule saying this (and not something vaguely similar)? That's what I ask.

It is not later, it is immediately. His action is interrupting a friendly unit’s MPh. If we go with your interpretation, the leader’s MPh must be immediate.
Why must we that? The leader could recover such a SW during the enemy PFPh if stacked with a unit that gets eliminated. Are you then arguing that the leader's PFPh must be immediate? Of course not, because that would be nonsense, but A4.44 makes no distinction.

Would an enemy unit get to shoot at him? Consider this Q&A:
Originally Posted by '96 Annual
A4.43 If an unbroken unit wishes to do nothing during its MPh except drop a SW, can it do so at the cost of one MF?
A. It would do so at no MF cost--but it could then become the (non-moving) target of Defensive First Fire. {96}
This is a totally unrelevant Q&A. It asks about what a unit can do during its MPh.
Your argument seems to build upon a fact that such a recovery is considered movement if performed during the MPh, but there simply is no such fact. Just as such a recovery during the RtPh can be performed by a non-routing leader.

In the long run, I don't think this has ever come up in any game that I have played or officiated. It is mainly an intellectual argument here. If I was playing a game and someone insisted on playing it your way I would just go with it since the impact on play is so negligible. However, if he tried moving the leader after taking possession then I'd have a problem.
Why? Why do you think that such a recovery is considered movement? It seems that all of your arguments is based on that, but you haven't told why.

However, I am willing to bet that a printed official Q&A would fall in my direction, since it is most logical within the overall framework of the rules. ;)
Well, that's your subjective opinion. I prefer to follow the exact wording of the ASLRB instead, and expect that any Q&A does the same :D
 
Last edited:

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
You know, I don’t mind having my chops busted over something I wrote. However, when you put words in my mouth or misrepresent what I wrote I find it a bit irksome and you look a bit silly. This is what I wrote:

“I find this acronym mainly used to mean "because I said so". I also see it as an echo of ASLML elitism.”

Notice the use of the word ‘acronym’. I did not use phrase, clause, or sentence. Also, notice the difference between the denotative meaning of the phrase and the connotative use of the acronym.

The original sentence used by Don Greenwood is “Concentrate on what the rules do allow; not on what they don’t specifically prohibit” (sic). ‘COWTRA’ is an acronym that has a different connotation. This is what I was referring to. It is beyond me how anyone is unable to discern the difference. Now if you want to debate what that connotation might be, fine, but that is best left to a different discussion.

The only problem I have with the original sentence is the use of a double negative in the subordinate clause. It is an unfortunate choice of wording – one that is continued throughout the paragraph. It obfuscates the point he was actually trying to make.

As far as A4.44 goes, it seems to me that the entire crux of your argument is the phrase ‘an Infantry SMC can immediately Recover one of that Infantry unit’s SW/Guns in this same manner but regardless of phase’.

It seems to me that we are in agreement with regard to all but three potential cases:

In the MPh (which requires a combination of factors to come about);
in the RtPh (which requires an even stranger combination of factors);
and in the CCPh (which requires a combination of Withdrawal and Minefields/OBA).

Of the three, it is only in the MPh (where a leader would have the ability to act after the SW is in effect delivered into his Location) in which we disagree.

I think this is a fair and accurate assessment of the debate to this point.

Now the MPh is also the only phase in which a unit either must normally pay a penalty (MF) or be subject to risk (DFF). Despite your assertion to the contrary, there is no suggestion A4.44 that this is a “free” Recovery.

The two Q&A are relevant for this reason: The first Q&A shows that if possession occurs at the end of a unit’s MPh, the portage cost is not assessed. Therefore, if the leader is to possess the weapon, it must necessarily end his MPh, otherwise he violates A4.4. This is the penalty.

The second Q&A shows that even if a unit expends no MF it can still be fired upon for performing an action. Recovering a SW is clearly an action.

My interpretation (that only a leader stacked with the eliminated/surrendering unit during their MPh) avoids the can of worms opened by allowing a non-phasing leader to attempt to Recover a delivered SW. Additionally, if the leader has shared his MPh with the eliminated/surrendered unit, he has already assumed both the penalty and risk inherent in that Recovery. It would, however, still end his MPh when he Recovered the SW.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
WaterRabbit said:
The original sentence used by Don Greenwood is “Concentrate on what the rules do allow; not on what they don’t specifically prohibit” (sic).

The only problem I have with the original sentence is the use of a double negative in the subordinate clause. It is an unfortunate choice of wording – one that is continued throughout the paragraph. It obfuscates the point he was actually trying to make.
I skipped most of your COWTRA discussion, as I believe it was much more an answer to Bruce's post than mine.

I agree with you that the double negativism clause could be better worded, but I still think COWTRA is highly relevant in this rules discussion. When I use COWTRA as an argument (as I did here) I simply mean to say that I think you read more into the rules than they actually say, or: "Concentrate of what the rules say, and don't interprete more into them".

But to be specific: Here, the rules do say that a leader may make the recovery in any phase (which is what you should concentrate on), they do not say that this recovery cannot be made during the MPh of other friendly units (i.e. they don't specifically prohibit it).

As far as A4.44 goes, it seems to me that the entire crux of your argument is the phrase ‘an Infantry SMC can immediately Recover one of that Infantry unit’s SW/Guns in this same manner but regardless of phase’.

It seems to me that we are in agreement with regard to all but three potential cases:

In the MPh (which requires a combination of factors to come about);
in the RtPh (which requires an even stranger combination of factors);
and in the CCPh (which requires a combination of Withdrawal and Minefields/OBA).

Of the three, it is only in the MPh (where a leader would have the ability to act after the SW is in effect delivered into his Location) in which we disagree.
Ok, but also note that your interpretation stops a leader that has a Prep Fire counter from doing this rally during the MPh, even though its incapable of acting later.

I think this is a fair and accurate assessment of the debate to this point.
Agreed.

Now the MPh is also the only phase in which a unit either must normally pay a penalty (MF) or be subject to risk (DFF). Despite your assertion to the contrary, there is no suggestion A4.44 that this is a “free” Recovery.
...while during most other phases, it can normally not recover at all. A4.44. And since this recovery is allowed in any phase, even before/after using Prep Fire other actions, it seems pretty free to me. The only restrictions I see are those of A4.44, the SMC must be a: unpinned, Good Order non-Bypassing unit in the same Location as the SW/Gun but that is not in the same Location as an armed, Known enemy unit. Otherwise it seems free to me.

The two Q&A are relevant for this reason: The first Q&A shows that if possession occurs at the end of a unit’s MPh, the portage cost is not assessed. Therefore, if the leader is to possess the weapon, it must necessarily end his MPh, otherwise he violates A4.4. This is the penalty.
The only relevance I see with the first Q&A is that if a leader thusly recovers a SW and later wants to move, it must drop this SW before expending any MF (but that was known before the Q&A due to the last sentence of A4.4 - the Q&A is simply a clarification of this rule).
The same goes for a leader that is moving with the eliminated unit; if the player finds out that he wants the leader to expend more MF, he must immediately drop the SW again.

The second Q&A shows that even if a unit expends no MF it can still be fired upon for performing an action. Recovering a SW is clearly an action.
The second Q&A applies to a unit that is currently performing its MPh, i.e. a moving unit. Since normal recovery, and dropping of a SW must be done during its MPh (i.e. while the unit is moving), its no wonder that it is a target for DFF. The recovery we discuss has no written requirement of being done by a moving unit though.

My interpretation (that only a leader stacked with the eliminated/surrendering unit during their MPh) avoids the can of worms opened by allowing a non-phasing leader to attempt to Recover a delivered SW. Additionally, if the leader has shared his MPh with the eliminated/surrendered unit, he has already assumed both the penalty and risk inherent in that Recovery. It would, however, still end his MPh when he Recovered the SW.
First, I see no can of worms. The leader can simply try to recover it without any DFF, but he cannot later expend MF while possessing the SW. Its really as simple as that.
Secondly, I see the sense in what you're writing, but I don't see any such restriction in the rules at all.
Thirdly, your interpretation would also stop the recover attempt in the following example as well - which I hope you also agree doesn't sound right:

Assume a (non-moving) stack consisting of a broken HS posessing a SW, and a GO leader. The friendly sniper goes off with a dr of 1, selects the HS (and elimiates it). The leader can then immediately recover the SW by rolling a dr < 6.
All good so far, but if this example happens during the player's MPh, then this recovery is suddenly illegal if following your interpretation. If this was true, then the relevant part of A4.44 would not only say:

if a unit surrenders, is eliminated, or routs away and cannot carry its SW, an Infantry SMC can immediately Recover one of that Infantry unit's SW/Guns in this same manner but regardless of phase.

...but it would have to have an added clause saying something like:

[EXC: not during the MPh of other friendly units]

Since this exception doesn't exist, I conclude that it doesn't apply either.
 
Last edited:

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Ole Boe said:
Ok, but also note that your interpretation stops a leader that has a Prep Fire counter from doing this rally during the MPh, even though its incapable of acting later.
(assume you mean Recovery, not Rally)

No it does not. In that situation there is no possibility that the Recovered SW could be ported during the MPh. Even if the leader had already moved during that MPh, I would not object to Recovery, because, again that SW could not be further ported.

Ole Boe said:
...it seems pretty free to me...
I think that this phrase is at the heart of our disagreement. When you use 'free' I equate it to 'without consequence'.

Ole Boe said:
Assume a (non-moving) stack consisting of a broken HS posessing a SW, and a GO leader. The friendly sniper goes off with a dr of 1, selects the HS (and elimiates it). The leader can then immediately recover the SW by rolling a dr < 6.
All good so far, but if this example happens during the player's MPh, then this recovery is suddenly illegal if following your interpretation.
My interpretation does not preclude this possibility at all. Nor would it be illegal since the weapon has not been ported yet during that MPh. (assuming by non-moving you mean has yet to move, if already moved the point is moot).

Ole Boe said:
The only relevance I see with the first Q&A is that if a leader thusly recovers a SW and later wants to move, it must drop this SW before expending any MF
It is this idea I ardently disagree with – it creates a license to cheat. If the leader takes possession of a SW that moved (however briefly), he must end his MPh. Otherwise, you create the situation where you must keep track of weapon’s movement status independently of the leader’s. In a large scenario – especially where a turn could involve multiple sessions – you create the situation for a SW to be ported twice, either inadvertently or purposely. The only reason a leader would take possession of a weapon and then drop it, since he cannot do anything with it in the interim, is to create confusion (well I suppose if a person is using the electric football attack, he might do it because he himself is confused).

Now I might see my way to your interpretation, but not with this contention. This is the can of worms you apparently cannot see.

My interpretation is a conservative one; it prevents any double porting of a SW. It is also very narrow. It only applies to a leader that has yet to move during the MPh. It only applies when a weapon has previously been ported. Both you and Bruce have tried to expand my position beyond this very narrow scope.

Your interpretation is a liberal one and allows a ‘rules lawyer’ to confuse a person into allowing a double SW port.

If you go back to the original post to which you objected, you will see that I require a leader that has yet to move to spend 1 MF to recover a ported weapon from a unit he did not start the MPh with, etc.. However, I can agree to your interpretation (in that situation it would cost no MF) only with the caveat that the leader no longer has the ability to move.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
WaterRabbit said:
I think that this phrase is at the heart of our disagreement. When you use 'free' I equate it to 'without consequence'.
No, I simply mean "free - within the stated restrictions". When you show me a rule saying that no SW cannnot be posessed twice during a MPh, I will agree with you. Such a rule doesn't exist though - since the restriction is on portaging, not posession.


Ole Boe said:
Assume a (non-moving) stack consisting of a broken HS posessing a SW, and a GO leader. The friendly sniper goes off with a dr of 1, selects the HS (and elimiates it). The leader can then immediately recover the SW by rolling a dr < 6.
All good so far, but if this example happens during the player's MPh, then this recovery is suddenly illegal if following your interpretation.
My interpretation does not preclude this possibility at all. Nor would it be illegal since the weapon has not been ported yet during that MPh. (assuming by non-moving you mean has yet to move, if already moved the point is moot).
So now your argument is that a SW that has been portaged cannot later be possessed? In your previous post, your argument was that recovering a SW during the MPh is only allowed when paying MF or risking DFF. Am I now to understand that you no longer mean what you wrote in your previous post? If so, that's good ;)

It is this idea I ardently disagree with – it creates a license to cheat. If the leader takes possession of a SW that moved (however briefly), he must end his MPh. Otherwise, you create the situation where you must keep track of weapon’s movement status independently of the leader’s. In a large scenario – especially where a turn could involve multiple sessions – you create the situation for a SW to be ported twice, either inadvertently or purposely. The only reason a leader would take possession of a weapon and then drop it, since he cannot do anything with it in the interim, is to create confusion (well I suppose if a person is using the electric football attack, he might do it because he himself is confused).
I agree that there is no reason for the leader to recover the SW if he intends to move further - but the fact that there's no reason to do it, doesn't make it illegal.

Regarding the license to cheat: The rules are clear that the SW can be portaged only once, but possessed ann unlimited number of times. How you choose to remember this is your own bussiniss. What you're saying is that since it's hard to remember, you choose to create a more restrictive rule than the written one. That's fine by me, but that's your house rule.

Now I might see my way to your interpretation, but not with this contention. This is the can of worms you apparently cannot see.
You mean the fact that you need to remember which SW that has been portaged? If that's a can of worms, then I can live with it, especially since the rules makes absolutely no restricitions on this.

My interpretation is a conservative one; it prevents any double porting of a SW. It is also very narrow. It only applies to a leader that has yet to move during the MPh. It only applies when a weapon has previously been ported. Both you and Bruce have tried to expand my position beyond this very narrow scope.
I think that's your own fault since you argued that recovery during the MPh should cost MF/be subject to DFF. That would limit all recovery during the MPh by other than the moving unit.

But the important part is that you now only argue about what is simple to remember for you. You don't reference a single rule. I think that is a pretty good indication of your interpretation.

You say that a non-moving leader can only recover SW dropped from non-moving units during the MPh. I say: Quote me the rule that makes this distinction.

Your interpretation is a liberal one and allows a ‘rules lawyer’ to confuse a person into allowing a double SW port.
I can live with that opinion, but remember that there are several other clearly legal ways that such a thing can happen:

Assume that the moving squad is eliminated and drops its SW in a Location where an unpossessed (and un-portaged) SW already exists. Now, units that later move is allowed to recover both, but have to stop expending MF as soon as they recover the one that has been moved.

If you go back to the original post to which you objected, you will see that I require a leader that has yet to move to spend 1 MF to recover a ported weapon from a unit he did not start the MPh with, etc.. However, I can agree to your interpretation (in that situation it would cost no MF) only with the caveat that the leader no longer has the ability to move.
Well, the only restriction the rules give is that the SW cannot be portaged. It may be that the player thinks its good to recover the SW, but later finds out that the leader is needed elsewhere. He is then free to move the leader, but must drop the SW before expending the first MF. That's the only restriction found in the rules.

P.S. I'm sorry if I seem a bit arrogant. I understand your issue with having to remember not only which unit that has moved, but also independantly which SW that has moved, and I can symphatize with that. But my point is that your solution is a restricition not found anywhere in the rules (which even explicitely says that an SW can be possessed more than once as long as it is portaged only once), and an errata would be needed to make them say so.
 
Last edited:
Top