Bunkers, Cost.

[Tim Niesen]

Robin, Good point. I will make Don read your retort, since I was quoting him from his days of glory in SL (long in past). Recently, he used the same method (LMG at long against two broken Rumanian 347s in the woods). I assume that situation meets the criterion. Perhaps, a LMG at normal against a plus 3 stone building might not meet the criterion as well. I knew the rule, but he may not. He is learning ASL. Tim

 

[jrv]

Robin, Good point. I will make Don read your retort, since I was quoting him from his days of glory in SL (long in past). Recently, he used the same method (LMG at long against two broken Rumanian 347s in the woods). I assume that situation meets the criterion. Perhaps, a LMG at normal against a plus 3 stone building might not meet the criterion as well.

One FP with cowering can DM with a net +1 DRM (whether that is TEM, hindrance or whatever). One FP with no cowering (e.g. BMG at long range) can DM with a net +2 DRM.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

Another nice thing about a trench is it is Rally Terrain regardless of other terrain in the hex (e.g. affords a -1 Rally DRM - A10.61).

 

[Eagle4ty]

One FP with cowering can DM with a net +1 DRM (whether that is TEM, hindrance or whatever). One FP with no cowering (e.g. BMG at long range) can DM with a net +2 DRM.

JR

I don't see how a 1 FP attack that cowers could cause a DM status, per A7.9 "An attack on the lowest column which cowers is reduced to no effect at all,..."

 

[jrv]

I don't see how a 1 FP attack that cowers could cause a DM status, per A7.9 "An attack on the lowest column which cowers is reduced to no effect at all,..."

A one FP attack that might possibly cower will cause DM. The actual result of the DR does not affect the DM placement/encirclement:

A10.62 With respect to a unit becoming DM when fired at on the IFT – Does the actual dice roll or result on the IFT matter in determining whether or not the target unit is placed under DM? If a unit capable of Cowering fires a 1 +1 shot on the IFT , and actually rolls doubles, is this sufficient to DM the target unit? If the firing unit actually Cowers on the dice roll (rolls doubles) is the FP reduced by two columns to determine DM?
A. The actual DR does not matter.

A10.62 If a unit capable of cowering takes a 1 +1 shot at a broken unit does the broken unit become DM?
A. Yes. {1}

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

A one FP attack that might possibly cower will cause DM. The actual result of the DR does not affect the DM placement/encirclement:



JR

Therefore using this reasoning (The actual DR does not matter), a 1FP shot with a +2 DRM could also cause DM as the Final DR even with a DR=2 would be 4 or a NMC. If one takes into the account of a possibility of a cower and the actual DR doesn't matter, a 1FP shot could never cause a broken unit to become DM because it would always be able to cower to no effect at all [EXC: of course if immune to cowering]. If however, one does take into account the possibility of cowering and the actual DR does matter, then a 1FP attack +1 DRM could cause a NMC thus placing a DM status on a broken unit because the lowest non-cowing DR would have to be a DR=3. I really can't understand the reasoning behind either of the Q&As.

 

[jrv]

If one takes into the account of a possibility of a cower and the actual DR doesn't matter, a 1FP shot could never cause a broken unit to become DM because it would always be able to cower to no effect at all [EXC: of course if immune to cowering].

The really, really formal way to figure out whether DM/encirclement will happen is to list all thirty-six possible DRs and their effects, including the effects of cowering. If any of those results is a NMC (or better), that attack is sufficient to cause DM/encirclement. Below is an example for one FP up one with cowering possible:

colored dr, white dr
1,1 = cower off the table, NE
1,2 = NMC
2,1 = NMC
1,3 = PTC
2,2 = cower off the table, NE
3,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

Because both 1,2 and 2,1 cause a NMC, a one FP attack up one is sufficient to cause DM/encirclement.

For a one FP up two with cowering:
colored dr, white dr
1,1 = cower off the table, NE
1,2 = PTC
2,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

DM/Encirclement are not possible

For a one FP up two with no cowering:
colored dr, white dr
1,1 = NMC
1,2 = PTC
2,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

Because 1,1 causes a NMC, DM/encirclement are possible.

This same method can be used for any FP and for any net DRM.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

The really, really formal way to figure out whether DM/encirclement will happen is to list all thirty-six possible DRs and their effects, including the effects of cowering. If any of those results is a NMC (or better), that attack is sufficient to cause DM/encirclement. Below is an example for one FP up one with cowering possible:

colored dr, white dr
1,1 = cower off the table, NE
1,2 = NMC
2,1 = NMC
1,3 = PTC
2,2 = cower off the table, NE
3,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

Because both 1,2 and 2,1 cause a NMC, a one FP attack up one is sufficient to cause DM/encirclement.

For a one FP up two with cowering:
colored dr, white dr
1,1 = cower off the table, NE
1,2 = PTC
2,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

DM/Encirclement are not possible

For a one FP up two with no cowering:
colored dr, white dr
1,1 = NMC
1,2 = PTC
2,1 = PTC
all other combinations are NE

Because 1,1 causes a NMC, DM/encirclement are possible.

This same method can be used for any FP and for any net DRM.

JR

No problem with the DRs but per the Q&A they don't matter. If a possible shot on a FP table could cower you would discount the actual DR and make the determination based upon the fact the shot could cower and if no NMC or better is possible by cowering on the new column (or in the case of cowering from the 1FP column, or two FP column if a 2 column shift is required, to NE), No DM/Encirclement would be possible. (at least that's how I read it given the 1st Q&A; The 2nd Q&A is simply a letter to Perry that has never been implemented or brought forward in The General, ASL Annual, ASL Journal or the MMP web site). Just say'n, but certainly willing to accept an original 1FP shot regardless of the actual DR will cause DM/Encirclement as per the Q&A and seemingly in contravention of the wording of the rule. Now if the Q&A refers to a situation where the original FP shot would cower to the 1FP column, I certainly agree that a +1DRM to the shot could cause DM/Encirclement as you have pointed out and was never in contention.

 

[Philippe D.]

JR pretty much hit it - of course, in any case it's always sufficient to check what would happen on an Original 2DR (which includes any possible Cowering) or Original 3DR (which doesn't); if any of these would (hypothetically - i.e. regardless of what the actual DR is) cause NMC or better, the shot "counts" for Encirclement and will cause DM.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Well, I think I answered Tim clearly in relation to his precise question.
I.e. a 1 FP attack which isn't immune to cowering won't make a broken unit in a Trench (+2 DRM) become DM.
The best possible DRM being 3, which only generates a PTC (5 final result).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...Just say'n, but certainly willing to accept an original 1FP shot regardless of the actual DR will cause DM/Encirclement as per the Q&A and seemingly in contravention of the wording of the rule....

It doesn't, but the rule could be better worded - as this question comes up time and time again. It was, however, spelled out in ASL Journal 7 - Tips From The Trenches.

ASL Journal 7, page 44.
A 1 FP attack with +1 DRM inflicts DM on a broken unit and is potentially eligible to inflict encirclement. Both rules (A10.62 and A7.7) require “enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC.” On such an attack, an Original 3 DR could inflict a NMC. In contrast, a 2 FP attack with a +3 DRM could qualify only if the attacking unit were exempt from Cowering (e.g., Fanatic, Elite British, leader directed, etc.) since an Original 2 DR would Cower.

 

[Eagle4ty]

It doesn't, but the rule could be better worded - as this question comes up time and time again. It was, however, spelled out in ASL Journal 7 - Tips From The Trenches.

ASL Journal 7, page 44.
A 1 FP attack with +1 DRM inflicts DM on a broken unit and is potentially eligible to inflict encirclement. Both rules (A10.62 and A7.7) require “enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC.” On such an attack, an Original 3 DR could inflict a NMC. In contrast, a 2 FP attack with a +3 DRM could qualify only if the attacking unit were exempt from Cowering (e.g., Fanatic, Elite British, leader directed, etc.) since an Original 2 DR would Cower.

Thanks, have to re-read J7, just seems weird the way it's worded.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Thanks, have to re-read J7, just seems weird the way it's worded.

Yes, wording could be better/clearer.

 

[Tim Niesen]

Wow. My repeating of an offhand remark by Don about the old game brought forth interesting observations and qualifications. I never knew that trenches were plus one rally hexes. I assume that this rally advantage does not extend to foxholes except for those in woods. And that trenches are not rout destinations, except perhaps by SSR, akin to Bamboo and Rubble. I see that my conjecture about a 2 attack against a 3 TEM hex is erroneous, and not a DM producing attack, unless the unit or units cannot cower. That is with a leader or British.Tim

 

[Robin Reeve]

A10.61 lists Trenches as Rally bonus terrain.
It is a -1 DRM not a +1.

 

[jrv]

I never knew that trenches were plus one rally hexes. I assume that this rally advantage does not extend to foxholes except for those in woods.

Correct.

And that trenches are not rout destinations, except perhaps by SSR, akin to Bamboo and Rubble.

They are not preferred rout destinations, as woods/building/pillboxes. If none of those are reachable, or they are all ignorable, then trenches can be rout targets like any other terrain. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me why they are not preferred rout targets.

I see that my conjecture about a 2 attack against a 3 TEM hex is erroneous, and not a DM producing attack, unless the unit or units cannot cower. That is with a leader or British.

Leader-led and/or British are but two ways of many that don't cower. Probably the best choice would be a BMG or an AAMG on a vehicle because they generally don't add a lot to other attacks. Other units to look at are Berserk, Fanatic & heroes.

JR

 

[Tim Niesen]

But a hero by himself has only one IFT firepower. Or does a hero act like a leader in the sense of preventing cowering by those units in a hex or in a fire group lead by him?

 

[jrv]

But a hero by himself has only one IFT firepower. Or does a hero act like a leader in the sense of preventing cowering by those units in a hex or in a fire group lead by him?

A hero firing by himself will convert a +3 DRM (e.g. stone building) to +2 by applying his heroic DRM. And a hero with a LMG is not uncommon. But I just was covering attacks that do not cower. it's up to you to provide the necessary FP for the net DRM. A hero does not prevent cowering by other units, so a hero FG-ing with a unit that also has one FP and might cower will not cause DM with a net +3 (including the heroic modifer) DRM.

JR