C6.51 Can acquisition voluntarily track a moving unit when valid targets still exist in the hex?

[nouge]

Here's a situation that my reading of C6.51 left me a little unsure about:

A gun has acquired a stack of units in a building, including a leader. The leader advances into an adjacent building hex while the rest of the stack stays put. Does C6.51 allow the gun to choose to track the leader, or does the acquisition need to stay in the current location as long as there's a valid acquired target there?

C6.51: A 1/2" Acquired-counter DRM gained against a stack cannot be retained on all those units should they scatter and enter different Locations. The firer may retain only one such Acquired counter; he many not create more to cover several targets at once. He may choose which of his previously acquired targets will remain acquired, but need not specify which one until he fires at it or that unit has finished its MPh/APh/RtPh/CCPh-Withdrawal (whichever occurs first)…

 

[Philippe D.]

I've always played it that, when a stack splits, you need to decide whether to follow or not - but, as said in the quoted text, you may (if not firing) wait until the splitting unit ends its movement to decide whether to follow that unit, or keep the rest of the stack acquired. (And I believe that, if it is found that the tracked unit ceased to be in LOS at some point, the Acquisition counter then ends in the last Location that was in continuous LOS from the start)

 

[Robin Reeve]

The rule doesn't seem to prohibit tracking a moving unit while some other acquired ones are not moving.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The rule doesn't seem to prohibit tracking a moving unit while some other acquired ones are not moving.

It, in fact, allows it....

"...He may choose which of his previously acquired targets will remain acquired, but need not specify which one until he fires at it or that unit has finished its MPh/APh/RtPh/CCPh-Withdrawal (whichever occurs first)...."

So if you have e.g., three squads acquired, and they start moving out during the MPh, you are sort-of tracking each and everyone as they move. If you don't shoot, however, and the unit ends it MPh, one has to decide there and then if that is the one to track.

 

[Tater]

Wow, been playing this wrong...I always played you had to declare the tracking once a unit from the stack started moving.

So one can wait till one decides to fire or when one of the acquired targets finishes moving. So an acquired stack has 6 HS...each HS moves separately, the opponent can wait till all six have finished moving before declaring which one he wants to track?

 

[Jeff Sewall]

Wow, been playing this wrong...I always played you had to declare the tracking once a unit from the stack started moving.

So one can wait till one decides to fire or when one of the acquired targets finishes moving. So an acquired stack has 6 HS...each HS moves separately, the opponent can wait till all six have finished moving before declaring which one he wants to track?

Not quite. As each unit finishes its move, he must decide either to track that unit or forego the opportunity to track that unit.

 

[Tater]

Not quite. As each unit finishes its move, he must decide either to track that unit or forego the opportunity to track that unit.

Ah!...I missed the "whichever occurs first" part.

Thanks...

 

[jrv]

We, I think, have been playing wrong, but in a different way. We decide whether to track as soon as the stack splits, on the first expenditure. According to the rule you can wait until the unit splitting has completed its MPh, i.e. you don't have to make the decision on the first expenditure by the splitting unit. We will have to adjust our play, I think.

JR

 

[Robin Reeve]

I also missed the "end of its MPh" aspect.
I am learning this game day after day.

 

[nouge]

Thanks all, good to get a sense of the general interpretation.

As an aside, the concept of acquisition following a unit seems like an odd omission in the rules - it’s only really present by implication, in the exceptions in C6.5 and the specific situation covered by C6.51. If I hadn’t worked through the starter kits, which lay it out a little less obliquely, I don’t know that I would have readily understood that acquisition is supposed to track targets.

 

[Philippe D.]

How much a rules mechanics appears in the rules is not necessarily correlated with how important it is in actual play, and this is sometimes surprising when learning the rules. Some mechanics will appear everywhere as exceptions to the normal rules, and this will make them very visible even though they may enter play relatively rarely. One possible example being Human Waves, which are only available to select nationalities and, as such, are not used very often (Banzai Charges are probably much more common in practice). Others don't generate too many exceptions, and so appear only in their specific rules section; this makes them easy to miss on first reading.

The SK rules are written much more with "learning the game" in mind, so things are different there.

 

[nouge]

How much a rules mechanics appears in the rules is not necessarily correlated with how important it is in actual play, and this is sometimes surprising when learning the rules. Some mechanics will appear everywhere as exceptions to the normal rules, and this will make them very visible even though they may enter play relatively rarely. One possible example being Human Waves, which are only available to select nationalities and, as such, are not used very often (Banzai Charges are probably much more common in practice). Others don't generate too many exceptions, and so appear only in their specific rules section; this makes them easy to miss on first reading.

The SK rules are written much more with "learning the game" in mind, so things are different there.

Philippe, everything you've said is true, but it doesn't really address what I was talking about.

My only point – which is adjacent to my original main question, and is kind of irrelevant anyway – was that nowhere in C6.5 or its subsequent sub-rules is there a sentence that says something like "The target remains acquired even if it moves to another hex or location", the addition of which would aid clarity immensely (rather than leaving the reader to piece it together from the exceptions).

 

[Jeff Sewall]

I think the rules cover it just fine. C6.5 states that the acquisition counter is placed on the target, not the Location of the target. So the acquisition counter is sitting on a unit (or stack of units). Then C6.5 states "The target remains acquired....." and it lists all the conditions that would remove that acquisition from the target. Since moving is not one of those conditions, that means the target (unit) remains acquired when it moves to another Location (assuming LOS, etc).

 

[jrv]

My only point – which is adjacent to my original main question, and is kind of irrelevant anyway – was that nowhere in C6.5 or its subsequent sub-rules is there a sentence that says something like "The target remains acquired even if it moves to another hex or location", the addition of which would aid clarity immensely (rather than leaving the reader to piece it together from the exceptions).

C6.5 says, "The target remains acquired until ..." a laundry list of reasons why acquisition is lost, none of which is the target moving to another location/hex while in LOS. So if the target moves to another hex, it "remains acquired." It could be written as you suggest. It could be written both ways. It seems clear enough to me. If the unit moves to a new location in LOS (including, BTW, out of CA for weapons with CA), is the acquisition lost? Check the laundry list. It's not on the laundry list. The target remains acquired.

JR

 

[nouge]

It's clear enough for the application of the rules, as you guys say – once you've studied it enough to understand the intent.

My point is a moot one anyway, since the rule is written the way it's written. I just think it's odd that it's written in a way that creates a barrier to learning, when it could pretty easily be otherwise.

 

[jrv]

I just think it's odd that it's written in a way that creates a barrier to learning, when it could pretty easily be otherwise.

How would you write it so that it was easier to understand while still being succinct and correct?

JR

 

[nouge]

It's a fair question – and although it's obviously academic, it's interesting to have a crack at it. Here's my attempt:

Original
6.5 CASE N; ACQUIRED TARGET: When a Gun (including the M≥A and SA [Secondary Armament, as per Chapter H Vehicle Listings], of vehicles [EXT: not FT or LATW]) of ≥ 20mm other than a mortar fires at (not Interdicts) a Known unit or bridge, it may place a ½” -1 Acquired counter on its target (or flip over an already present -1 counter to the -2 side), and this Acquired counter then applies as a TH DRM for subsequent shots by that Gun [EXC: Acquisition DRM cannot be used for Deliberate Immobilization attempts; (5.71); see also 6.54-.57]. A target can be acquired by more than one Gun, but no target is subject to more than a -2 Acquisition DRM per Gun. The target remains acquired until the Gun/manning-Infantry that placed it leaves its present Location [EXC: Gyrostabilizer; 6.55]—or the Gun changes its CA without firing on its already-acquired target during the current phase—or the Gun (or its CMG unless in a separate turret) attacks (including in CC, or Interdicts) a different target—or the Gun malfunctions or fires SMOKE (6.56), canister or IFE—or its crew/manning-Infantry are eliminated or not in Good Order, or they no longer possess it, or they fire Inherent FP/SW or use Interdiction, or they (un)limber/dm it—or the target is no longer in their LOS after entering a new Location/vertex-(see 6.15) (although in this case the last in-LOS Location occupied by the target will remain acquired; 6.51).

Rewrite
6.5 CASE N; ACQUIRED TARGET: When a Gun (including the M≥A and SA [Secondary Armament, as per Chapter H Vehicle Listings], of vehicles [EXT: not FT or LATW]) of ≥ 20mm other than a mortar fires at (not Interdicts) a Known unit or bridge, it may place a ½” -1 Acquired counter on its target (or flip over an already present -1 counter to the -2 side), and this Acquired counter then applies as a TH DRM for subsequent shots by that Gun [EXC: Acquisition DRM cannot be used for Deliberate Immobilization attempts; (5.71); see also 6.54-.57]. A target can be acquired by more than one Gun, but no target is subject to more than a -2 Acquisition DRM per Gun. An acquired target that enters another location/vertex remains acquired, unless it is then no longer in LOS (see 6.15) (although in this case the last in-LOS Location occupied by the target will remain acquired; 6.51). Otherwise the target remains acquired until the Gun/manning-Infantry that placed it leaves its present Location [EXC: Gyrostabilizer; 6.55]—or the Gun changes its CA without firing on its already-acquired target during the current phase—or the Gun (or its CMG unless in a separate turret) attacks (including in CC, or Interdicts) a different target—or the Gun malfunctions or fires SMOKE (6.56), canister or IFE—or its crew/manning-Infantry are eliminated or not in Good Order, or they no longer possess it, or they fire Inherent FP/SW or use Interdiction, or they (un)limber/dm it.

My new text is in red, which is largely just moved up from the end of the paragraph, plus an extra intro line for clarity. A purist would argue this is less streamlined, but I think it does the job of making things clearer on an initial read. The reality is it's always a compromise between those two objectives.

 

[Philippe D.]

This is a long known "problem" with the rulebook, although not everybody would agree to qualify it as a problem: it is written as a reference manual, not as a learning tool - hence (part of) the difficulty of learning the rules.

The "Paratrooper" module included a "learning" rules chapter, but this was very partially done and, I believe, not very successful - I haven't had a look in a very long time, but I think it only covered very basic mechanics. I suppose creating a learning tool was the original idea behind the Starter Kits (and also, that over the time they evolved into a different "ASL Light" project - I don't see much point to going past the SK1-3 sets otherwise).

 

[buser333]

People disparage Chapter K but I found it very useful when I was learning, and still sometimes refer to it. If you actually pull out the boards and follow along with the examples it is certainly more helpful yet. Pegasus Bridge added an expansion to it.