WrecK
Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2023
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
-
An erratum for A7.55 was listed in ASL Journal 13. The change has made it into v2.05 of the electronic rulebook with no notation of the change. Someone thought the original A7.55 nullified the possibility of an AFV and a squad in the same Location firing DFF at an enemy squad when it expended 1 MF in their LOS. The thought was only one or the other unit could attack. The concern was communicated to MMP and after some thought the rule was changed.
Was that a correct reading of the rule? If yes, players have been playing the game incorrectly for 38 years because players have always had the AFV and squad make separate attacks in that situation. If no, the erratum was unnecessary and shame on MMP.
“Play by what the specifically allow or disallow, not but what they don’t specifically prohibit.”
Original A7.55 “If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).”
Good Order - a Personnel unit or vehicular inherent crew which is neither broken, berserk, captured, stunned, shocked, or held in Melee; or a SW which is fully manned by a Good Order Personnel unit, and is not malfunctioned, or restricted by an Ammunition Shortage.
Personnel - all SMC and MMC counters including those mounted as Cavalry or Passengers/Riders, but excluding inherent crews since they are not in counter form.
Ordnance - any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit.
Unit - Any game piece or counter with its own MF/MP allotment and normally capable of movement without being portaged, pushed, or towed. Infantry, Cavalry [but not horses], Dummy stacks, and vehicles (even if Immobilized) are all different types of units.
Counter - any of the die-cut square pieces of the game.
SW - any weapon depicted on a 1/2” counter.
A.7 GOOD ORDER: This term refers to a Personnel unit/inherent crew which is not broken, berserk, captured, stunned, shocked, or held in Melee. A unit can be pinned, CX, TI, and/or unarmed and still be considered in “Good Order”. When used in regard to a SW it refers to a SW which is fully manned by a Good Order Personnel unit and is not malfunctioned or restricted by Ammunition Shortages.
D1 All vehicles are represented by 5/ 8" counters bearing an overhead depiction of the vehicle (which for most is drawn to a scale roughly corresponding to the hex size of Deluxe ASL) and an assortment of data pertaining to its size, movement, defense, and attack strengths.
D6.64 The only vehicles (as opposed to Passengers/Riders) that may be part of a multi-unit FG are Carriers/armored halftracks, each of which must be CE and using its vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapon(s) [EXC: FT, IFE] to qualify for that FG; such a FG may be composed of such Carriers/halftracks and/or Infantry/Cavalry.
A7.55 begins with “If.” The rule is conditional. What condition must be met? There are four. The attack must involve:
The AFV and squad share a Location, they want to fire at the enemy squad on its expenditure of 1 MF. Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are met.
Separate attacks are allowed for ordnance/FT/DC. Without thinking about the rule in any detail, this means the AFV could always use its MA if the MA needs a To Hit DR. At a minimum, the AFV could attack with its MA and the squad could attack using its FP. So neither unit’s ability to attack is totally nullified. The question then concerns the AFV MGs. AFV MGs are not SWs.
Would Don Greenwood, a HoF game designer, actually write a rule set that allowed the AFV to use its MA but not its MGs in such a situation? Doubtful.
The first thing to note is the Index entry for Good Order lists units/weapons represented by 1/2” counters or no counter at all. SMC and MMC counters are 1/2”. SW are 1/2” counters. Vehicular inherent crews do not have counter form. This observation alone reveals A7.55 does not apply to vehicles since they are represented by 5/8” counters. It also is an easy way to remember the rule. (Oops, the rule was changed. Can’t remember it this way anymore.)
The rules specifically allow Good Order status for “soldiers” (Personnel units and vehicular inherent crews). SWs are the only inanimate objects subject to Good Order status and their status is “inherited” from the Personnel unit fully manning the SW. The SW can still not be Good Order if malfunctioned or suffering Low Ammo. This is what the rules specifically state. (BTW, the only SWs this really matters for are MGs and ATRs using the IFT. Ordnance, FT and DC are excluded from FGs.) An AFV, as an AFV, and its weapons are inanimate objects. The rules specifically do not list them in the Good Order entry. Play by what the rules specifically allow.
“Good Order units/weapons” are Personnel units and their fully manned, fully supplied, functioning MGs and ATRs. Not included are AFVs and their MGs. Condition 1 does not apply to an AFV. No FG is required. Neither unit’s ability to attack is nullified. A7.55 doesn’t apply to vehicles.
But wait second! We talk about Good Order AFVs all the time! We do, but it is shorthand for “this AFV manned by a Good Order vehicular inherent crew.” Likewise, a stunned or shocked AFV is manned by a stunned or shocked vehicular inherent crew. The counters go on the AFV because the inherent crew does not have a counter. If a stunned crew Abandons a vehicle, the stun counter goes with the crew, it does not stay on the AFV (D5.34). That same AFV, if re-manned by a Good Order crew, does not have a stun counter placed on it. The stunned crew if it mans a different vehicle requires that vehicle being marked with the stun counter. Status (Good Order, stunned, shocked) is associated with the crew not the vehicle.
“Concentrate on what the rules do allow; not on what they don’t specifically prohibit. For example, if a rule states that a MMC can perform a particular action, then only that unit type can perform it—don’t think that several SMC can do it simply because the rules don’t list that type as being unable to do it.” The rules do not allow Good Order, or any other, crew status to be transferred from the inherent crew to the vehicle.
There was nothing wrong with A7.55. It was played correctly for 38 years. The erratum was issued on the basis of a misunderstanding of the rules.
Possibly the source of confusion comes from C7.4-.42 and is contained within C7.4-.42. C7.42 is unchanged from the original rule. The confusion is not about game mechanics but game concepts. The same rules are used to cover two different effects. I say two different effects because one applies to the crew, the other applies to the AFV. However, the same game mechanics apply to an Abandoned AFV. The original rules were not written with the hyper legalese mindset of today. Having said that, the first sentence of C7.42 would be clearer if it read “The Shocked crew and passengers of an AFV are incapable of any action.”
The confusion can be seen from the title, “SHOCKED/UNCONFIRMED KILL (UK). The footnote explains the same game mechanics are used to cover crew injury and vehicle integrity. The Index also makes this clear:
Shock - the condition of any AFV crew/Passenger currently beneath a Shock or Unconfirmed Kill counter;
UK - Unconfirmed Kill; the condition of an AFV and its crew/Passengers if it has failed to recuperate from Shock.
Shock is a soldier-based concept. UK is an AFV-based concept. The initial effect is crew-based but if they don’t recover (dr 1-2), it turns out to be AFV based. Note UK happens when the crew/Passengers have failed to recuperate from Shock. It is the crew/Passengers recuperating from Shock because the AFV, as an AFV, cannot be Shocked. The Index entry for UK could be cleaned up by replacing “it has” with “ the crew/Passengers have.”
The emphasis on the two different effects can be seen in the two different versions of C7.4. The first edition C7.4 states “A hit which fails to penetrate armor can still have devastating effects on the crew inside.” The current C7.4 reads “A hit which fails to penetrate armor can still have devastating effects on the inside of the vehicle.”
Is this interpretation of C7.42 correct? This is what Bob McNamara said way back when:
Another armor rule I like in ASL is the possibility of a Shock/Unknown Kill. Essentially this result neutralizes the AFV like Shock did in the old system, but now it can subsequently turn into an elimination with no crew survival, and in the meantime you don't know if you knocked it out or just temporarily disoriented its crew. Odds are it'll return to life, but there are times when you feel you should take the risk and ignore it-and therein lies the dilemma. - Bob McNamara, The General Vol. 23.2, Staff Briefing An Interview with Bob McNamara.
Shock in the old system was a temporary stun that lasted through two RPhs. After the first RPh the counter was flipped over. At the end of the second RPh the counter was removed. Shock was a crew status effect in the old system.
Shock is still a crew status effect. It ends with the recovery dr. The crew recovers on a 1 or 2. If the crew doesn’t recover, there is the possibility the AFV was destroyed. The Shock counter is removed and the UK counter is placed (made convenient by flipping the same physical counter).
UK is not listed in the entry for Good Order because it applies to the AFV and the crew. UK is not a crew status effect despite the crew still being Shocked. It also may be true that AFV was actually destroyed. The dr at the end of the next RPh determines whether the crew was still Shocked (dr = 1-3) and recovered or the AFV was destroyed (dr = 4-6). C7.42 does not allow an AFV to inherit Good Order status from its crew.
The new A7.55 states: If units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/ MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).
First thing to note is that the requirement for being Good Order is gone, so this is not a rule clarification but a rule change despite being listed as errata in ASL Journal 13. Tactics change because the game has changed. Previously, a Berserk unit stacked with other units could fire separately at the same target. This is no longer possible. Second, the original A7.55 did not force an armored ht into a FG. The new A7.55 appears to do so - despite D6.64 still saying it is optional (it says “may” not “must”). Does D6.64 overrule the new A7.55 because it is a higher number?
This may seem to be trivial but these are changes to tactics that have existed for 38 years. Some of us have actually played for 38 years (and SL before that), which means it is more difficult to adapt to relatively meaningless changes. If the tactics for a ht change, has this affected scenario balance in any scenarios with a large number of hts? The mess around A7.55 also points to a larger issue.
MMP bought rights to a well-designed game even if they seem to have forgotten that fact. It was, and is, not perfect but there are connections between rules and concepts they apparently have trouble seeing. Hence, the reason for my posts. That is not a problem when errata are just clarifications. Changing a rule does more than change the game, it can ripple throughout the rulebook causing new questions and problems. See above re: ht. MMP are slowly transforming ASL into a poorly designed game.
Being the rules authority for such a complex game is not an easy task. For the most part MMP has done a commendable job, but they need to do better and show some respect for the game they inherited.
Was that a correct reading of the rule? If yes, players have been playing the game incorrectly for 38 years because players have always had the AFV and squad make separate attacks in that situation. If no, the erratum was unnecessary and shame on MMP.
“Play by what the specifically allow or disallow, not but what they don’t specifically prohibit.”
Original A7.55 “If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).”
Good Order - a Personnel unit or vehicular inherent crew which is neither broken, berserk, captured, stunned, shocked, or held in Melee; or a SW which is fully manned by a Good Order Personnel unit, and is not malfunctioned, or restricted by an Ammunition Shortage.
Personnel - all SMC and MMC counters including those mounted as Cavalry or Passengers/Riders, but excluding inherent crews since they are not in counter form.
Ordnance - any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit.
Unit - Any game piece or counter with its own MF/MP allotment and normally capable of movement without being portaged, pushed, or towed. Infantry, Cavalry [but not horses], Dummy stacks, and vehicles (even if Immobilized) are all different types of units.
Counter - any of the die-cut square pieces of the game.
SW - any weapon depicted on a 1/2” counter.
A.7 GOOD ORDER: This term refers to a Personnel unit/inherent crew which is not broken, berserk, captured, stunned, shocked, or held in Melee. A unit can be pinned, CX, TI, and/or unarmed and still be considered in “Good Order”. When used in regard to a SW it refers to a SW which is fully manned by a Good Order Personnel unit and is not malfunctioned or restricted by Ammunition Shortages.
D1 All vehicles are represented by 5/ 8" counters bearing an overhead depiction of the vehicle (which for most is drawn to a scale roughly corresponding to the hex size of Deluxe ASL) and an assortment of data pertaining to its size, movement, defense, and attack strengths.
D6.64 The only vehicles (as opposed to Passengers/Riders) that may be part of a multi-unit FG are Carriers/armored halftracks, each of which must be CE and using its vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapon(s) [EXC: FT, IFE] to qualify for that FG; such a FG may be composed of such Carriers/halftracks and/or Infantry/Cavalry.
A7.55 begins with “If.” The rule is conditional. What condition must be met? There are four. The attack must involve:
- Good Order units/weapons;
- in the same Location;
- going to fire at the same target;
- during the same phase.
The AFV and squad share a Location, they want to fire at the enemy squad on its expenditure of 1 MF. Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are met.
Separate attacks are allowed for ordnance/FT/DC. Without thinking about the rule in any detail, this means the AFV could always use its MA if the MA needs a To Hit DR. At a minimum, the AFV could attack with its MA and the squad could attack using its FP. So neither unit’s ability to attack is totally nullified. The question then concerns the AFV MGs. AFV MGs are not SWs.
Would Don Greenwood, a HoF game designer, actually write a rule set that allowed the AFV to use its MA but not its MGs in such a situation? Doubtful.
The first thing to note is the Index entry for Good Order lists units/weapons represented by 1/2” counters or no counter at all. SMC and MMC counters are 1/2”. SW are 1/2” counters. Vehicular inherent crews do not have counter form. This observation alone reveals A7.55 does not apply to vehicles since they are represented by 5/8” counters. It also is an easy way to remember the rule. (Oops, the rule was changed. Can’t remember it this way anymore.)
The rules specifically allow Good Order status for “soldiers” (Personnel units and vehicular inherent crews). SWs are the only inanimate objects subject to Good Order status and their status is “inherited” from the Personnel unit fully manning the SW. The SW can still not be Good Order if malfunctioned or suffering Low Ammo. This is what the rules specifically state. (BTW, the only SWs this really matters for are MGs and ATRs using the IFT. Ordnance, FT and DC are excluded from FGs.) An AFV, as an AFV, and its weapons are inanimate objects. The rules specifically do not list them in the Good Order entry. Play by what the rules specifically allow.
“Good Order units/weapons” are Personnel units and their fully manned, fully supplied, functioning MGs and ATRs. Not included are AFVs and their MGs. Condition 1 does not apply to an AFV. No FG is required. Neither unit’s ability to attack is nullified. A7.55 doesn’t apply to vehicles.
But wait second! We talk about Good Order AFVs all the time! We do, but it is shorthand for “this AFV manned by a Good Order vehicular inherent crew.” Likewise, a stunned or shocked AFV is manned by a stunned or shocked vehicular inherent crew. The counters go on the AFV because the inherent crew does not have a counter. If a stunned crew Abandons a vehicle, the stun counter goes with the crew, it does not stay on the AFV (D5.34). That same AFV, if re-manned by a Good Order crew, does not have a stun counter placed on it. The stunned crew if it mans a different vehicle requires that vehicle being marked with the stun counter. Status (Good Order, stunned, shocked) is associated with the crew not the vehicle.
“Concentrate on what the rules do allow; not on what they don’t specifically prohibit. For example, if a rule states that a MMC can perform a particular action, then only that unit type can perform it—don’t think that several SMC can do it simply because the rules don’t list that type as being unable to do it.” The rules do not allow Good Order, or any other, crew status to be transferred from the inherent crew to the vehicle.
There was nothing wrong with A7.55. It was played correctly for 38 years. The erratum was issued on the basis of a misunderstanding of the rules.
Possibly the source of confusion comes from C7.4-.42 and is contained within C7.4-.42. C7.42 is unchanged from the original rule. The confusion is not about game mechanics but game concepts. The same rules are used to cover two different effects. I say two different effects because one applies to the crew, the other applies to the AFV. However, the same game mechanics apply to an Abandoned AFV. The original rules were not written with the hyper legalese mindset of today. Having said that, the first sentence of C7.42 would be clearer if it read “The Shocked crew and passengers of an AFV are incapable of any action.”
The confusion can be seen from the title, “SHOCKED/UNCONFIRMED KILL (UK). The footnote explains the same game mechanics are used to cover crew injury and vehicle integrity. The Index also makes this clear:
Shock - the condition of any AFV crew/Passenger currently beneath a Shock or Unconfirmed Kill counter;
UK - Unconfirmed Kill; the condition of an AFV and its crew/Passengers if it has failed to recuperate from Shock.
Shock is a soldier-based concept. UK is an AFV-based concept. The initial effect is crew-based but if they don’t recover (dr 1-2), it turns out to be AFV based. Note UK happens when the crew/Passengers have failed to recuperate from Shock. It is the crew/Passengers recuperating from Shock because the AFV, as an AFV, cannot be Shocked. The Index entry for UK could be cleaned up by replacing “it has” with “ the crew/Passengers have.”
The emphasis on the two different effects can be seen in the two different versions of C7.4. The first edition C7.4 states “A hit which fails to penetrate armor can still have devastating effects on the crew inside.” The current C7.4 reads “A hit which fails to penetrate armor can still have devastating effects on the inside of the vehicle.”
Is this interpretation of C7.42 correct? This is what Bob McNamara said way back when:
Another armor rule I like in ASL is the possibility of a Shock/Unknown Kill. Essentially this result neutralizes the AFV like Shock did in the old system, but now it can subsequently turn into an elimination with no crew survival, and in the meantime you don't know if you knocked it out or just temporarily disoriented its crew. Odds are it'll return to life, but there are times when you feel you should take the risk and ignore it-and therein lies the dilemma. - Bob McNamara, The General Vol. 23.2, Staff Briefing An Interview with Bob McNamara.
Shock in the old system was a temporary stun that lasted through two RPhs. After the first RPh the counter was flipped over. At the end of the second RPh the counter was removed. Shock was a crew status effect in the old system.
Shock is still a crew status effect. It ends with the recovery dr. The crew recovers on a 1 or 2. If the crew doesn’t recover, there is the possibility the AFV was destroyed. The Shock counter is removed and the UK counter is placed (made convenient by flipping the same physical counter).
UK is not listed in the entry for Good Order because it applies to the AFV and the crew. UK is not a crew status effect despite the crew still being Shocked. It also may be true that AFV was actually destroyed. The dr at the end of the next RPh determines whether the crew was still Shocked (dr = 1-3) and recovered or the AFV was destroyed (dr = 4-6). C7.42 does not allow an AFV to inherit Good Order status from its crew.
The new A7.55 states: If units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/ MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).
First thing to note is that the requirement for being Good Order is gone, so this is not a rule clarification but a rule change despite being listed as errata in ASL Journal 13. Tactics change because the game has changed. Previously, a Berserk unit stacked with other units could fire separately at the same target. This is no longer possible. Second, the original A7.55 did not force an armored ht into a FG. The new A7.55 appears to do so - despite D6.64 still saying it is optional (it says “may” not “must”). Does D6.64 overrule the new A7.55 because it is a higher number?
This may seem to be trivial but these are changes to tactics that have existed for 38 years. Some of us have actually played for 38 years (and SL before that), which means it is more difficult to adapt to relatively meaningless changes. If the tactics for a ht change, has this affected scenario balance in any scenarios with a large number of hts? The mess around A7.55 also points to a larger issue.
MMP bought rights to a well-designed game even if they seem to have forgotten that fact. It was, and is, not perfect but there are connections between rules and concepts they apparently have trouble seeing. Hence, the reason for my posts. That is not a problem when errata are just clarifications. Changing a rule does more than change the game, it can ripple throughout the rulebook causing new questions and problems. See above re: ht. MMP are slowly transforming ASL into a poorly designed game.
Being the rules authority for such a complex game is not an easy task. For the most part MMP has done a commendable job, but they need to do better and show some respect for the game they inherited.
But you got to give him some Buzzlightyear points for stile.
