D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
315
Reaction score
135
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Hi, gents.

As per the following image, my AFVs a & b are adjacent (the red arrow indicates a is in building 4T3).

28283

Come my PFPh, will a's presence in the building cause a +1 Hindrance DRM to b's TH DR against the Russians in 4R5? My read of D9.4 says yes, but the LOS from b to the Russians doesn't touch the building, and a is in the building.

Thoughts? Thanks.
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
829
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
The rules don't seem to mention any exc for the hindrance except for the target not being able to trace a los to the center of the hex containing a vehicle so my guess is yes it applies.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,651
Reaction score
2,132
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
The +1 Hindrance applies as @clubby wrote. Wrecks/AFVs are Inherent (see Chapter B Divider) so there's no need to trace LOS through the building. If the LOS had passed through the T3 building, that would block the LOS.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
844
Reaction score
563
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
...doesn't touch the building, and AFV is in the building.

Thoughts? Thanks.
The hindrance also apply even if the AFV is HIP/concealed. The following Leaflet House Rule, used for nearly 30 years, deal with this issue:

AFV/WRECK LOS HINDRANCE: Contrary to D9.4, an AFV/non-burning-wreck inside (i.e., not in Bypass) a building/Factory/woods obstacle does not present any LOS Hindrance.
 
Last edited:

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
315
Reaction score
135
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
The hindrance also apply even if the AFV is HIP/concealed. The following Leaflet House Rule, used for nearly 30 years, deal with this issue:

AFV/WRECK LOS HINDRANCE: Contrary to D9.4, an AFV/non-burning-wreck inside (i.e., not in Bypass) a building/Factory/woods obstacle does not present any LOS Hindrance.
Yes, good one; worthy of being added to the list of exceptions in D9.4. Cheers
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
829
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
The hindrance also apply even if the AFV is HIP/concealed. The following Leaflet House Rule, used for nearly 30 years, deal with this issue:

AFV/WRECK LOS HINDRANCE: Contrary to D9.4, an AFV/non-burning-wreck inside (i.e., not in Bypass) a building/Factory/woods obstacle does not present any LOS Hindrance.
Now that's a rule that makes sense.
 
Reactions: EJ1

fenyan

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
750
Reaction score
1,300
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Hey, the gun sticking out of the window is hindering shots going by it!
 

Bill Kohler

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
762
Reaction score
604
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
The ASL ruleset is very complex, as is the battlefield it is modeling. For the ruleset to cover every single situation that can possibly arise, and every possible combination of factors, with all possible realism, there needs to be massive more rule exceptions and massive more verbiage. Please, let's not go there.

We appear to agree on what the rules say in this case: that's a win.

And ASL units aren't always directly on the hex center dot, but to simplify things ASL frequently treats them as if they are. (But not always, as with Wall Advantage.) In this case, maybe the tank has blown through the building and is now past it, but still sitting somewhere within the hex. And maybe it's moving around within the hex, or just polluting the air with its exhaust. And maybe the building walls are slowly toppling, and showering the air with dust, distracting the attention of any observer. There're all sorts of reality arguments one could come up with.

I see no problem with this rule as currently formulated: for me it fits within the general level of ASL abstraction.
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,710
Reaction score
5,710
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Anyone is entitled to use house rules... in their house.
They aren't in mine - and I won't use house rules at my place.
We are in a free world.
 

Blaze

Final Fired
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
620
Reaction score
488
Location
Pittsburgh PA
First name
Brian
Country
llUnited States
and I won't use house rules at my place.
Now that is a strict House Rule!

Hey, the gun sticking out of the window is hindering shots going by it!
Maybe for a 8.8cm KwK 36 L56. What if it's a short barrel like a Panzer IVC? That puppy won't even make it to the window.

Seriously, it's just one of those rules that make sense 99% of the time. I don't even think I have come across this particular situation. But, reading the rules, it's appearing that the hinderance will apply.
 

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
315
Reaction score
135
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
I agree about the risks of using house rules; yet Stavka’s rule, message 825 from above, seems so straight forward and reasonable that I’d like to see added to the base rules. At quick pass, it seems adding it would require only one short bullet point to the exceptions in D9.4. Furthermore, adding it appears unlikely to unbalance any scenario. I’d like to petition the high court—maybe a PS in the form of a request? Till then, I’ll treat the condition as an inherent hindrance. Cheers
 

Bill Kohler

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
762
Reaction score
604
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
I agree about the risks of using house rules; yet Stavka’s rule, message 825 from above, seems so straight forward and reasonable that I’d like to see added to the base rules. At quick pass, it seems adding it would require only one short bullet point to the exceptions in D9.4. Furthermore, adding it appears unlikely to unbalance any scenario. I’d like to petition the high court—maybe a PS in the form of a request?
This issue is inconsequential IMO, and "fixing" it would merely add to the list of exceptions we have to remember without adding any advantage to the game that I can see, except that it supports some people's reality argument. If I were to change ASL, this wouldn't even make the list.

One of the big selling points of ASL for me is that it doesn't have a "living rulebook". I've tried playing games that do, and it's frustrating--the rules are always changing, and the ripple effects don't get corrected through the rest of the rulebook. It's a mess.

There will always be "quirks" in the abstraction that ASL uses. There are many of them. But the sooner a player accepts their presence, the sooner they stop "fighting" gaps in the simulation and can enjoy the game. My thoughts . . .
 
Last edited:

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,151
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
This issue is inconsequential IMO, and "fixing" it would merely add to the list of exceptions we have to remember without adding any advantage to the game that I can see, except that it supports some people's reality argument. If I were to change ASL, this wouldn't even make the list.
Agreed. There are plenty of situations where it "feels" like an AFV should hinder a shot, or it should not, and yet the rules say otherwise. It's way better to use the rules as they are written than add lots of reality-based exceptions.
 

Bill Kohler

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
762
Reaction score
604
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
D9.4 AFV/WRECK LOS HINDRANCE: There is a +1 Hindrance DRM to a same-level LOS for firing through (not just into or out of) a hex containing one or more wrecks/AFV, . . .

B25.2 SMOKE: . . . The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) . . .


I would say +2.

D9.4 is saying that having more than one wreck/AFV doesn't make things worse.
And B25.2 is saying that the SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the Wreck/AFV Hindrance.

One could argue the other way, but I think +2 was the intent of the designers.

A related question is what if there are two burning wrecks present: I think the answer to that should also be +2 (but the max would of course be +3 due to A24.2).
 
Last edited:

turlusiflu

Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
202
Reaction score
46
Location
Catalonia
Country
llSweden
D9.4 AFV/WRECK LOS HINDRANCE: There is a +1 Hindrance DRM to a same-level LOS for firing through (not just into or out of) a hex containing one or more wrecks/AFV, . . .

B25.2 SMOKE: . . . The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) . . .


I would say +2.

D9.4 is saying that having more than one wreck/AFV doesn't make things worse.
And B25.2 is saying that the SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the Wreck/AFV Hindrance.

One could argue the other way, but I think +2 was the intent of the designers.

A related question is what if there are two burning wrecks present: I think the answer to that should also be +2 (but the max would of course be +3 due to A24.2).
It's interesting, because B25.2 says that in case of Fire Lane or Heavy Winds, only the Wreck hindrance would apply (so it considers that there is still a physical wreck). I we combine this with D9.4 that says that "There is a +1 Hindrance DRM to a same-level LOS for firing through (not just into or out of) a hex containing one or more wrecks/AFV", we could conclude that the smoke hindrance of the burning wreck would replace the +1 hindrance of all the wrecks/AFV in that location, giving an overall hindrance of +2
 
Top