D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

[EJ1]

Hi, gents.

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



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]

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]

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]

...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.

 

[EJ1]

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.

Ah, thanks. The old “inherent.” Foiled again.

 

[EJ1]

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]

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.

 

[fenyan]

Hey, the gun sticking out of the window is hindering shots going by it!

 

[Bill Kohler]

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.

 

[Robin Reeve]

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]

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.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I won't use house rules at my place.

House rules can hamper you if you go to a convention. You've gotten used to playing with your house rules, and now you're playing many people who don't use them. All your experience is now with a slightly different game.

 

[Blaze]

That said there is only one house rule we use playing FTF. If you knock over your opponents concealed stack revealing it. It triggers an automatic SAN. It promotes careful movement of stacks on the board.

 

[EJ1]

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]

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. 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.

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 . . .

 

[Philippe D.]

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.

 

[turlusiflu]

What if the AFV is in the same hex as a burning wreck? Is the hindrance +2 or +3?

 

[Bill Kohler]

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).

 

[Tuomo]

D9.4 is saying that having more than one wreck/AFV doesn't make things worse.

Worse than the normal +1...

And B25.2 is saying that the SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the Wreck/AFV Hindrance.

I think it replaces the WRECK hindrance, not the normal AFV hindrance.

So I think it's a net +3

 

[turlusiflu]

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