D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

[turlusiflu]

On the other side, a smoke grenade thrown in a hex with an AFV would give an overall hindrance of +3, which contradicts apparently with the case above

 

[Bill Kohler]

On the other side, a smoke grenade thrown in a hex with an AFV would give an overall hindrance of +3, which contradicts apparently with the case above

I quote from my earlier post:

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.

 

[Jwil2020]

In the middle of the D9.4 paragraph, the rule states that the +1 Hindrance does not apply if the wreck is burning. So, the burning wreck hex only offers a +2 Hindrance for the wreck-smoke.

Here's a devious thought: does D9.4 mean that a burning wreck would not count as a "Hard Hindrance" for FL purposes? The common sense answer is that the wreck (burning or not) would still affect the FLFP, but I don't see a direct statement to that effect. (At least not one I've found yet).

 

[Sparafucil3]

Here's a devious thought: does D9.4 mean that a burning wreck would not count as a "Hard Hindrance" for FL purposes? The common sense answer is that the wreck (burning or not) would still affect the FLFP, but I don't see a direct statement to that effect. (At least not one I've found yet).

It does, except for a FL placed before the AFV goes to blaze (B25.2). At least that's my read. I wonder how this would work with Night Rules and the Firelanes established in those circumstances? -- jim

 

[Jwil2020]

It does, except for a FL placed before the AFV goes to blaze (B25.2). At least that's my read. I wonder how this would work with Night Rules and the Firelanes established in those circumstances? -- jim

So, are you thinking that a burning wreck created before the placing of the FL, as per B25.2, would not count as a "hard hindrance"?

 

[Sparafucil3]

So, are you thinking that a burning wreck created before the placing of the FL, as per B25.2, would not count as a "hard hindrance"?

Just the opposite. A Firelane placed before a Burning Wreck would get a hard hindrance. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

I think the Wreck is always a Hard Hindrance for a Fire Lane.

Per the Index:
Fire Lane “Hard” Hindrance (modifies Fire Lanes; AFV/Bridge/Crag/Debris/Graveyard/Light Woods/Olive Grove/Orchard/Palm Trees/Seawall/Wooden Pier/Wreck):

Now, per Perry, the Index is part of the rules. But Indexes are usually at the back of a book, whereas the Index in the ASLRB is usually at the front. So is the Index a higher or a lower rule number than rules A-D?

 

[Sparafucil3]

I think the Wreck is always a Hard Hindrance for a Fire Lane.

Per the Index:
Fire Lane “Hard” Hindrance (modifies Fire Lanes; AFV/Bridge/Crag/Debris/Graveyard/Light Woods/Olive Grove/Orchard/Palm Trees/Seawall/Wooden Pier/Wreck):

Now, per Perry, the Index is part of the rules. But Indexes are usually at the back of a book, whereas the Index in the ASLRB is usually at the front. So is the Index a higher or a lower rule number than rules A-D?

I agree, a WRECK is always a hard hindrance. But a BURNING WRECK is not a WRECK. B25.2 further states that the Smoke Hindrance DRM replaces that of the normal Wreck with two exceptions: A previously placed Fire Lane and Heavy Winds. I don't make the rules, I just try to play by them -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

A Burning Wreck, IMO, is a subset of Wrecks. Rule section D10 title and D10.1 seems to support that view.

And the Index entry for "Burning Wreck" sends you to "Wreck Blaze", which appears to be the ASLRB's preferred term for it, which (though perhaps reading too much into it) suggests that a Blaze on top of a Wreck is just that: a Blaze on top of a Wreck.

The main difference for purposes of this thread is that a Wreck Blaze adds more Hindrance than just an unburning Wreck (or several unburning Wrecks for that matter). But the Hindrance DRM of "Wrecks/AFVs plus a Wreck Blaze" is +2; whereas the Hindrance DRM of "Wrecks/AFVs" is +1.

--You got a bunch of chunky things: they are +1 Hindrance.
--You add in Smoke if some of them are burning, and you get another +1.
--You go to a full-on Terrain Blaze where the entire hex is burning, you get +3 Hindrance.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A Burning Wreck, IMO, is a subset of Wrecks. Rule section D10 title and D10.1 seems to support that view.

And the Index entry for "Burning Wreck" sends you to "Wreck Blaze", which appears to be the ASLRB's preferred term for it, which (though perhaps reading too much into it) suggests that a Blaze on top of a Wreck is just that: a Blaze on top of a Wreck.

The main difference for purposes of this thread is that a Wreck Blaze adds more Hindrance than just an unburning Wreck (or several unburning Wrecks for that matter). But the Hindrance DRM of "Wrecks/AFVs plus a Wreck Blaze" is +2; whereas the Hindrance DRM of "Wrecks/AFVs" is +1.

--You got a bunch of chunky things: they are +1 Hindrance.
--You add in Smoke if some of them are burning, and you get another +1.
--You go to a full-on Terrain Blaze where the entire hex is burning, you get +3 Hindrance.

And yet

B25.2 SMOKE: ... The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) except in the case of an already established Fire Lane (A9.22), or in Heavy Winds (25.63), where only the Wreck Hindrance DRM would apply. ...

While I can see your argument--and perhaps agree with it on some level--my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Reality arguments aren't going to change the way the rule is read. A Wreck Blaze's +2 Hindrance DRM replaces the +1 Wreck Hindrance DRM. Once replaced, absent errata or Q&A to the contrary (which would be errata in all but name), the "hard hindrance" is removed right along with the Wreck Hindrance. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

While I can see your argument--and perhaps agree with it on some level--my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Reality arguments aren't going to change the way the rule is read. A Wreck Blaze's +2 Hindrance DRM replaces the +1 Wreck Hindrance DRM. Once replaced, absent errata or Q&A to the contrary (which would be errata in all but name), the "hard hindrance" is removed right along with the Wreck Hindrance. -- jim

Maybe you're right. D10.3 does seem to back up your position. [EDIT: Once again, I stopped reading right before the [EXC]--I've got to stop doing that!]

(Although if my opponent argued for it, I'd allow him the hard hindrance DRM.)

 

[Sparafucil3]

Maybe you're right. D10.3 does seem to back up your position.

(Although if my opponent argued for it, I'd allow him the hard hindrance DRM.)

This came up in a game I played earlier this week. I gave my opponent the +1 "hard hindrance" too as I wasn't comfortable with what I was reading at the time. I would rather err in my opponents favor than mine with I am uncertain. -- jim

 

[Jwil2020]

Again D9.4 makes clear that the +1 Hindrance for a wreck is NA if it is a burning wreck. In the absence of a PS on the matter, I would say the point of both B25.2 and D9.4 is to say that the +2 burning wreck DRM is not cumulative with the +1 (non-burning) wreck DRM, and was not meant to negate the "hard hindrance" effect on a FL. However, a plain reading of both rules does not seem to support that.

However, does D10.13 clear up the confusion? "A burning wreck does not provide the +1 TEM of 9.3 to infantry in the same hex, nor does the burning wreck create a LOS Hindrance due to the wreck counter (EXC: Fire Lane (A9.22)..."

 

[Bill Kohler]

Was going to send in a question to MMP: does this look good?

Hindrances for Multiple Wrecks/AFVs/Wreck Blazes
If there's an AFV in the same hex with a Wreck, the "AFV/Wreck Hindrance DRM" for that hex is still +1 (assuming the usual conditions are met). [D9.4]
A Wreck Blaze replaces the "Wreck Hindrance DRM" of +1 with a +2. [B25.2]

Q1: If there's an AFV in the same hex with a Wreck Blaze, is the Hindrance for that hex +2 or +3?

Q2: If there're two Wreck Blazes in a hex, is the Hindrance for that hex +2 or +3 [A24.2]?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Was going to send in a question to MMP: does this look good?

Hindrances for Multiple Wrecks/AFVs/Wreck Blazes
If there's an AFV in the same hex with a Wreck, the "AFV/Wreck Hindrance DRM" for that hex is still +1 (assuming the usual conditions are met). [D9.4]
A Wreck Blaze replaces the "Wreck Hindrance DRM" of +1 with a +2. [B25.2]

Q1: If there's an AFV in the same hex with a Wreck Blaze, is the Hindrance for that hex +2 or +3?

Q2: If there're two Wreck Blazes in a hex, is the Hindrance for that hex +2 or +3 [A24.2]?

LOS passes "through" a hindrance. LOS "ends" in TEM. If the AFV is in the Wreck's Location, the Wreck is providing +1 TEM. SMOKE is a little different in that passing through, originating from, or ending in a SMOKE Location also provides a hindrance. In the old days, SMOKE was also a TEM and there were SMOKE counters that said TEM on them. I would focus all my questions on an LOS that passes "through" such a hex and not into such a hex. I would also provide an image from inside VASL demonstrating what you want to ask clearly. Good luck! -- jim

 

[apbills]

I am confused about what this Q&A is saying regarding this topic.
Q: B25.2 states that the wreck hindrance applies to any already established firelane. Does it apply to any firelane, or only a firelane established before the wreck began to burn?
UA: The wreck Hindrance applies normally (e.g., if it is not considered moving).

The answer's wording does a terrible job answering the question by not actually answering the question. A question was asked framed to have a binary answer, yet there is no binary answer, just a lead in to another question.

Does it mean that if a burning wreck was created in a prior turn, (i.e., it is no longer considered moving) the Wreck Hindrance DRM applies to Firelane established in the current player turn? I think it means the the interpretation of "already established" is not about the timing between the placement of the firelane and the appearance of a burning wreck but is actually about the residual attack (e.g., from an established firelane) vs the initial attack. The initial attack would incur the +2 smoke DRM but a FL residual attack would get the Wreck Hindrance DRM. But then the answer does not make any of that clear.

I don't know how you could even have a Firelane established prior to a burning wreck being in its LOF without that wreck still being considered moving (i.e., being subject to hit Case J). What is the sequence of DFF shots that creates that situation? I guess if you establish a Firelane that has a non-wreck, stopped vehicle in its LOF and then later that vehicle expends a start MP and gets whacked before it leaves the hex, leaving a burning wreck in its place.

 

[Bill Kohler]

I think it means the the interpretation of "already established" is not about the timing between the placement of the firelane and the appearance of a burning wreck but is actually about the residual attack (e.g., from an established firelane) vs the initial attack. The initial attack would incur the +2 smoke DRM but a FL residual attack would get the Wreck Hindrance DRM.

This is my interpretation too, especially after re-reading D10.3.

 

[nekengren2]

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.

oh man. I like it.

 

[Treadhead]

Just the opposite. A Firelane placed before a Burning Wreck would get a hard hindrance. -- jim

A9.22 "... after resolving the First Fire attack in the normal manner... " [in other words, applying the Wreck Blaze Hindrance to the original attack]
"However, neither NVR (E1.1) nor any SMOKE... affects LOS for Fire Lane placement/attack purposes."
A Wreck Blaze (B25.2) is a type of SMOKE, so the Wreck Blaze does not affect subsequent Fire Lane attacks.

So you would think, for Fire Lane purposes, that would be end of it and a Wreck Blaze does not affect a Fire Lane.
But, D10.3 does say, by EXC, that a Fire Lane does receive a LOS Hindrance for the wreck counter.

It seems to me that SMOKE does not apply to a Fire Lane (except to the initial shot, which is not a Fire Lane attack), but once placed, then the Wreck Blaze Hindrance would not apply, but the wreck counter Hindrance would apply to Fire Lane FP attacks.
[EDIT: I just noticed that apbills and Bill Kohler reached the same conclusion above.]

 

[Treadhead]

The initial attack would incur the +2 smoke DRM but a FL residual attack would get the Wreck Hindrance DRM.

This.