D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

[Sparafucil3]

The ONLY thing I have been discussing is Fire Lanes. I appear to be having a different conversation.

Me too. And I have only been considering the one Blaze Wreck and its application to said Fire Lane.

As for Perry's answer and stipulations, I fully agree. For the first case you get the AFV Hindrance, and the +2 Smoke Hindrance. For the second case, there are two +2 Smoke hindrances, which hits the max Smoke Hindrance of +3.

I also agree.

Sadly, the original question did not seek clarification on "hard hindrance" or "soft hindrance". -- jim

 

[apbills]

@Sparafucil3 I believe our only difference is the interpretation of the B25.2 exception: "except in the case of an already established Fire Lane (A9.22),"

In my case, I interpret it to mean any Fire Lane attack, since the rule itself is about DRM, and if you are talking DRM you are talking about an attack, and if you are talking about an attack from a Fire lane, it must be already established given a Fire lane that is not already established can't attack anything (in fact it doesn't even exist). The Q&A for B25.2 specifically asks about how the Wreck Hindrance DRM is applied to a Fire Lane attack, and answers "Normally".

I don't understand your interpretation and how you get to it, other than you state the Wreck hindrance is replaced by the Smoke Hindrance, which can only mean you feel the Fire Lane is not an "already established Fire Lane" and therefore the exception does not apply. Can you give me an example of when a Fire Lane would attack if it was not "already established"?

 

[Sparafucil3]

@Sparafucil3 I believe our only difference is the interpretation of the B25.2 exception: "except in the case of an already established Fire Lane (A9.22),"

In my case, I interpret it to mean any Fire Lane attack, since the rule itself is about DRM, and if you are talking DRM you are talking about an attack, and if you are talking about an attack from a Fire lane, it must be already established given a Fire lane that is not already established can't attack anything (in fact it doesn't even exist). The Q&A for B25.2 specifically asks about how the Wreck Hindrance DRM is applied to a Fire Lane attack, and answers "Normally".

I don't understand your interpretation and how you get to it, other than you state the Wreck hindrance is replaced by the Smoke Hindrance, which can only mean you feel the Fire Lane is not an "already established Fire Lane" and therefore the exception does not apply. Can you give me an example of when a Fire Lane would attack if it was not "already established"?

Picture this. The board is 1 hex wide and 10 hexes across. The are only hexes 1 - 10. A MMG is in hex 1. An existing burning wreck in hex 3. An enemy squad moves using NAM from hex 10 to hex 9, is attacked and a fire lane is placed. The enemy squad survives the initial attack and now moves using NAM to hex 8. What is the DRM? IMO, it is -1 (FFNAM). I believe you think it is +0 (-1 FFNAM, +1 Wreck/hard hindrance).

Second situation: Same board as above. This time the FL is already in place such that a +1 DRM hard hindrance would apply. The AFV starts for 1 and is eliminated as a burning Wreck. Now the enemy squad moves as above. What are the DRM on the FL attack? In this case, I believe +0 since the FL was "already established" when the Blazing Wreck was created. I think you also believe +0 here.

"Normally" according to which rule? Each rule has a "normal". -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

Sadly, the original question did not seek clarification on "hard hindrance" or "soft hindrance". -- jim

Hold your horses.

The first rule question discussed in this thread, at the top of page 1, had to deal with AFVs inside Buildings and how that inherent AFV Hindrance differed from the non-inherent obstacle of an AFV-occupied building.

The second rule question discussed in this thread, at the bottom of page 1, had to deal with whether (a) the Wreck Blaze Hindrance that replaces the AFV/Wreck Hindrance was also "a single Hindrance for many occurrences" as the D9.4 AFV/Wreck Hindrance is, and (b) how the Wreck Blaze Hindrance stacks with the AFV/Wreck Hindrance "that it replaces" (or if it entirely "replaces" it). I asked these questions of Perry a few days back, received answers, and posted them.

The third rule question in this thread, to which I think the answer is obvious, is about Fire Lanes. If any discussion doesn't belong in this thread, it's this third one.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hold your horses there, buddy!

The first rule question discussed in this thread, at the top of page 1, had to deal with AFVs inside Buildings and how that inherent AFV Hindrance differed from the non-inherent obstacle of an AFV-occupied building.

The second rule question discussed in this thread, at the bottom of page 1, had to deal with whether (a) the Wreck Blaze Hindrance that replaces the AFV/Wreck Hindrance was also "a single Hindrance for many occurrences" as the D9.4 AFV/Wreck Hindrance is, and (b) how the Wreck Blaze Hindrance stacks with the AFV/Wreck Hindrance "that it replaces". I asked this question of Perry a few days back, received an answer, and posted it.

The third rule question in this thread, to which I think the answer is obvious, is about Fire Lanes. If any discussion doesn't belong in this thread, it's this third one.

Fortunately for all involved, threads have a life of their own. We set them free into the wild and they grow wings and go where they will. It is often the places it goes that bring interesting things. I thought the answer to your question was very obvious. it's clearly stated in the rules. It is the Fire Lane question this drifted towards that I find very interesting. There is contradicting rules, Q&A which don't seem to adhere to the rule as written, and common sense all arrayed against one another. And I do wish it has been asked because that would have resolved it all.

And I don't have any horses -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

And I find the Fire Lane question entirely answered within the rules and obvious.

For me, it was the AFV/Wreck Hindrance "being replaced by" the Wreck Blaze Hindrance, and whether in so doing it went from "+1 Hindrance for many" to "+2 Hindrance for one" or "+2 Hindrance for many" that I had questions about.

 

[Sparafucil3]

And I find the Fire Lane question entirely answered within the rules and very obvious.

For me, it was the AFV/Wreck Hindrance "being replaced by" the Wreck Blaze Hindrance, and whether in so doing it went from "+1 Hindrance for many" to "+2 Hindrance for one" or "+2 Hindrance for many" that I had questions about. That's why I went through the trouble of asking the question.

Like I said, two reasonable people reaching a different position from rules that we each see as "clear". -- jim

 

[apbills]

"Normally" according to which rule? Each rule has a "normal". -- jim

I don't see any ambiguity in the answer about what "normally" is referring to in this case. "The wreck Hindrance applies normally (e.g., if it is not considered moving)."

I now understand your position. As far as I can tell, with that interpretation only the 2 potential cases I posted earlier are possible situations where the Wreck Hindrance would apply. As I also stated earlier, I didn't think the answer was as clear as it could have been. I also think you can reasonably interpret "previously established" both ways with the language as stated.

I think the example for A9.222 could easily be updated to include a additional situation where the wreck in CC6 is now a burning wreck and then lay out the appropriate DRM, including the timing of that wreck becoming a burning wreck. The interaction between A9.222 and B25.2 was missed and would have been very useful.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I don't see any ambiguity in the answer about what "normally" is referring to in this case. "The wreck Hindrance applies normally (e.g., if it is not considered moving)."

I now understand your position. As far as I can tell, with that interpretation only the 2 potential cases I posted earlier are possible situations where the Wreck Hindrance would apply. As I also stated earlier, I didn't think the answer was as clear as it could have been. I also think you can reasonably interpret "previously established" both ways with the language as stated.

I think the example for A9.222 could easily be updated to include a additional situation where the wreck in CC6 is now a burning wreck and then lay out the appropriate DRM, including the timing of that wreck becoming a burning wreck. The interaction between A9.222 and B25.2 was missed and would have been very useful.

And B25.2 says "The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM". And I agree, something has probably been missed or some errata was planned and never executed.

Anecdotally, and old-time reached out to me and relayed a discussion he has with Greenwood on the issue. He believed a hard hindrance would apply. Greenwood's response was "Just imagine the tank has been blown up and only the tracks remain. No hard hindrance." This leads me to be believe this has been an issue for a really long time. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

So I think I have this sorted now. Look for an example on a blog near you soon. -- jim

 

[Matt Book]

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.

I can see needing this for a Concealed AFV since D9.4 states that it would change the result of a TH attempt if concealed, but does it apply to a HIP AFV? D9.4 states that the +1 DRM Hindrance does not apply if the AFV/Wreck "is not in both the LOS of the firer and the target". There is no LOS to a HIP Unit.

 

[Matt Book]

I can see needing this for a Concealed AFV since D9.4 states that it would change the result of a TH attempt if concealed, but does it apply to a HIP AFV? D9.4 states that the +1 DRM Hindrance does not apply if the AFV/Wreck "is not in both the LOS of the firer and the target". There is no LOS to a HIP Unit.

Apparently not, there is errata for just this. .....

A12.3 & D9.4 The last sentence of D9.4 states “If the hindrance DRM of a concealed AFV would actually change the result of an attack, the owner must show that it is not a Dummy stack”. A12.3 states that “Hidden status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified”. Does a HIP AFV create a Hindrance for purposes of D9.4?
A. Yes

Yes this needs to be changed in revised rules.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Could you post this Perry Sez in the Perry Sez folder too?
That way, Klas will be able to spot and add it to his Q&A and Perry Sez document.

 

[apbills]

Apparently not, there is errata for just this. .....

A12.3 & D9.4 The last sentence of D9.4 states “If the hindrance DRM of a concealed AFV would actually change the result of an attack, the owner must show that it is not a Dummy stack”. A12.3 states that “Hidden status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified”. Does a HIP AFV create a Hindrance for purposes of D9.4?
A. Yes

Yes his needs to be changed in revised rules.

I am not sure what has to change in the rules. Your previous statement regarding HIP and LOS is incorrect. Being HIP has no bearing on whether you are in LOS or not. You can still be hit when HIP if you are in a Location that is in LOS (barring a specific exception like IN a foxhole behind a wall/hedge). You can even be hit with a mortar when out of LOS based on those specific rules. As for the Hindrance rule, there is no difference between a concealed unit and a HIP unit as far as it is concerned.

A12.3 is pretty clear 'Hidden Status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified. "

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Could you post this Perry Sez in the Perry Sez folder too?
That way, Klas will be able to spot and add it to his Q&A and Perry Sez document.

That Q&A is an older one - already in the file...

 

[EJ1]

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

Hey, the house hinders nothing, but your couch-potato husband in there sure does. Ha.