DM'ing already broken units.. easier than u think

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
After re- reading the rules it seems that TEM has no effect on the ability to DM broken units.

This would make low odds attacks problematic, however just want to check that this is so.

Needless to say this makes broken units "dead ducks".
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
(taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target.

Thus even 1 FP


To be considered fired upon by ordnance, a hit must have been achieved against the unit regardless of its FP effect,

Can you say "mortar".

PS: If your broken its not at all entertaining.
 

dwardzala

Va Tech Hokie
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
598
Reaction score
70
Location
Detroit/Ann Arbor Ar
Country
llUnited States
You have to be able to theoretically (no dice are actually rolled) get a NMC on whatever FP column you take a theoretical shot, while taking cowering into account. A 1FP attack will not inflict DM unless directed by a leader or otherwise exempt from cowering.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
A 1FP attack will not inflict DM unless directed by a leader or otherwise exempt from cowering.
It will if the DRM is < +2. I.e., a +1/0/-1 shot on the 1-FP column will cause DM - even by units that can cower.

The phrase "(taking the possibility of Cowering into account) " doesn't mean one checks as if the attack cowers. It really only means that if the only DR what can cause a NMC, is a 1,1 - then units that can cower don't inflict DM.

Tips From The Trenches:

ASL Journal 7
, page 44.

A 1 FP attack with +1 DRM inflicts DM on a broken unit and is potentially eligible to inflict encirclement. Both rules (A10.62 and A7.7) require “enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC.” On such an attack, an Original 3 DR could inflict a NMC. In contrast, a 2 FP attack with a +3 DRM could qualify only if the attacking unit were exempt from Cowering (e.g., Fanatic, Elite British, leader directed, etc.) since an Original 2 DR would Cower.
 

dwardzala

Va Tech Hokie
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
598
Reaction score
70
Location
Detroit/Ann Arbor Ar
Country
llUnited States
It will if the DRM is < +2. I.e., a +1/0/-1 shot on the 1-FP column will cause DM - even by units that can cower.

The phrase "(taking the possibility of Cowering into account) " doesn't mean one checks as if the attack cowers. It really only means that if the only DR what can cause a NMC, is a 1,1 - then units that can cower don't inflict DM.

Tips From The Trenches:

ASL Journal 7
, page 44.

A 1 FP attack with +1 DRM inflicts DM on a broken unit and is potentially eligible to inflict encirclement. Both rules (A10.62 and A7.7) require “enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC.” On such an attack, an Original 3 DR could inflict a NMC. In contrast, a 2 FP attack with a +3 DRM could qualify only if the attacking unit were exempt from Cowering (e.g., Fanatic, Elite British, leader directed, etc.) since an Original 2 DR would Cower.
D’oh. Not enough coffee this morning. Thanks for correcting me.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
It does have an effect - unless you are shooting on the Area Target Type.
You might want to have another look. Maybe that's what you "think" it says...... The area target type was part 2, the IFE remains as I said ( as the rules said). If you think otherwise please forward anything at all that backs that assertion up.

For many +2 , +3 (TEM) have - wrongly - been taken into account. I guess a bullet is a bullet.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
You might want to have another look. Maybe that's what you "think" it says...... The area target type was part 2, the IFE remains as I said ( as the rules said). If you think otherwise please forward anything at all that backs that assertion up.

For many +2 , +3 (TEM) have - wrongly - been taken into account. I guess a bullet is a bullet.
I am not sure what you are saying/claiming actually.

Are you saying e.g., a 2-FP, +6 (stone building + SMOKE) attack can cause DM?


A10.62:
"...or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target..."

A +6 attack on the 2-FP column can't "possibly inflict at least a NMC" - or are you saying that TEM, Hindrance, CX, etc. is not taken into account because A10.62 does not spell them out specifically?
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I think he's saying that a 2/+6 attack by ordnance would DM them, due to the line "To be considered fired upon by ordnance, a hit must have been achieved against the unit regardless of its FP effect."

I wouldn't interpret it that way--I would say that sentence means that you need both a hit and a 2/+3 effects roll--but it's non-crazy.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I think he's saying that a 2/+6 attack by ordnance would DM them, due to the line "To be considered fired upon by ordnance, a hit must have been achieved against the unit regardless of its FP effect."
A hit using the ITT certainly takes TEM into account, since one actually has to hit the broken units. If one is using the ATT, then and argument could be made that the FP and TEM doesn't matter.

But he wrote that ATT was post #2 - and it will be interesting to see that is meant by "the IFE remains as I said ( as the rules said)" - presumably referring to post #1. But I won't speculate on it. I'll wait for an explanation/clarification.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
After re- reading the rules it seems that TEM has no effect on the ability to DM broken units.

This would make low odds attacks problematic, however just want to check that this is so.

Needless to say this makes broken units "dead ducks".
After re-reading the rulz, you have not a clue as to what you are talking about.

But then again, we have come to expect that.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
After re-reading the rulz, you have not a clue as to what you are talking about.

But then again, we have come to expect that.
COME ON PAL.

Quot
e what you want, keep the TRUMPISMS to yourself. Or is that too much to expect - after all it is 2020...

Want to make it personal- be my guest !]
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
A hit using the ITT certainly takes TEM into account, since one actually has to hit the broken units. If one is using the ATT, then and argument could be made that the FP and TEM doesn't matter.

But he wrote that ATT was post #2 - and it will be interesting to see that is meant by "the IFE remains as I said ( as the rules said)" - presumably referring to post #1. But I won't speculate on it. I'll wait for an explanation/clarification.
TEM's are irrelevant.

That simple. CX is only important in that (not including cowering) it effects a NMC effect. That is ALL that is
required to re DM a unit. That is the RULE not my opinion.

Thank you
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I think he's saying that a 2/+6 attack by ordnance would DM them, due to the line "To be considered fired upon by ordnance, a hit must have been achieved against the unit regardless of its FP effect."

I wouldn't interpret it that way--I would say that sentence means that you need both a hit and a 2/+3 effects roll--but it's non-crazy.
regardless of its FP effect." and
I would say that sentence means that you need both a hit and a 2/+3 effects roll

That's an inconsistency. For sure..... :)
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,537
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
TEM's are irrelevant.

That simple. CX is only important in that (not including cowering) it effects a NMC effect. That is ALL that is
required to re DM a unit. That is the RULE not my opinion.
No, you're wrong. And the one who's politely been telling you the right way to look at it, Klas, is not just Some Guy. His rules interpretations are almost Perry Sez. I don't know his exact relationship with MMP but I've come to think of him as the Swedish Arm of MMP. He really knows what he's talking about.

You can keep bolding things all you want and making declarative statements about how right you are, but you're not. Continuing to insist on your rightness isn't going to help. It just makes you sound like the (current) US President whose bluster you seem to be emulating.

Now, it's possible that the way Klas is telling you to look at it is wrong, and you ARE right. What people usually do when they're not convinced by other people's advice is to say, "OK, I can see what you're saying, but I still think it's worth asking a Q&A." At which point you pop off an email to asl_qa@multimanpublishing.com and wait for an answer. Typically people get a response within a week or so.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
TEM's are irrelevant.

That simple. CX is only important in that (not including cowering) it effects a NMC effect. That is ALL that is
required to re DM a unit. That is the RULE not my opinion.
So you are saying that your opinion is that e.g., a 2-FP, +4 (fortified stone building) attack can cause DM?
(even though such an attack has no "possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target" [per A10.62]), since 2 ("snake eyes") + 4 = 6 -> PTC.
 
Top