eASLRB ver 1.04 IFT Table HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
I posted this question over on Boardgame geek as part of a post pointing out an error in the IFT in version of version 1.03 of the eASLRB. The error I pointed out was corrected in V1.04, but my question wasn't answered so I thought I would post it here.

I'm not entirely sure the third bullet and third symbol are correctly shown on the IFT as shown below. For instance, 26.52 and 28.62 are both applicable to any "HE Concentration FFE or HE Aerial bomb attack" with an KIA result and with 28.62 applicable to any K result (the third symbol in the notes), but there are no symbols on the chart that would accurately represent those results. It seems like a blue dot would need to be added to the 6 and 8 FP DR=2 KIA columns and a green symbol added to 2 and 4 FP DR=2 K columns to correct this. Is this correct?

Also, it would make sense for the third symbol to be Blue instead of Green to match the blue bullet (or change the third bullet to green and change the fourth bullet for shellholes to blue).

16907
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,969
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
There is an email address indicated in the eASLRB, which you can use to inform Wargame Vault directly, btw.
 

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
There is an email address indicated in the eASLRB, which you can use to inform Wargame Vault directly, btw.
I didn't notice that. Thank you.

I'm not 100% sure this is an error though. That's why I asked here.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,709
Reaction score
4,318
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
It seems like a blue dot would need to be added to the 6 and 8 FP DR=2 KIA columns and a green symbol added to 2 and 4 FP DR=2 K columns to correct this. Is this correct?
It's probably because at the time of creation there where not FFE HE Concentration less that 70mm (12 FP column) or Aerial Bombs with that low FP either.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,709
Reaction score
4,318
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Also, it would make sense for the third symbol to be Blue instead of Green to match the blue bullet (or change the third bullet to green and change the fourth bullet for shellholes to blue).
Stuff like this is unlikely to change...
 

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
It's probably because at the time of creation there where not FFE HE Concentration less that 70mm (12 FP column) or Aerial Bombs with that low FP either.
So am I correct that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR removes A-P/A-T minefield (B28.62) and/or Wire (B26.52)" on a DR of 2 with 6 and 8 FP and that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR reduces minefield strength (B28.62) by one column (A-P) or one factor (A-T)" on DR of 3 with 6 and 8 FP and a DR of 2 with 2 and 4 FP?
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
Rocket-Man: I never use those colored dots and daggers--I just look up the rule and go by that. (In fact I wish the IFT didn't have them at all: they're sort of clutter to me.)
 
Last edited:

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
I'm trying to determine if I understand the rules correctly because my understanding and what is shown on the IFT is different.

So I will ask again:

Am I correct that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR removes A-P/A-T minefield (B28.62) and/or Wire (B26.52)" on a DR of 2 with 6 and 8 FP and that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR reduces minefield strength (B28.62) by one column (A-P) or one factor (A-T)" on DR of 3 with 6 and 8 FP and a DR of 2 with 2 and 4 FP?
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
Am I correct that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR removes A-P/A-T minefield (B28.62) and/or Wire (B26.52)" on a DR of 2 with 6 and 8 FP and that an "Original Concentrated HE FFE/Aerial Bomb Effects DR reduces minefield strength (B28.62) by one column (A-P) or one factor (A-T)" on DR of 3 with 6 and 8 FP and a DR of 2 with 2 and 4 FP?
28.62 FFE: All A-P and A-T Mines in a hex are eliminated by any HE Concentration FFE or HE Aerial bomb attack resolved in that hex, provided an Original KIA was obtained. If an Original K result is obtained with such an attack, the strength of an A-P/A-T minefield is reduced by one column/factor. If both types of mines are in the hex, the strength of both is lowered. If an A-P minefield is already six FP, it is eliminated instead. The opponent does not have to inform the FFE/bomb player if a minefield is eliminated/reduced.

A DR of 2 on the 6/8 columns is a "1KIA". So yes.
A DR of 3 on the 6/8 columns is a "K/2". So yes.
A DR of 2 on the 2/4 columns is a "K/1" and "K/2". So yes.

The tables are part of the rules, true, but usually the information in them is just summary, in which case--if there is a discrepancy--the text of the rules take precedence IMO. There are exceptions: the Concealment Loss/Gain Table being one (read A12.121 where this precedence is specifically called out in the rules). [I also include the IFT DRM chart (A7.3).] And of course the entries in the IFT cells themselves (e.g., 1KIA, NMC, PTC, etc.) are not listed in prose form within the rules so there is no precedence issue with them--but I take the colored dots/daggers to be merely summary and consequently they don't overrule the prose rules themselves.

Whenever information is listed in two different forms--be it in the ASLRB or in the law or in a text book or anywhere--there're bound to be mistakes (it's inevitable), so you always need to know which form is authoritative. To me, the prose rules are the authoritative form--unless the individual rules themselves declare such-and-such a table to be authoritative.

If it were up to me, I'd change the dots/daggers part of the IFT. I'd remove all of the dots/daggers from the IFT cells, and I'd reword the sub-table where the dots/daggers are explained to instead say that "KIAs cause such-and-such", and that "K/#s cause this other", etc.
 
Last edited:

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
Thank you for the reply Bill Kohler. I have been playing games since the 1970's and know it is impossible to have a set of rules that is 100% clear in all cases. In fact, I currently create drawings/write procedures that are given to others to implement, so I know first hand the challenges of conveying information in such a way that it is not easily misunderstood (making it so that it can't be misunderstood is impossible).

In the old days (before the internet), I would have just assumed the IFT was wrong and went with the rules as written. I asked the question to see if there was some nuance of the rules I was missing.

I disagree about removing the information form the IFT though. Having information in a more compact, visual form is almost always better than doing it with text, although you need to make sure that the two presentations match each other as close as possible.
 
Last edited:
Top