Fires at a MMC repulsed by a HIPster

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
I hope this inquiry is pretty straight forward. If not I will be happy to answer any questions any ASL honcho that monitors this site asks to clarify the question.

In a fortified, multi-hex (5), multi-level (0, 1 & 2) building (The Commissar’s House), a German MMC moves up a South stairwell from Level 1 to Level 2. It is First Fired on from the hex NW of it by a directed Russian MMC, with no effect other than leaving Residual Fire in the S stairwell hex. With no other fires announced the German continues movement into the Level 2 N Stairwell hex. A HIP Russian MMC + MMG are detected in that hex, so the German MMC is returned to the S stairwell hex.

Both players of this scenario acknowledge the German MMC is exposed to the Res Fire in the S Stairwell hex it returns to; but, they disagree as to the number of MF expended in the move that triggers Defensive Fires in the S stairwell hex. The Russian player claims 3 MF: two for the attempted move into a building (the N stairwell) hex + 1 for the MF expended by the German MMC when it moved up the stairwell to Level 2. The German player claims 2MF only, limited per the rule “The MF expended in attempting to move into the concealed unit’s location are still used, but are considered expended in the location it is returned to” (12.15 Detection).

All comments, clarification, and citations of the rules that apply are appreciated. Thanks!
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,589
Reaction score
536
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I'm not following why the 1 MF for moving from Level 1 to Level 2, which has already been completed, would factor into Defensive Fire in subsequent moves out of that hex so I'm in the 2MF camp.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
I'm not following why the 1 MF for moving from Level 1 to Level 2, which has already been completed, would factor into Defensive Fire in subsequent moves out of that hex so I'm in the 2MF camp.
zgrose: Thanks for the quick response. As one of the combatants I told my opponent I would post the rules inquiry. But I feel I should refrain from commenting on responses. Yours includes what I consider to be a rhetorical question. But I will confirm that I believe you grasped the situation presented correctly.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
571
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
If I understand the Original Post correctly, the Germans go up a staircase (to Level 2) for 1MF. In that Location, they receive fire, survive, and residual fire is left in their Location. No other fire...that MF expenditure has been completed.

They next move into an adjacent building hex for 2 additional MFs where they now reveal HIP Russians. This bumps them back to the previous Location which features the zid from the preceding attack.

As per A12.15 (cited in the OP), the expenditure to attempt entry of the Russians' Location is considered to have been spent in the just-exited (and zid-filled) Location. This expenditure was just 2MFs (not 3) as stairwell movement is never a combined expenditure with MFs to/from the stairwell Location. The Germans are being returned to the 2nd-Level hex adjacent to the HIPsters, not to the 1st-Level Location halfway down the staircase.

So there would be just 2MFs for any follow-up Russian attack (at PBF from the former HIPsters), in addition to the one zid attack upon the Germans' return.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,045
Reaction score
1,874
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Only 2MF are expended when trying yo enter so only 2M.F are available for fire.
As has been said, the 1MF to enter the first hex have been expended and any fire on that MR has been done.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
Vinnie/Binchois: Thank you for your responses. Binchois, you recounted the action correctly (that I presented in the original posting), which both combatants appreciate as it seems to reconsider all of the aspects of the inquiry. Vinny you affirmed the conclusions of Binchois and zgrose.

Based on the three consistent responses I will share the result with my opponent. Any further comments or even contrary opinions are appreciated. If contrary, please cite any rules that conflict with the conclusions previously drawn.

Thanks
gideon8t8
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,116
Reaction score
1,660
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Vinnie/Binchois: Thank you for your responses. Binchois, you recounted the action correctly (that I presented in the original posting), which both combatants appreciate as it seems to reconsider all of the aspects of the inquiry. Vinny you affirmed the conclusions of Binchois and zgrose.

Based on the three consistent responses I will share the result with my opponent. Any further comments or even contrary opinions are appreciated. If contrary, please cite any rules that conflict with the conclusions previously drawn.

Thanks
gideon8t8
There was a fourth consistent response "Pyth" "liked post 4. Which is the same thing as if he had come on and said "I agree with Binchois." So you can in future see/understand that "likes" are a form of affirmation with a position. Just for the record I agree with them too.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
Whoops, sorry Pyth, you da man! Though Justiciar, if Pyth sought acknowledgment from me (IMHO) he would have posted. I would think GS etiquette would require the acknowledgment come from Binchois since he received the "thumb up". But what do I know as a "Recruit"?
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,116
Reaction score
1,660
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
No my point was not about "rep" / "Like" (or the rules and etiquette thereof...that aren't any)...but rather that by Pyth's "Like" it was if he had spoken in the same manner as Binchois... He was saying "Ditto" by his "Like."

So my point is not about "returning rep" but rather that you learn to see that when you post such a question as you did that answers to it one way or the other can come in a form besides* an actual written response. That is the take away here.
 

Joe Bordonaro

Recruit
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for posting the question. I'm sure it will help prevent any similar misunderstandings in future games.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
Glad you joined Joe as GS has (maybe the best) ASL rules gurus who monitor posts and share a common goal of bringing clarity to ASL rules and play. Plus the added feature of peer review which fosters dissenting opinions if they are backed by a rationale argument. Yet, at the end of every post there seems to be consensus so that everyone goes away feeling that their opinion was considered but the rules system was made more robust.

You should check out the scenario designer's forum too. I am sure Vinnie posts there.
 
Top