I didn't understand it that way, I understood the first answer, "Yes, vs adjacent units" to be the general answer, which was simply repeated in the second answer.Robin said:
Maybe I should ask for a Perry sez to the Perry sez
First Fire/Final Fire
- Thread starter Dave McLee
- Start date
Maybe I should ask for a Perry sez to the Perry sez
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
I think one problem, apart the rules' direct interpretation, is the fact that one is tempted to see the DFPh as something quite like the PFPh...
Jim McLeod
Member
So, are we saying that if during the enemies MPh;Ole Boe said:Hi,
I finally got response from Perry:
Perry indicated in the post that he considered C5.6 to overrule the A8.4 restrictions - but somehow at the same time wanted the adjacency requirement for First Fire marked weapons to apply for a Final Fire marked Gun as well.
He added that he was inclined to think that errata might be needed to get the ASLRB fully in sync with this answer. I will not let him forget it when work starts on the J7 errata.
- a Gun fires
- loses ROF
- gets marked with a 1stF counter
- the Gun can only IF at adjacent targets?
or,
- the Gun that is marked as 1stF'd may fire at non-adjacent units during the enemies MPh?
Having a Gun being able to fire at adjacent units only is clear.
The Defensive Fire rules are one of my favourite rule sections!
They are right up there with the Rout Rules!!
Not being facetious by the way ...
=Jim=
Last edited:
zgrose
Elder Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,247
- Reaction score
- 961
- Location
- Kingwood, TX
- First name
- Zoltan
- Country
-
Gets marked with a Final Fire counter and is allowed to Intesive Fire at adjacent targets.Jim McLeod said:
You'll need to re-word this question. You seem to be mixing 2 different phases and leaving out IF.
Gunner Scott
Forum Guru
Hi-
Ok, so guns can only IF vs adjacent targets but what about Gun's mounted on HT's or enportee?
What about AFV MA's, are they under the same restriction.
Scott
Ok, so guns can only IF vs adjacent targets but what about Gun's mounted on HT's or enportee?
What about AFV MA's, are they under the same restriction.
Scott
Corporal Kindel
Member
This came up in a game of Awakening of Spring 6 months or so ago. Basically, in the MPh a Gun (whether vehicle mounted or not) marked first fire can IF at non-adjacent targets and is not limited by closest KEU, *but* if the same Gun waits until the DFPh it can *only* fire at Adjacent targets. We had to cross check a couple different sections of the rule book to figure that out; I'd qoute them but NRBH (they might've been quoted earlier, as I haven't read through all 7 pages of the thread).Jim McLeod said:So, are we saying that if during the DFPh;
- a Gun fires
- loses ROF
- gets marked with a 1stF counter
- the Gun can only IF at adjacent targets?
or,
- the Gun that is marked as 1stF'd may fire at non-adjacent units during the enemies MPh?
Having a Gun being able to fire at adjacent units only is clear.
The Defensive Fire rules are one of my favourite rule sections!
They are right up there with the Rout Rules!!
Not being facetious by the way ...
=Jim=
Jim McLeod
Member
I pooched my initial post. My example was to have taken place during the enemy MPh. Sorry for the confusion. I shall go correct the initial post.zgrose said:
=Jim=
IMO, you're looking more and more like a grumpy old man...bebakken said:IMO, the questions were poorly asked.
This is evident simply by the fact that there are still questions about what the answer means.
Sheesh.
The discussion in this thread was about whether C5.6 was so clear about allowing one more shot that it would override A8.4, alternatively whether the A8.4 restrictions only applied to Guns that started the DFPh marked by Final Fire.
So that was what I asked about, and Perry answered that the first case was true.
Perry obviously thinks it makes sense to always restrict Intensive Fire to adjacent targets even though the applicable rule only mentions weapons marked with First Fire counters, and indicates this in the answer as well. The fact that Perry thought it was enough to answer "yes" to the second question instead of restating the full answer once more, doesn't make the original question poor. The question was whether IF is allowed for Guns that are marked by Final Fire, and the answer is "Yes".
From the index: "Gun (for firing purposes, any weapon on a 5/8" counter currently firing as ordnance"SGT Holst said:
Guns on HT or enportee or on AFV are all on 5/8" counters, so they're all Guns when firing as ordnance, so yes, they're all under the same restriction.
Treadhead
Senior Member
Well thank you so much for sharing your opinion. I was not aware that you could discern a "look" and behavior simply from the written word. You bring a lot of your own perception to what you read.Ole Boe said:
I joined the ASLML three years ago, and this forum two years ago. I played ASL from the day it began, though I hadn't been actively playing for quite a while.
When I joined this "online community", I was "bright-eyed" and probably quite naive about the types of discourse that occur.
Let's just say I've become disillusioned about the value of these so-called "discussions". I've also become become totally disillusioned about the whole Q&A process, and in particular the manner in which certain individuals appear to participate to mold the rules they way they want them.
Some newbie comes along, asks a question, then some so-called "expert" over-analyzes it and concludes there really is a problem. Follow it up with a not-quite-so-well-worded question, a vague answer, and a promise (threat?) to address it with errata...
For instance, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that after 20 years, this question of Intensive Fire is because of a "broken" rule.
"Obviously?" "Always?" Why would it make sense to enforce that restriction if a unit starts the DFPh Hidden?Ole Boe said:
That is far from obvious. I think you are putting your own spin on it, because I don't see from his answer that he always sees that to be true. You even said that his post to you seemed to indicate that C5.6 overrode A8.4; well, if that is the case, the answers you quoted here would seem to contradict that.
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, he answered the second question strictly as it was asked, without any other assumptions, and that the second answer bears no relation to the first answer? The so-called "full answer" wasn't "restated" because maybe, just maybe, the first answer has no bearing on the second answer?Ole Boe said:
Is it possible?
That was your first question, and the question itself does not distinguish between those units that start the DFPh so marked, or become marked during the DFPh. That's a flaw, IMO.Ole Boe said:
I note in particular that you did not emphasize that such a unit is "already marked". Wasn't a main point of contention the meaning of "already marked"?
Your second question, which would deal with the case of a unit not being marked with anything when the DFPh starts, was answered with a simple "yes". You can tie the two answers together if you want, but I don't see them as connected based on the manner in which you asked and presented them.
The mere fact that others here have expressed uncertainty over his answers, tells me that it is far from "obvious". In-so-far as the answer is unclear, I would blame that on a question that is unclear.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Jim McLeod
Member
Didn't part of this discussion also involve whether or not a Gun that fires in the DFPh is allowed an IF shot in that same DFPh?
I may be mistaken and am too lazy to look through the thread.
I watched "Smokey And The Bandit" last night for the first time in ages.
I remember hopping the fence at our local drive in to see that movie back in the 70's.
"There's that Burt Reynolds in his black Trans Am ..."
Is it fair to say that one can learn all one needs to know about the US south by watching that movie (particularly the "philosophy surrounding why Burt was going to run the beer: "for the money, for the fun and for the glory [IIRC] ... but mostly for the money")?
:cheeky:
=Jim=
I may be mistaken and am too lazy to look through the thread.
I watched "Smokey And The Bandit" last night for the first time in ages.
I remember hopping the fence at our local drive in to see that movie back in the 70's.
"There's that Burt Reynolds in his black Trans Am ..."
Is it fair to say that one can learn all one needs to know about the US south by watching that movie (particularly the "philosophy surrounding why Burt was going to run the beer: "for the money, for the fun and for the glory [IIRC] ... but mostly for the money")?
:cheeky:
=Jim=
Larry
Elder Member
I don't think that the Perry Sez has anything to do with an IF shot during the movement phase. The gun can take an IF shot per C5.6.
The question and answer are directed at the instance where you would mark a gun with a final fire counter, i.e. in the Defensive Fire Phase. Then you can take an IF shot at an adjacent unit. Focusing on the term "final fire" the question and answer are clear.
:blab:
The question and answer are directed at the instance where you would mark a gun with a final fire counter, i.e. in the Defensive Fire Phase. Then you can take an IF shot at an adjacent unit. Focusing on the term "final fire" the question and answer are clear.
:blab:
zgrose
Elder Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,247
- Reaction score
- 961
- Location
- Kingwood, TX
- First name
- Zoltan
- Country
-
LOL, the "Ole conspiracy theory" wrapped up in a nice package with a bow.
zgrose
Elder Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,247
- Reaction score
- 961
- Location
- Kingwood, TX
- First name
- Zoltan
- Country
-
Where the thread started was in MPh. But it evolved in to the fundamental nature of C5.6 and whether it trumped other rules (like A8.4) with the phrase "An Intensive Firing Gun automatically gains one (and only one [EXC: OVR Prevention; 5.64]) additional shot during that Player Turn."Jim McLeod said:
Based on Perry's answer and the other information in this thread, my understanding is that you can IF in the PFPh, you can IF in MPh after becoming marked First Fire, and you can IF in DFPh but if you IF while marked with a First Fire or Final Fire counter, that IF can only be against an adjacent target.
Apparently this will open up some additional fire opportunities for a segment of the ASL playerbase and be status quo for another segment.
This is of course true, and yes, my perception of your personal character has fallen dramatically lately, especially due to this thread. I just don't understand why you so often let your posts be colored by such a negative attitude. Personally, I do this for fun, and if a post offends me, then I try to wait at least one day before answering it, like in this case.bebakken said:
I mostly think your ASLRB arguments are worth listening too, though.
Could you elaborate. I accept that C5.6 totally trumps A8.4, thereby allowing IF for a Gun marked by Final Fire. However, the errata part was a direct comment by Perry regarding the adjacency restriction, and not something I even asked about.
You're of course welcome to send in your own questions to Perry since you think mine are so poor, to see if you get some different answers.
C5.6 overrides A8.4 by allowing a second shot, but my general, first question was answered by a general answer that included the adjacency restriction. If you don't believe this, then feel free to send in a question to Perry yourself.bbakken said:
I think that is highly unlikely, since the first question was completely general and got a completely general answer, but as written above, you should ask Perry of this. I will even provide the address for you, it's: asl_qa@multimanpublishing.com
I'm having the feeling that you find it much more worthwile to critizise others than to actively do something productive and ask the questions you think is correct yourself. I will be glad if you prove me wrong though.
Hi
I think it's clear from the Perry sez that a Gun may IF even if it is marked with a Final Fire. It is interesting though that it is limited only to the adjacent hex even if it started the DFPh unmarked.
BTW. I find this quite satisfying considering the C5.6 text as I initially, before this discussion, always have thought that a Gun should be allowed IF during the DFPh.
Regards
Bjørnar
I think it's clear from the Perry sez that a Gun may IF even if it is marked with a Final Fire. It is interesting though that it is limited only to the adjacent hex even if it started the DFPh unmarked.
BTW. I find this quite satisfying considering the C5.6 text as I initially, before this discussion, always have thought that a Gun should be allowed IF during the DFPh.
Regards
Bjørnar
I think it is more interesting that this restriction applies at all, when the actual wording is: "Any such units/weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, therefore also possibly benefiting from PBF (or TPBF)."Bjoernar said:
The rule is very specific about applying to weapons marked with First Fire only, not to those marked with Final Fire (regardless of when it got its Final Fire counter).
I understand the logic in restricting this just as much as a Gun that is marked with First Fire is restricted though, but I don't see it in the rules as written.
To be honest, that's what I thought as well (before this discussion started), but then again, I don't think I've ever really considered A8.4's restriction in light of IF before.
I interpreted the rule differently than Perry's ruling, but it's quite OK to be proven wrong too...
Hi
I'm just speculating over Perry's answer a little. As you already are aware,, there is a sentence like this:
A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire.
Maybe this sentence is actually meant for those units/weapons that are Final Fire marked from the preceeding MPh, and not those that becomes marked with Final Fire during the DFPh (as my earlier thought). A Gun marked with Final Fire in the MPh must have been doing some IF, or the crew must have done some FPP. In that case the answer is in accordance with some rules at least.
It would have been nice to know the real meaning of a sentence like this as it has quite strong implications on the rules and how a non-native english speaker like me should interpret rule wordings in ASL.
Regards
Bjørnar
I'm just speculating over Perry's answer a little. As you already are aware,
, there is a sentence like this: A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire.
Maybe this sentence is actually meant for those units/weapons that are Final Fire marked from the preceeding MPh, and not those that becomes marked with Final Fire during the DFPh (as my earlier thought). A Gun marked with Final Fire in the MPh must have been doing some IF, or the crew must have done some FPP. In that case the answer is in accordance with some rules at least.
It would have been nice to know the real meaning of a sentence like this as it has quite strong implications on the rules and how a non-native english speaker like me should interpret rule wordings in ASL.
Regards
Bjørnar