First Fire/Final Fire

[Ole Boe]

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.

This was essentially Bruce Bakken's argument. Re-read the thread for arguments for/against it. Note however that the first part of my question was a general question - that didn't except those Guns that got marked during the MPh, and the answer was a "Yes". Perry also commented to me that the reason for the "yes" was that C5.6 (not A8.4).

 

[Sparafucil3]

In light of what Perry said Ole, could you sum up what a gun is *allowed* to do with an example? I am a bit confused and would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance. -- jim

 

[Ole Boe]

My understanding (in the light of the Perry sez), is that a Gun may use Intensive Fire during PFPh, enemy MPh and DFPh (but only during AFPh if using Opportunity Fire).

During the DFPh, the Gun is restricted to adjacent (or same-hex) targets when using IF (regardless of whether it is marked with First or Final Fire), but there are no such restriction during the other phases - so during the enemy MPh, the Gun may use IF vs a target that is not the closest Known enemy units.

 

[Treadhead]

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.

Maybe I am becoming a grumpy old man.

Seriously though, this thread rubbed me the wrong way for some reason, and I had an outburst. Apparently the outburst wasn't quite finished yet...

And without getting into it too deeply -- because it would be way off topic of this thread -- I have become quite a bit jaded about the nature of how rules are discussed (here and on the ASLML) and then sent to Perry.

I'm having the feeling that you find it much more worthwile to critizise others ...

I can understand how you can have that impression, especially in light of my more recent responses. The short answer is, I don't feel that way, but I can certainly see how it comes across that way.

... and ask the questions you think is correct yourself.

The reason I don't ask Perry more questions is because I usually don't have the question myself; in other words, if left to my own I would not usually have had the question to begin with. Most times this is the case.

During the course of arguing for a particular rule, I feel that the answer is usually there, and people just are not reading it correctly and simply do not understand it correctly. I'm not inclined to ask Perry the question just to win the argument, which is how it would feel to me if I asked it. Most of the time there would be no reason for me to ask the question, because in my mind I already know the answer.

(By no means am I suggesting that you or others ask questions just to win arguments, I believe you really want to know the correct answer. Nor am I suggesting that I am always correct, that assertion would be ridiculous on my part.)

I will be glad if you prove me wrong though.

As far as I am concerned, proving anybody right or wrong is not what interests me. I just wanted to make sure I stated that clearly, because I am not motivated by showing people up.

Certainly I am frustrated by the Q&A process itself. What is the point of having rules discussions, anyway? Eventually somebody always finally says, "I'll ask Perry." And then maybe he'll answer, maybe he won't. But you can be certain that somebody will follow up his answer with, "oh well, I'm not playing that way unless it becomes official."

I have asked several questions over the past three years that have never been answered, so I am less and less inclined to ask a question unless I really and truly do not understand the rule, which frankly rarely happens. At least, in my opinion.

I'll try to keep your comments about my critical nature in mind. But I warn you: come next October, if I'm not able to make ASLOK again, I'm liable to be quite grumpy indeed.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

I just want to follow up with this.

If the "Perry Sez" has to be explained, how can it be considered to be clear?

There is a flaw somewhere, either in the original question, or in the answer. Otherwise, would people still be wondering what it means?

Something to think about...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Sparafucil3]

I just want to follow up with this.

If the "Perry Sez" has to be explained, how can it be considered to be clear?

There is a flaw somewhere, either in the original question, or in the answer. Otherwise, would people still be wondering what it means?

Something to think about...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

I only asked that it be explained in light of the conversations that took place in this thread. The answer provided by Ole is what I thought was correct, based on my reading of the pertinent rules sections. I was confused some by the many persuasive arguments offered by both sides of the debate. Thanks Ole for summing it up. -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

There is a flaw somewhere, either in the original question, or in the answer. Otherwise, would people still be wondering what it means?

There simply can be the fact that the question and answer don't cover all the elements of the present discussion.

 

[Larry]

The purpose of resorting to a Perry Sez is simple. Language and communication are ambiguous and reasonable minds can differ. To say "the rules are clear to me and this is what they mean" without entertaining the very real notion that the rules can be interpreted differently is arrogant.

In the final analysis, it does not matter what the rules are. It matters only that we all know what the rules are. If a gun can IF at any target or only adjacent targets in the DFPH, we need to know that and not waste time during a game to have a legitimate debate. Once we concede the linguistic basis of the debate (i.e. I see why you would read the rules that way, but this way is better or more correct) then it is time for a Perry Sez. That Perry has not responded to some questions that are at this juncture undisclosed within the body of this thread does not dispel the notion that Perry ought to and has resolved this question.

It is now time to move on to the next rules debate.