OK, not really satisfied with responses on BGG about this topic, someone suggested posting here. I hope someone can set me straight with a complete and rules-based response after reading thoroughly my two original posts. Thanks in advance.
I'm going to repost two of my posts from my original query in BGG, but in summary it seems players are using TEM against FT attacks (which seems to violate the rules) to avoid FFMO (such as moving through a building), but then abandon TEM as non-applicable to the attack. I really would like a rules-based reason on where my reading of the rules is incorrect, as stated below:
*
Please, instead of just saying 10 something, quote directly the definition you feel interrupts my understanding of open ground. If there are multiple definitions of open ground that conflict with each other, then the rules need to state which "definition" of open ground is to be applied in any given situation.
It seems that some here are using "common sense" in place of a rules-based answer, which is fine, but shouldn't be represented as evident in the rules.
So again, please point directly to where the following steps fail with rules quotes, I would like to see where my "misunderstanding" is about the way this matter is handled in the rules.
1) TEM does not apply to FT attacks. A22.2
2) Open ground is where there is "no effective protective TEM." A4.6
3) Since TEM does not apply to FT attacks, there is no "effective protective TEM" for a moving unit facing a FT attack.
4) Therefore a hex, such as a building, is considered open ground for FT attacks, resulting in a -1 FFMO and no TEM offset.
****
OK, to address your points, though you haven't gone completely point to point to show where any of my 1-4 steps is incorrect
...
Rule 10.531 fails on two accounts, one is that it is circularly defined, being effectively wherever one could apply the -1 FFMO is considered open ground, and wherever there is open ground is where we apply the -1 FFMO, which is actually the crux of what we are trying to determine and so therefore of no help.
Secondly, this rule applies to "rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction", no mention of attacks on the IFT and certainly not helpful specifically for FT attacks.
I have two rulebooks, the "latest" being the pocketbook 2nd edition purchased less than one year ago with no errata indicated for Index item Open Ground which references A4.6 which states:
"A further -1 First Fire DRM applies to units moving in the open (FFMO), but whenever such movement is combined with another effective protective TEM or LOS hindrance feature (such as SMOKE or an AFV/wreck) between the target and firer or in the target Location itself, the -1 FFMO DRM does not apply."
So, points 1-4 still hold, being rephrased as...
Against FT attacks a unit moving does not have access to a TEM modifier A22.2, a lack of "effective protective" TEM defines the movement to be in open ground as per A4.6, without such TEM, the open ground FFMO modifier is applied and there is no TEM as per the A22.2 aforementioned:
"DRM: FT attacks vs. non-Armored units are resolved on the IFT but receive no DRM due to leadership/heroism or defender's TEM except for non-CA attacks on a pillbox (B30.113), LOS hindrances and the +1 DRM for CX usage apply to IFT attacks."
So I am becoming more convinced that players are applying TEM to FT attacks, as respondents hint that they are presently doing (such as moving through a building), to avoid applying the -1 FFMO, but then somehow at that point forward deciding not to apply it any more to the attack, effectively deciding on their own that the TEM does apply to prevent FFMO, but doesn't apply to enable the moving unit to benefit from the TEM due to the terrain.
I have yet to see any answer be able to justify the use of the rules in this way and so suspect that I am correct in my reading, but it goes against current accepted play for some reason.
I'm going to repost two of my posts from my original query in BGG, but in summary it seems players are using TEM against FT attacks (which seems to violate the rules) to avoid FFMO (such as moving through a building), but then abandon TEM as non-applicable to the attack. I really would like a rules-based reason on where my reading of the rules is incorrect, as stated below:
*
Please, instead of just saying 10 something, quote directly the definition you feel interrupts my understanding of open ground. If there are multiple definitions of open ground that conflict with each other, then the rules need to state which "definition" of open ground is to be applied in any given situation.
It seems that some here are using "common sense" in place of a rules-based answer, which is fine, but shouldn't be represented as evident in the rules.
So again, please point directly to where the following steps fail with rules quotes, I would like to see where my "misunderstanding" is about the way this matter is handled in the rules.
1) TEM does not apply to FT attacks. A22.2
2) Open ground is where there is "no effective protective TEM." A4.6
3) Since TEM does not apply to FT attacks, there is no "effective protective TEM" for a moving unit facing a FT attack.
4) Therefore a hex, such as a building, is considered open ground for FT attacks, resulting in a -1 FFMO and no TEM offset.
****
OK, to address your points, though you haven't gone completely point to point to show where any of my 1-4 steps is incorrect
Rule 10.531 fails on two accounts, one is that it is circularly defined, being effectively wherever one could apply the -1 FFMO is considered open ground, and wherever there is open ground is where we apply the -1 FFMO, which is actually the crux of what we are trying to determine and so therefore of no help.
Secondly, this rule applies to "rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction", no mention of attacks on the IFT and certainly not helpful specifically for FT attacks.
I have two rulebooks, the "latest" being the pocketbook 2nd edition purchased less than one year ago with no errata indicated for Index item Open Ground which references A4.6 which states:
"A further -1 First Fire DRM applies to units moving in the open (FFMO), but whenever such movement is combined with another effective protective TEM or LOS hindrance feature (such as SMOKE or an AFV/wreck) between the target and firer or in the target Location itself, the -1 FFMO DRM does not apply."
So, points 1-4 still hold, being rephrased as...
Against FT attacks a unit moving does not have access to a TEM modifier A22.2, a lack of "effective protective" TEM defines the movement to be in open ground as per A4.6, without such TEM, the open ground FFMO modifier is applied and there is no TEM as per the A22.2 aforementioned:
"DRM: FT attacks vs. non-Armored units are resolved on the IFT but receive no DRM due to leadership/heroism or defender's TEM except for non-CA attacks on a pillbox (B30.113), LOS hindrances and the +1 DRM for CX usage apply to IFT attacks."
So I am becoming more convinced that players are applying TEM to FT attacks, as respondents hint that they are presently doing (such as moving through a building), to avoid applying the -1 FFMO, but then somehow at that point forward deciding not to apply it any more to the attack, effectively deciding on their own that the TEM does apply to prevent FFMO, but doesn't apply to enable the moving unit to benefit from the TEM due to the terrain.
I have yet to see any answer be able to justify the use of the rules in this way and so suspect that I am correct in my reading, but it goes against current accepted play for some reason.