For PF targetting... is a squad that possesses a DC "manning a SW"?

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I don't think "manning" is formally defined. In the real world I think one would not speak of possessing a DC as "manning it", but in the context of ASL rules I think it is. "Manning" in the ASL rulebook seems to be a synonym for "possessing." It might be nice to get a formal ruling on this, but that is my impression.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Some follow-on questions: can you choose a unit possessing a Radio? Can you choose a unit possessing an inherent SW such as a MOL? An ATMM (it appears on the Support Weapons Chart)?

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Yes. Don't see what else C13.31 could mean, sure "possessing" could have been an alternate wording. Any 1/2" SW will do, IMO.

C13.31:
"..unit is Known and manning a Gun/SW. .."
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
"What else could it mean?" well 'manning' could apply only to weapons that are typically served by at least two men -- crew/ammo carrier-loaders: MGs Mortars Bazooka -- and that would rule out inherent weapons, DC and Radio (and regarding ATGs ummm I'm not sure...) it could mean that... but if it did mean that it surely would say somewhere in the RB or at least have been clarified before now -- so yes at this point I think it has to mean possessing a 1/2" SW, or any GUN... but I'm surprised to learn it hasnt already been officially clarified in a Q&A... It seems like a pretty reasonable question to me.
 

A_T_Great

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
804
Reaction score
578
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
Some follow-on questions: can you choose a unit possessing a Radio? Can you choose a unit possessing an inherent SW such as a MOL? An ATMM (it appears on the Support Weapons Chart)?

JR
Inherent weapons do not count. SW def, Any weapon depicted on a half inch counter.
I'm not sure a radio would count either, because the definition of weapon in the RB is, and SW/Gun-vehicular armament etc. using the IFT/TK table to cause damage to the opponent. Radios direct placement of OBA and are not involved in the IFT/TK process.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Inherent weapons do not count. SW def, Any weapon depicted on a half inch counter.
I'm not sure a radio would count either, because the definition of weapon in the RB is, and SW/Gun-vehicular armament etc. using the IFT/TK table to cause damage to the opponent. Radios direct placement of OBA and are not involved in the IFT/TK process.
This gets murky pretty quickly... Index: "SW (Support Weapon; any weapon depicted on a ½" counter) ok, so that's lowercase not uppecase 'weapon'... is a Radio a lowercase weapon depicted on an SW? -- Well it's not an uppercase Weapon: -- Weapon: (Any SW/Gun/Vehicular-armament/Daisy-Chain/MOL using the IFT/TK table to cause damage to the opponent)... this seems to imply, or at least allow that something can be an SW without being a Weapon. Clearly a radio isn't a Weapon... it doesn't use the IFT/TK table... but is it a weapon depicted on 1/2" counter... aka SW.... ya kinda want to say "no" it isn't except then there's this:

1.22 MAINTAINING RADIO CONTACT: To maintain Radio Contact from a preceding turn, the player must roll ≤ the Radio Contact value again in his next PFPh or DFPh (whichever comes first), but may deduct one from the DR [EXC: the Maintenance DRM is -2 if the battery is 70+mm/80+mm battalion mortar OBA.2]. The Maintenance DR is the Observer's sole allowed action for that fire phase (other than further allowed radio activities). A radio is a 1PP SW. [...]

So a radio is a SW, which makes it a weapon... it just isn't a Weapon.:unsure:

I feel like maybe an erratum exc or something somewhere might help things.

ATGreat you sound confident that inherent SW aren't a subset of SW but rather their own distinct category. I think that's the accepted general interpretation too.

PS.... if you've got time for GS.... don't you have a log to get to!? :whistle:
 

A_T_Great

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
804
Reaction score
578
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
This gets murky pretty quickly... Index: "SW (Support Weapon; any weapon depicted on a ½" counter) ok, so that's lowercase not uppecase 'weapon'... is a Radio a lowercase weapon depicted on an SW? -- Well it's not an uppercase Weapon: -- Weapon: (Any SW/Gun/Vehicular-armament/Daisy-Chain/MOL using the IFT/TK table to cause damage to the opponent)... this seems to imply, or at least allow that something can be an SW without being a Weapon. Clearly a radio isn't a Weapon... it doesn't use the IFT/TK table... but is it a weapon depicted on 1/2" counter... aka SW.... ya kinda want to say "no" it isn't except then there's this:

1.22 MAINTAINING RADIO CONTACT: To maintain Radio Contact from a preceding turn, the player must roll ≤ the Radio Contact value again in his next PFPh or DFPh (whichever comes first), but may deduct one from the DR [EXC: the Maintenance DRM is -2 if the battery is 70+mm/80+mm battalion mortar OBA.2]. The Maintenance DR is the Observer's sole allowed action for that fire phase (other than further allowed radio activities). A radio is a 1PP SW. [...]

So a radio is a SW, which makes it a weapon... it just isn't a Weapon.:unsure:

I feel like maybe an erratum exc or something somewhere might help things.

ATGreat you sound confident that inherent SW aren't a subset of SW but rather their own distinct category. I think that's the accepted general interpretation too.

PS.... if you've got time for GS.... don't you have a log to get to!? :whistle:
Just hold your Horses! And any other cliche you can think of! You are probably right regarding radios as SWs though. It is strange they used the word manning here though.
 

A_T_Great

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
804
Reaction score
578
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
P.S. Once in a while even for us fanatics, drinking beer and watching movies is preferable to ASL. And during the olympics, things really slow down ASL wise.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
It is strange they used the word manning here though.
"Manning" is used is a lot of places in the rulebook -

A7.53:
"Hence a squad that elects to use its inherent FP in a different attack than that of the MG it is manning ..."

A12.12:
"If a Gun, vehicle, Cavalry, horse, or bicycle (or SW) counter loses its hidden/concealed status (regardless of range) so does its manning Infantry or PRC, and vice versa."

Pretty sure it's meant to be equivalent to "possessing".
 

A_T_Great

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
804
Reaction score
578
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
"Manning" is used is a lot of places in the rulebook -

A7.53:
"Hence a squad that elects to use its inherent FP in a different attack than that of the MG it is manning ..."

A12.12:
"If a Gun, vehicle, Cavalry, horse, or bicycle (or SW) counter loses its hidden/concealed status (regardless of range) so does its manning Infantry or PRC, and vice versa."

Pretty sure it's meant to be equivalent to "possessing".
But without the definition it opens rules like this up to interpretation.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Inherent weapons do not count. SW def, Any weapon depicted on a half inch counter.
"Inherent: Any capability included within a counter with no need to represented by another counter" [Index].
"Inherent SW: ATMM, MOL, PF, PFk [Index]

According to the index there is no need literally to have counters. There are certain SW that are SW without ½-inch counters.

JR
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
I think the "what else could it mean" argument is persuasive... that is, if it meant something really other than possessing it would have to be defined. So why use manning at all? I think Klas' mention the use of riders etc is the clue to using the word manning rather than possessing... does a bike rider, or cavalry "possess" when riding? An AFV rider doesnt possess an afv.... I >guess< thats the explanation.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
But without the definition it opens rules like this up to interpretation.
Personally I don't think so, ymmv. :)
The only "special" case I can think of at the moment is when two SMC "man" a SW to fire it, but still only one of them "possess" it.

In the case of C13.31 - if "manned" does not mean "possess" - what do you think it could mean otherwise?

But drop MMP a Q&A. "Manning" is used approximately 110 times in the rulebook.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
According to the index there is no need literally to have counters. There are certain SW that are SW without ½-inch counters.
I think you missed what I was saying to ATG about subset vs separate cstegory. If Inherent SW is a subcategory of SW then theJRV logic applies... if Inherent SW is a fully independent category from SW, the the ATG logic applies... and I think that is the interpretation most folks use... it still leaves radios in a bit limbo imo.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Yes -- they are 1PP SW as I quoted earlier... they aren't in limbo... I mispoke... ..whats in limbo is a good tight definition of SW -- because the index definition contradicts the RB, a radio isn't a weapon according to the index ... there should be an erratum for that definition imo giving an [exc Radio] to the provision that the SW must be a weapon and therefore use the IFT/TH. Radio doesn't do that.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I think you missed what I was saying to ATG about subset vs separate cstegory. If Inherent SW is a subcategory of SW then theJRV logic applies... if Inherent SW is a fully independent category from SW, the the ATG logic applies... and I think that is the interpretation most folks use
If inherent SW are not SW but an independent entity, do units lose concealment for firing a PF? They lose concealment if they fire a SW, but there is no mention in rules or q&a for losing concealment for firing an "inherent SW" separate from SW.

Do units lose acquisition for firing an "inherent SW"? D6.5 says they lose it for firing a SW, but no mention of an "inherent SW." In this case this has already been answered in a q&a:
C6.5
Regarding the clause “or they fire Inherent FP/SW” in C6.5 – A German MMC has a MTR and MG SW and acquisition on hex A1. Does it lose acquisition if it fires a PF? Does it lose acquisition if it fires the MG? That is, does the phrase mean all SW or just Inherent SW?
A. Yes to both. All SW.
This q&a is clear that inherent SW are a subcategory of SW.

If you go the route of treating "inherent SW" as something that are not SW, you either have to patch up lots of other rules, or you treat "inherent SW" as behaving very differently from SW in many places. I consider them a subset. The q&a considers them a subset. I think the C13.31 rule needs to be patched for that, rather than thinking the entire rulebook needs to be patched so that everywhere it says "SW" now it should say "SW/inherent SW."

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I don't see why a SMC/MMC possessing a Radio could not be targetted by a PF. "SW" and "Weapons" are two different terms. The latter only being added to the Index since it was present in Red Barricades. The addition of such HASL stuff into the 2nd Edition was a misstake IMO. It has made some rules unclearer, unintentionally.
 
Top