As I posted in another thread, I believe the rule was created to prevent player sleaze, just as UUVs have no TEM or hindrance until they die. ASL players play dirty unless the rules force them to play nice.
And as I replied in that other thread, the supposed sleaze being prevented is neither sleazy (or even "gamey") nor, in most cases, all that useful (because of the afore-mentioned difficulties involved in recovering the weapon from the vehicle). A rule that prevents you from doing something that is not unrealistic and only rarely useful is not a rule worth the effort of printing, i.e., "stupid".
The Scenario is 191 Buchholz Station which gives you a Jeep and a dm HMG with an SSR that says: "The dm .50-Cal HMG must set up in the jeep."
So then the SSR overrides the provision in 6.4 that you state due to the RB definition of SSR which states "Always takes precedence over Game System Rules."
Yes, you're quite correct. It would have been nice if the SSR included a reference to D6.4 being NA in this case. (And to what extent is it NA? What if I recover the dm MG from the jeep and then, later,
put it back? Is D6.4 nullified just for setup or for the entire scenario? Is it only nullified for that vehicle or for all vehicles in the scenario? Dollars to donuts that the scenario designer was actually completely unaware of the implications of D6.4!)
This whole thread shows the sometimes disconnect ASL has with reality either due to poor rules writing
No, not really. Chapter D was written by Don Greenwood, who had a, uh, liberal approach to rules writing (for evidence, see Chapter E), while Chapter G was written by Bob McNamara, who strongly believed in crossing every "t" and dotting every "i". Yes, Chapter G is much more verbose, and over two decades has shown to have needed hardly any errata
at all; while there are still holes in Chapters A-E awaiting filling. I know which approach
I prefer!
As for the "accessibility" of jeeps vs. trucks etc., while I understand your point, I'd prefer a consistent approach to the rules. The alternative is lots of special exceptions. Then you inevitably get arguments from people who say "why does the EXC apply to
this and not to
that?". God knows it's an argument I've made myself in other contexts! Yes, the rules
could be written to identify "easily-accessible vehicles" vs. "ordinary" ones; or should it be "normally-accessible vehicles" vs. "difficult" ones? Where do you end up drawing the line? In these cases I usually prefer simple/consistent vs. obsessively realistic.
... and BTW a m2 .50 Cal HMG is not going to "roll under the seat" of jeep.
It does if the rules say it does. Or would you prefer that it evaporates on exposure to sunlight? Pick your own poison, you have to swallow it regardless.
