Guns are Ordnance... this is a given.... (?)

[Honosbinda]

Trying to confirm this:

Ordnance (any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit):

[which weapons are those? Where is this specified? I can't find this.]

Gun (for firing purposes, any weapon on a 5/8" counter currently firing as ordnance;

[Implying that guns may not have to fire as ordnance. Sure, the known exception is IFE, but this doesn't say GUNS otherwise must behave as ordnance although it is implied.]

A9.6 VEHICULAR TARGETS: The process for resolution of MG fire vs vehicular targets is dependent on whether the vehicle Target Facing/Aspect is armored or not. If the Target Facing is armored, such fire is resolved on the AP To Kill Table after securing a hit on the To Hit Table;

[Clear that MGs must make a TH die roll but I find no equivalent rule specifying that GUNS must make a TH die roll, except: see C2.29 below for a reference to the 'normal TH procedure,' -- unspecified in the rules as such and unreferenced in the passage -- there is reference to a TH process for Ordnance in C3.1, but not a normal TH procedure ]

C2.29 INFANTRY FIREPOWER EQUIVALENT (IFE): This is a special option afforded certain Guns with a high ROF. Any number appearing in parentheses is that Gun's IFE, which is used directly on the IFT in lieu of using the normal TH procedure

[The normal TH procedure? what is that? Is this the only place telling us that 'normally, GUNS fire as Ordnance?' Surely and hopefully I am mistaken...but I've poured over the rules for 45 minutes now so I must be missing the obvious..]

 

[Robin Reeve]

Isn't Ordnance simply a way of designating, not a weapon, but the TH DR process?
Thus the Index definition :

Ordnance: (any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit)

 

[Honosbinda]

Isn't Ordnance simply a way of designating, not a weapon, but the TH DR process?
Thus the Index definition :

Well, the Index definition specifically says ordnance is a weapon, not a process. What is on this list of weapons which MUST score a Hit on the table.? Specifically, I can't find any rule that spells out GUNS are Ordnance or even that they MUST use the TH table. The only rule (I can find) that is clear about it is the rule for MGs (A9.6).

It follows that of course they must, I'm not disputing that. I'm just looking for the rule that says so, rather than several rules that merely imply it. Rules lawyering...

 

[Robin Reeve]

It links the weapon to the TH process, so the equation : "Ordnance is a weapon" is a debatable shortcut. Like saying that a mammal is a rabbit.
So one could argue that a given weapon is only Ordnance when it must apply TH DR - and that it can be something else than Ordnance when applying another process, such as firing on the IFT with its IFE capability.
So a Gun without IFE capability would always be Ordnance.

 

[Honosbinda]

I don't agree with your logic. No, it's not like saying a mammal is a rabbit. Your conclusion is like saying a rabbit is a mammal because it can't be anything else.

This is what it is like saying: Ordnance is any weapon which must use the TH table.

Ergo, there must be a weapon characteristic that must use the TH process. Find me the list and find me the rule that says a Gun must use the TH process.

 

[Vinnie]

A gun can a t as ordnance or not depending on circumstance. Guns are not Ordnance, they are Guns.

 

[Honosbinda]

A gun can a t as ordnance or not depending on circumstance. Guns are not Ordnance, they are Guns.

Not disputed. What I want to know is where it says that GUNS are Ordnance because they are weapons that must use the TH table, instead of infering that from the rules about MGs and IFE.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

C2.1 GUNS/SW: Any ordnance-capable weapon depicted on a 5/8" counter is termed a Gun, while any on a ½" counter is a SW. (Highlight mine)

Guns are not Ordnance. Guns are ordnance-capable weapons on 5/8" counters.

 

[Honosbinda]

C2.1 GUNS/SW: Any ordnance-capable weapon depicted on a 5/8" counter is termed a Gun, while any on a ½" counter is a SW. (Highlight mine)

Guns are not Ordnance. Guns are ordnance-capable weapons on 5/8" counters.

Best answer yet. Thanks! It's too bad that 'Ordnance-capable' weapons are not listed in the Index. It would be useful to have a list of weapons that MUST use the TH process. Why not have something like that? Not that I expect an answer.

You have to admit that the definitions of Gun/Ordnance/Ordnance-capable are a bit awkward to take in with all this rummaging around the rulebook to read of important terms not found in the Index , such as the 'Normal TH Procedure' and 'Ordnance-capable.'

 

[Robin Reeve]

C2.1 is limited to differentiating Guns and SW.
For an example, vehicles with ordnance capable weapons are depicted on 5/8" counters but are not Guns.

 

[jrv]

If I generalize it your "question" seems to be, "does the ASLRB use words and/or phrases without defining them (formally or even informally), words and/or phrases that sometimes seem to rise to the level of technical terms?" The answer is, "yes." There have been several rules discussions where a definition of the word/phrase "attack" would have been quite useful. "Action" is another where the player is left to work out the meaning. As a practical answer, all weapons listed on the various nationality Ordnance Listings are ordnance at least to some degree. Some other weapons not listed on those charts are also ordnance, e.g. Baz. Do you have a practical, game-situation-specific application where this failure to define formally "ordnance" will leave you unable to proceed in a game?

The "normal TH procedure" I will say is a reference to C3, "The To Hit Process."

JR

 

[zgrose]

Find me the list and find me the rule that says a Gun must use the TH process.

What other process would they use? These other processes generally have their own requirements that exclude use by a Gun.

 

[Honosbinda]

I am having trouble understanding the nature of your emergency. If I generalize it your question seems to be, "does the ASLRB use words and/or phrases without defining them (formally or even informally), words and/or phrases that sometimes seem to rise to the level of technical terms?" The answer is, "yes." There have been several rules discussions where a definition of the word/phrase "attack" would have been quite useful. "Action" is another where the player is left to work out the meaning. As a practical answer, all weapons listed on the various nationality Ordnance Listings are ordnance at least to some degree. Some other weapons not listed on those charts are also ordnance, e.g. Baz. Do you have a practical, game-situation-specific application where this failure to define formally "ordnance" will leave you unable to proceed in a game?

JR

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the title of this sub-forum was 'Rules and Errata Related Only to Game-Emergency Situations.' I actually thought any rules question or potential errata could be brought to attention in here

The generalization you propose is not exactly accurate. Had I wanted to ask that general question, I have the intellect to articulate it thus. I do appreciate your answer to the question, though. No, I think I was sufficiently specific on the matter being questioned because I don't expect the entire Index to consist of the English Language Dictionary; nonetheless, I do expect it to contain important and highly relevant terms necessary to correctly play the game.

But you are correct, and I do agree, that the Ordnance listing indicates that weapons such as Guns are indeed Ordnance, in spite of previous arguments above that Guns are not Ordnance, but are instead Ordnance-capable weapons or a gun is a gun is a gun not ordnance, etc... So we could say that, finally, the delineation of a Gun being an Ordnance weapon is to be found in Chapter H -- of all places. I guess it counts!

But as you say, BAZ, which actually should appear in the Ordnance listings, are curiously left off, while Light Mortars are not.

Let me sum up: I am suggesting that the ASLRB writers could have been more careful about describing Ordnance vs Ordnance-capable, and being more precise about what weapons MUST use the TH process. Is this a practical suggestion? I think so, if one were trying to learn what the hell Ordnance has to be without someone showing them what it is in the game.

 

[Honosbinda]

What other process would they use? These other processes generally have their own requirements that exclude use by a Gun.

Well, if you are saying that a person trying to learn this game needs to read the entire set of rules on other processes and determine what Guns cannot do, I think that would be the most difficult way to figure out what Guns can only do!

 

[Honosbinda]

Maybe I should explain how this came up. I was actually looking for a way out when my opponent flamed my Stuart with an FT, hoping I could find that he needed to make a TH roll first, haha. Of course the tank remains kaput.

But that led me to explore -- how does one find out if FT is 'Ordnance' or not? That led to examining the overall situation about Ordnance. Maybe nobody cares about the weird meanderings of my mind when I have too much free time but in fairness to JR he was kinda asking me how and why this came up in the first place. That's it.

 

[Vinnie]

I'm confused.
Yopu were given the game definition pof Ordnance right at the start:

Ordnance (any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit):

So a Gun can be Ordnance if it is making a to hit roll but is not necessarily ordnance if it is using IFE.

Guns are Guns. They can act as Ordnance or not as circumstances permit. Some guns can only fire as Ordnance.
If you are looking for something other than the game definition of Ordnance, then the Rules folder is the wrong place.

 

[Vinnie]

Not disputed. What I want to know is where it says that GUNS are Ordnance because they are weapons that must use the TH table, instead of infering that from the rules about MGs and IFE.

No such section exists. You need to understand the game definition of Ordnance.

 

[zgrose]

Well, if you are saying that a person trying to learn this game needs to read the entire set of rules on other processes and determine what Guns cannot do, I think that would be the most difficult way to figure out what Guns can only do!

I dunno. If I want to CC with my Gun, I find the CC section tells me they don’t that any FP in CC. If I want to fire at an AFV it tells me how to do so which is different than firing at a UAV. Unfortunately one does have to jump around to find the full process for certain activities but if one approaches it as “I want to do this, is there a rule section for it” it flows well enough.

In a rule set chock full of SSR and EXC, trying to distill ironclad “truths” tends to make the game harder to learn than easier in my experience. A lot of ASL is just rote learning.

 

[Robin Reeve]

ASL has been published in 1985.
The so-called problem here debated hasn't prevented anyone from learning the game and from understanding and applying the notions correctly for about 33 years.
So, it just seems an attempt of Marc, among some others, to show that the rules are badly written.
It does actually show that, indeed, some notions could have been spelled more precisely, but that, common sense prevailing, about nobody found the intellectual challenge impossible to meet.
IMO it is a storm in a teapot - which won't prevent us from drinking the tea, as we managed to do up to now.
It always is amusing to look up the rules and try to solve virtual problems, though.

 

[Philippe D.]

The rules have to serve a double purpose: as a reference for people who essentially know how the game works but need to check something, and as a tool to learn the game. As they are, they are already sufficiently (IMHO) biased toward the first, making the second a difficult thing when attempted without outside help.

Does the current wording really confuse anyone? I don't think so.

Would adding one entry to the Index so as to make the distinction between "Ordnance (acting as)" and "Ordnance-capable" 100% clear, increase the risk of someone being confused? Yes, I think so.

After all these years, I still remember when I bought the ASLRB and started to, well, read the rules. I didn't start with the Index, but otherwise started reading in order. And honestly, when I got to A.14 Collateral attacks, I had a moment where I wondered if I had just made a big mistake and wasted lots of money on this game - here I was in the first pages of this monster 150+ pages rulebook, and already I was completely lost.