HIP up to one squad equivalent

[apbills]

Re: HIP in a real game

Lets ask this question.

The SSR says your opponent can set up 2 squad equivalents (and any SMC's stacked with them) HIP.

So you begin play and discover during play that your opponent has set up a full squad (with a smc) HIP, and 2 half squads (one with a SMC) in HIP locations. AND his hero and 1 other SMC at other locations are also set up HIP.

Are we saying we'd be ok with this if it happens to us during a tournament? Or that we'd be ok doing it to our opponent during a tournament?

This is illegal. Your opponent has setup 2.2 SE HIP. 1 squad, 2 HS and 2 SMC not stacked with other SE. Per the SSR, only those SMC stacked with the given HIP squad equivalents are allowed to setup HIP (without counting against that given limit).

Alan

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: HIP in a real game

Here are mine
1) 2.4 - assuming the SMC are not setup in the same Locations as the other HIP units.
2) No
3) No
4) No - it is illegal
5/6) do not matter

Reread the entire A5 rules section.

Where does it in anyplace state that <= 4 SMC = zero squad equivalents?
It never does this. It is a figment of peoples imagination.

Hmm. In my rulebook, I have a rule A5.5 which starts:
"5.5 EQUIVALENTS: Five SMC equal a HS, and two crews/HS equal a squad, but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents."

Its possible that this rule is only a figment of my imagination, but I doub't it, since I've seen in other rulebooks as well. :wink:

A5.1 states the stacking limits of a location. What are they?
"three squads or their equivalents plus up to four SMC per Location"

This does not equate to <= 4 SMC = 0 squad equivalents.

I agree, but then its A5.5, not A5.1 that defines Squad Equivalents

A5.5 defines squad equivalents. Pretty clear math. I suspect anyone playing ASL can handle basic fractions.

:shock: So you choose to simply ignore the sentence in A5.5 saying "...but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents.", and instead apply a (non-existing) rule saying that 1 SMC = 0.1 Squad equivalent?

If you set up an SMC HIP without stacking with a squad (per the SSR language) - it is legal, but it will cost you 0.1 squad equivalent, effectively using a HS unless you want to HIP some more SMC.

And which rule have you found this in? It must certainly be something overriding A5.5, so it would be nice if you pointed me to it.

And, btw. I assume you say its illegal to stack a squad + a leader in a pillbox too? After all, the pillbox has a stacking limit of one squad equivalent, not one squad equivalent + <= 4 SMC.

 

[apbills]

Re: HIP in a real game

Here are mine
1) 2.4 - assuming the SMC are not setup in the same Locations as the other HIP units.
2) No
3) No
4) No - it is illegal
5/6) do not matter

Reread the entire A5 rules section.

Where does it in anyplace state that <= 4 SMC = zero squad equivalents?
It never does this. It is a figment of peoples imagination.

Hmm. In my rulebook, I have a rule A5.5 which starts:
"5.5 EQUIVALENTS: Five SMC equal a HS, and two crews/HS equal a squad, but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents."

Its possible that this rule is only a figment of my imagination, but I doub't it, since I've seen in other rulebooks as well. :wink:

Hm. Mine does not. Which version of the rulebook do you have?

A5.5 Equivalents: Five SMC equal a HS, and two crew/HS equal a squad. However, if an Infantry crew/HS is manning a gun it is considered equal to a squad for stacking purposes. A squad's equivalent can be subsituted for a squad which has been given special capabilities by SSR so as to share those special capabilities (e.g., if a SSR specifies that a squad may set up hidden, two hidden HS can be used instead provided that nationality is allowed to Deploy HS).

That is the complete paragraph in my rulebook, version 2.

A5.5 defines squad equivalents. Pretty clear math. I suspect anyone playing ASL can handle basic fractions.

:shock: So you choose to simply ignore the sentence in A5.5 saying "...but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents.", and instead apply a (non-existing) rule saying that 1 SMC = 0.1 Squad equivalent?

refer to the above A5.5, where it clearly states it.

If you set up an SMC HIP without stacking with a squad (per the SSR language) - it is legal, but it will cost you 0.1 squad equivalent, effectively using a HS unless you want to HIP some more SMC.

And which rule have you found this in? It must certainly be something overriding A5.5, so it would be nice if you pointed me to it.

Again, it apears we have a disconnect in versions of the rulebook.

And, btw. I assume you say its illegal to stack a squad + a leader in a pillbox too? After all, the pillbox has a stacking limit of one squad equivalent, not one squad equivalent + <= 4 SMC.

NRBH, so I need to get back home to look at the exact wording.

bottom line is the version of A5.5 I am looking at is not the same as the version A5.5. you are looking at. Perhaps they updated it when going to Version 2. I was looking at my electronic version, so I will go back and make sure I properly incorporated the version 2 updates.

Alan

 

[Brian W]

Re: HIP in a real game

That is the complete paragraph in my rulebook, version 2. . . . I was looking at my electronic version, so I will go back and make sure I properly incorporated the version 2 updates.

It looks like your eASLRBv2 is missing a bit of information from the paper ASLRBv2.

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: HIP in a real game

bottom line is the version of A5.5 I am looking at is not the same as the version A5.5. you are looking at. Perhaps they updated it when going to Version 2. I was looking at my electronic version, so I will go back and make sure I properly incorporated the version 2 updates.

That explains it. I'm sorry if I was a bit sarcastic in my answer. I just couldn't understand how you just ignored the part about <= SMC equalling zero Squad Equivalents.

If I recall correctly, the ASLML had a discussion 5 or so years ago about whether it was legal to have a leader stacked with a squad in a 1-size Pillbox. With one SMC equalling 0.1 SE, it wouldn't be legal. I guess this part about <= 4 SMC equalling 0 SE was added to fix this, and then opened up this problem we're discussing here.

 

[apbills]

Well, after checking the written word, it is cear my e-rulebook had some holes in it.

However, after looking through things - it is clear the "fix" is causing more problems then the original issue - which seems to be the pillbox stacking problem.

Are you overstacked in a normal Location with 3 squads and 8 SMC? I would say by this little fix to A5.5, NO! I get my 3 squad equivalents, plus 4 SMC, plus an additional 4 SMC since they count as zero squad equivalents.

The fix could have been much better. Either modify the language in each terrain section (pillbox and steeples come to mind) with the "plus up to four SMC" as in A5.1, which would leave it open for other sections that may not be obvious, or better, modifiy A5.1 to remove the "and plus up to four SMC" and A5.5 to state in clear language that for STACKING purposes only, <= 4 SMC count as zero equivalents.

Alan

 

[Stacks]

Agree with others that the word "equivalents" should be removed from
SSR about HIP otherwise you could in some very large scenarios that allows
HIP of 2 squad equivalents be able to HIP all 18 leaders and one halfsquad in up to 18-19 different hexes :OHNO:

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Agree with others that the word "equivalents" should be removed from
SSR about HIP otherwise you could in some very large scenarios that allows
HIP of 2 squad equivalents be able to HIP all 18 leaders and one halfsquad in up to 18-19 different hexes :OHNO:

I'm impressed threads still exist from 5 years ago...

Perry did a drive-by in another thread along these lines indicating that HIP'ing leaders in seperate locations under the "squad equivalent" verbiage is illegal and would have you playing "Advanced Squad" pretty quick as all your leaders would be eliminated for being illegally HIP.

i.e. I don't recommend trying it ASLOK (or WO for that matter) anytime soon as the TD will not look kindly on that if it comes to a TD ruling. :devious:

 

[Bret Hildebran]

For the record, Perry's response in the other thread is here:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=943217&postcount=28

The overall thread is "HIP SSR wording":
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=72309

Perry responds to a Tate post as follows:

Let's say I am playing in a tourney, I HIP a squad equivalent (SQE) per SSR and 4 SMC (the 4 SMC all HIP independently of the SQE). At some point in the scenario I pop out one of the SMC with an LATW and whack an enemy AFV...after having revealed my SQE HIP in a different location...my opponent calls foul.

What does the TD do?

He says:

"You and I both know this is BS, and I have the Perry Sez to back it up, and even if I didn't, I am the TD. If you really wanted to try this, you should have asked me before setup, and I could have told you it was unacceptable. Now your SMC are merely removed."

I think that's pretty clear that it's illegal to HIP leaders independent of the squads using the equivalency clause...

 

[Stacks]

Perry did a drive-by in another thread along these lines indicating that HIP'ing leaders in seperate locations under the "squad equivalent" verbiage is illegal and would have you playing "Advanced Squad" pretty quick as all your leaders would be eliminated for being illegally HIP.

Perry Sez is not rules so they would fight on despite your belief maybe the sez will appear as an errata in the next Journal.
Anyhow only thought that Perry dealt with the Rules not a designer´s created SSR that takes precedence over the rules.

The Errata should deal with SSR that reads

The XXXX player may set up one squad-equivalents (and any SW/SMC stacked with it) use HIP.

replace it with this SSR - common usage from Avalon Hill period:

One XXXX squad may use HIP and any SW/SMC stacked with it.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Or : "MMC, up to # squad equivalent(s), may set up HIP, and any SMC/SW setting up with it/them too".

 

[Coenedens]

Just yesterday I was wondering about an SSR in a scenario in Hollow Legions (I do not remember exactly which one) where it's written "up to 3 squads may setup HIP" etc...

As there are some half-squads already in the OB (without the need to deploy first) I was asking to myself if "up to 3 squads" may be satisfied by 2 squads and 1 half squad...

I'm prone to give the answer "no", because the SSR does not say "or equivalents" as it happens to be in other scenarios (maybe more recent ones?). Am I wrong?

 

[Bret Hildebran]

I'm prone to give the answer "no", because the SSR does not say "or equivalents" as it happens to be in other scenarios (maybe more recent ones?). Am I wrong?

A5.5 specifically allows substituting half squads for squads in cases like HIP & even explicitly references it in the e.g.: "A squad’s equivalent can be substituted for a squad which has been given special capabilities by a SSR so as to share those special capabilities (e.g., if a SSR specifies that a squad may set up hidden, two hidden HS can be used instead provided that nationality is allowed to Deploy HS)."

 

[Patton007]

If an SSR states that you may HIP up to one squad equivalent (and any SMC/SW stacked with him), can you:

1. HIP only a HS?

2. Define a squad equivalent as a HS and 4 SMC's and HIP them all in seperate locations?

3. HIP a full squad and a SMC in two separate locations since it takes 4 SMCs to make a HS.

I believe 1 and 2 above are legal, but 3 would not be because it exceeds a squad equivalent by an SMC.

1) YES its legal
2) NO its not legal. Why. they are not in the same location per SSR
3) NO its not legal..same as above

 

[Stacks]

First, let me restate that I believe the intention of such an SSR is to not allow this, but the rules does unfortunately allow it, which is why I think an official Q&A/Errata in A12.3 is needed.


Quote:
What you've done in your case is use HIP for "one squad equivalent", plus use HIP for additional SMC. That is contrary to A5.5. "A squad's equivalent may be substituted for a squad"; it does not say "a squad's equivalent plus 4 SMC may be substituted for a squad".
The problem with the rules is that "one squad equivalent plus additional SMC" is still only one squad equivalent. A5.5 doesn't need to say "a squad's equivalent plus 4 SMC may be substituted for a squad", because 2 HS + 4 SMC is "a squad's equivalent", nothing more. If it was, you wouldn't be able to stack a leader with a squad in a PB.

Quote:
Look at it this way: Say you are granted the ability to use HIP for one squad equivalent. Do that first. You may use any combination you want as found in A5.5, but you must stop when you reach one squad equivalent. That's all you are allowed to set up using HIP; that's it.
Well, I could start by placing two SMC HIP (zero squad-equivalents), and then place one squad HIP. Now tell me the exact number of squad-equvalents I've HIP'ed: A5.5 tells me that I've still only HIP'ed 1 squad-equivalent. Not 1.2 although that would make sense. If you think I've HIP'ed more than one squad-equivalent, please show me a rule which tells that 2 SMC + 1 squad is more than one squad-equivalent.

Quote:
An SSR would be required to allow you to use HIP for any SMC that are not a part of the "one squad equivalent".

This is usually -- as in the original example -- accomplished by the phrase "and any SMC stacked with them". I.e., once you have used HIP for your "one squad equivalent", you may then place additional SMC in those same Locations.
I agree that this is the intention, but as I have shown, it is not supported by the rules.

Quote:
I don't believe there is any such loophole for the "zero squad equivalent" argument as you've described, and I believe that the applicable rule reference is in fact A5.5.
If this loophole doesn't exist, then I must have broken a rule or SSR by placing some HIP SMC in addition to the HIP squad. According to A5.5, I've only HIP'ed 1 squad-equivalent, so I've followed the SSR

.

The replies above by Ole Boö sums it up good.

Scenarios made by Avalon Hill for ASL in the beginning never mention equivalents in their SSR for HIP.

ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal - Russian may use HIP for 2 squads..
now MMP has changed it to read 2 squad equivalents ??? (the Russians may not deploy).
ASL 3 The Czerniakow Bridgehead - may use HIP for 2 squads and any SMC/SW
ASL 4 The Commissar´s House - may use HIP for 3 squads and any SMC/SW
ASL 5 In Sight of the Volga - may use HIP for 4 squads and any SMC/SW
ASL 8 The Fugitives - etc
ASL 9, 10 etc etc.
ASL 11 Defiance On Hill 30 - may use HIP for 1 squad and any SMC/SW
ASL 15, 16, 17, etc....
ASL 21 Among The Ruins - etc squads
ASL 31 The Old Town - etc squads
ASL 59 Smjertniki - up to 3 Japanese squads may use HIP...

 

[klasmalmstrom]

What is the difference (rules wise) between writing "squad" and "squad-equivalent" is a HIP SSR?

 

[Stacks]

AH) Set up one squad (or 2 halfsquads) on hill 520 and any SW/SMC set up with it.

The AH clearly states what may be set up on hill 520 - squad that is equal to 2 HS.
---------------------------------------------------------------

MMP) Set up one squad equivalents (or halfsquads and/or 5 SMC, note 4 SMC equals zero squad equivalents) on hill 520 and any SW/SMC set up with it.

The problem with the use of squad-equivalents is that it can be any combination of squad-equivalents allowed to set up on hill 520.
5 SMC plus 4 SMC and one HS.
2 HS plus 4 SMC.
14 SMC.
or simple a squad plus 4 SMC.
-------------------------------------------------------

ASL 1 - FIGHTING WITHDRAWAL
AH SSR - Two Russian squads may set up HIP (with SW/SMC).
---------------------------------------------------------

MMP SSR - Two Russian squad equivalents may set up HIP (with SW/SMC).

one squad equivalents = 3 Russian leaders and two squads - may HIP.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

ASL 1 - FIGHTING WITHDRAWAL
AH SSR - Two Russian squads may set up HIP (with SW/SMC).
---------------------------------------------------------

MMP SSR - Two Russian squad equivalents may set up HIP (with SW/SMC).

Except per A5.5 these two are EXACTLY the same. There is no difference per A5.5. This is definitely not a new MMP issue. Frankly they've just phrased the rule to better reflect A5.5 which isn't a bad thing.

one squad equivalents = 3 Russian leaders and two squads - may HIP.

Although this is illegal if you setup the leaders in a different location from the squads...

 

[2 Bit Bill]

For the record, Perry's response in the other thread is here:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=943217&postcount=28

The overall thread is "HIP SSR wording":
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=72309

Perry responds to a Tate post as follows:



I think that's pretty clear that it's illegal to HIP leaders independent of the squads using the equivalency clause...

I believe Perry's response refered to Tate claiming a Squad AND 4 SMCs did not exceed the defintion of Squad Equivalents, NOT to setting up "squad-equivalent" SMCs in more than 1 location.(at least that was my take)
IOW, Squad equivalent equals 10 SMC not 14.
So in my ASL world, setting up 10 SMC in 10 locations(as the Squad Equivalent) would be legal(including ANY SMC/SW stacked with them)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I believe Perry's response refered to Tate claiming a Squad AND 4 SMCs did not exceed the defintion of Squad Equivalents, NOT to setting up "squad-equivalent" SMCs in more than 1 location.(at least that was my take)
IOW, Squad equivalent equals 10 SMC not 14.
So in my ASL world, setting up 10 SMC in 10 locations(as the Squad Equivalent) would be legal(including ANY SMC/SW stacked with them)

This is what I think as well.

And as per A5.5 writing "squad" or "squad-equivalent" (for a HIP SSR) has the same meaning/effect.