"I bet that nobody else has ever done that........."

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,038
Likes
1,771
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#21

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,625
Likes
731
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#22

Tater

Star Spangled Spud
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
20,312
Likes
427
Points
83
Location
Ardmore, TN
Skype
argus_27134
#23
Certainly true if he fails a MC, A15.2: "...If a wounded hero fails a MC it is eliminated;..."

Not sure he dies automatically if he suffers a K/ though. Seem to recall there was a thread about this not that long ago.

Here is that thread: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/ind...leader-who-suffers-wounds-as-a-leader.146518/
I never understood why a Leader can pass an endless number of wound checks...but a Hero gets only one. A wounded Leader could have already passed a dozen wound checks...but if he goes Heroic, he's suddenly done.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,966
Likes
638
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#24
From that thread, it seems a Q&A answers the issue unambiguously.
The Q&A that you're relying on predates 2nd ed, and was not incorporated into the 2nd ed. text. That means it has no standing whatsoever. It might still be true, but the only way you'd know for sure is to ask the question again. It's not about "keeping things aligned", it's about paying attention to what the rules do say and what they don't say (and they don't say a great many things that used to be true in 1st ed.). Too many people participate in rules "discussions" without bothering to actually do this, and consequently the "discussions" become more like chewing the fat while drinking beer with your buddies: possibly interesting but of doubtful actual relevancy.

As a side-issue, I'd wager that the greatest number of rules mistakes are made in the last turn of a hard-fought game. Everyone's blood is up, and no-one wants to pause the action to reflect on the precise meaning of a particular rule. It's only afterwards that someone might think -- "hey -- did we do that right?".
 

Aaron Cleavin

Active Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,030
Likes
401
Points
83
Location
Sydney
#25
Others have done this but passingly rare. Concealed Japanese first line CX squad in "The Rock" advances into a hex with broken american unit. He rolls 6 in ambush dr -2 concealed -1 steathy +1 advancing into jungle +1 CX == 5. I roll a 1 + 1 broken = 2 broken unit ambushes the atracker and withdraws an path to glorious victory!
 

Aaron Cleavin

Active Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,030
Likes
401
Points
83
Location
Sydney
#26
The Q&A that you're relying on predates 2nd ed, and was not incorporated into the 2nd ed. text. That means it has no standing whatsoever. It might still be true, but the only way you'd know for sure is to ask the question again. It's not about "keeping things aligned", it's about paying attention to what the rules do say and what they don't say (and they don't say a great many things that used to be true in 1st ed.). Too many people participate in rules "discussions" without bothering to actually do this, and consequently the "discussions" become more like chewing the fat while drinking beer with your buddies: possibly interesting but of doubtful actual relevancy.

As a side-issue, I'd wager that the greatest number of rules mistakes are made in the last turn of a hard-fought game. Everyone's blood is up, and no-one wants to pause the action to reflect on the precise meaning of a particular rule. It's only afterwards that someone might think -- "hey -- did we do that right?".
Surely it means it was considered integrated into 2nd edition, and if not in fact so then it still has status. This is how a conventional legal model works. New law supercedes old, but if there there is case law (Q & A) not covered in new law then it still has standing. Though we haven't covered whether ASL comes from common or civil law traditions.

P.S. Please anyone with a legal background please opion on what I have offered as it is in some ways meta-legal and it might be considered that the new law replaces the law entire and that any older issues not covered in new law need to be relitigated
 

dlazov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,011
Likes
559
Points
113
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Skype
dlazov66
#27
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:6 KJV

It’s a game and they be rules no laws here, may the best gamer win the competition :)
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,625
Likes
731
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#29
The Q&A that you're relying on predates 2nd ed, and was not incorporated into the 2nd ed. text. That means it has no standing whatsoever. It might still be true, but the only way you'd know for sure is to ask the question again.
I knew the Malmstrom disclaimer about that Q&A but still, given the relative lack of material on this issue, i considered that such Q&A, however weakly grounded it might be from your perspective, was still better than nothing to back a solution which, for the reasons i've mentioned, seems better from a rule consistency point of view. And of course, people are free to disagree. Now like you, i would be happy if a new Q&A could remove any ambiguity on the matter given that the issue may arise more than a couple of times.

Too many people participate in rules "discussions" without bothering to actually do this, and consequently the "discussions" become more like chewing the fat while drinking beer with your buddies: possibly interesting but of doubtful actual relevancy.
Fortunately we are lucky to have on this forum someone that can put everything back in order.
 

Aaron Cleavin

Active Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,030
Likes
401
Points
83
Location
Sydney
#30
I knew the Malmstrom disclaimer about that Q&A but still, given the relative lack of material on this issue, i considered that such Q&A, however weakly grounded it might be from your perspective, was still better than nothing to back a solution which, for the reasons i've mentioned, seems better from a rule consistency point of view. And of course, people are free to disagree. Now like you, i would be happy if a new Q&A could remove any ambiguity on the matter given that the issue may arise more than a couple of times.



Fortunately we are lucky to have on this forum someone that can put everything back in order.
I find it fascinating that Bruce coming from a country with a common law tradition is essentially arguing a civil law line while Georges fronm a country with Civil law is for the most part taking a common law position
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,625
Likes
731
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#31
This is wrong. Interpreting laws is carried out in every legal system, as laws cannot foresee every possible case, as they may be poorly drafted, as the context evolves, etc.

For instance the teleogical method of interpretation is used frequently in French administrative courts, and more generally in other continental jurisdictions.
 

von Marwitz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,054
Likes
2,062
Points
163
Location
Kraut Corner
#32
P.S. Please anyone with a legal background please opion on what I have offered as it is in some ways meta-legal and it might be considered that the new law replaces the law entire and that any older issues not covered in new law need to be relitigated
Well, the business in law is that you try to argue it along the very line which your client requires. You win, if your line of argument is more convincing than that of the other side.

von Marwitz
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
2,172
Likes
192
Points
118
Location
East Front
#33
I never understood why a Leader can pass an endless number of wound checks...but a Hero gets only one. A wounded Leader could have already passed a dozen wound checks...but if he goes Heroic, he's suddenly done.
The only true hero is a dead one, could explain the rule, no, just kidding, it does not explain the rule, but is used like a memory tool by me.

I agree with what you say, would just like you like to see a rule that is similar to all SMCs in this regard.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,966
Likes
638
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#34
Surely it means it was considered integrated into 2nd edition, and if not in fact so then it still has status.
Uh, no. If it was considered and not incorporated then it has no status. That's explicitly how MMP explained it to us back when 2nd ed. was originally released. (I'm fairly sure Perry said as much in print in his "First do no harm" article.)

If what you say was true, Aaron, then no old Q&A have been overturned and they all still apply, even the ones that contradict the written text. Is that really how you want to play? Also, do you still want to play by the Official Q&A that stated that a random selection DR (if you're selecting between two units) is a DR that can trigger the enemy sniper? Sadly, the Q&A did not elaborate on whether a 3-or-more-dice roll could trigger the sniper or not.

This is how a conventional legal model works.
If you say so. What does that have to do with how the ASL rules work? I'm pretty sure that they carry no legal standing in any jurisdiction (of course, I'm not a lawyer ...).

I knew the Malmstrom disclaimer about that Q&A but still, given the relative lack of material on this issue, i considered that such Q&A, however weakly grounded it might be from your perspective, was still better than nothing
The point is that it isn't "better than nothing". It's exactly "nothing". It doesn't exist. Pay no attention to it. Pay attention to what the current rules actually say. I refer you to the official Q&A that I mention above. It's a real thing. It exists ... in 1st edition. (No-one ever paid any attention to it, of course, but no-one from TAHGC or MMP ever officially stated that it was NA, either.) It does not exist in 2nd ed., exactly and precisely because MMP stated that all (no exceptions*) prior Q&A were rendered irrelevant by the printing of 2nd ed. If you can't find a 1st ed. ruling in 2nd ed, rules, then it's because it was ignored/overturned/made irrelevant. You can't make judgements about the current rules by considering things that don't have any value whatsoever!

I find it fascinating that Bruce coming from a country with a common law tradition is essentially arguing a civil law line
Bruce is doing nothing of the sort. Bruce is restating the MMP position on how old Q&A apply to the 2nd ed. rules. It's a statement of fact, not an argument.

* Actually there's one exception, which really does need to be inserted back into the rules as errata (it's the one that said a Leader can direct a FT attack to prevent cowering, even though the Leadership DRM cannot apply).
 

von Marwitz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,054
Likes
2,062
Points
163
Location
Kraut Corner
#35
Bruce is doing nothing of the sort. Bruce is restating the MMP position on how old Q&A apply to the 2nd ed. rules. It's a statement of fact, not an argument.
Thus Bruce is also saying that if the text of a rule has not changed from 1st ed to 2nd ed and if there is a Q&A to such a rule of the 1st ed that it would mean nothing for the 2nd ed rule, i.e. would not apply. Right?

Should that be the case, then this is what some people that are not Bruce find at least a debatable line of seeing things.

von Marwitz
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,038
Likes
1,771
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#36
Thus Bruce is also saying that if the text of a rule has not changed from 1st ed to 2nd ed and if there is a Q&A to such a rule of the 1st ed that it would mean nothing for the 2nd ed rule, i.e. would not apply. Right?

Should that be the case, then this is what some people that are not Bruce find at least a debatable line of seeing things.
I won't (indeed can't) speak for Bruce, but whenever I encounter a 1st Edition Q&A (even more so if it is an unofficial one) that (to me) seemingly changes or introduces something new that is not present in the 1st Edition text and neither in the 2nd Edition text I am usually a bit weary of such Q&A.

Like the one in question here - I see nothing in the 1st Edition text indicating a wounded Hero dies when he suffers a Casualty Reduction result - the Q&A says he does - but nothing was changed in the 2nd Edition text to that effect (granted, at least not that I have found).

So then I ask myself whether it was deemed that this unofficial 1st Edition Q&A was no longer valid (it could of course also been overlooked). The other possibility is that is was not overlooked, but the text in the 1st Edition was deemed sufficient (there are certainly several such 1st Edition Q&A). But in this particular case I can't see that the text is/was sufficient. This latter is, of course, subjective.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,966
Likes
638
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#37
Thus Bruce is also saying that if the text of a rule has not changed from 1st ed to 2nd ed and if there is a Q&A to such a rule of the 1st ed that it would mean nothing for the 2nd ed rule, i.e. would not apply. Right?
Bruce is saying that because MMP said it first. Is there something about that statement that people are finding difficult to understand? If the content of a 1st ed Q&A/errata item is not already in the 2nd ed. rules, then it's not in the rules. I do not understand why anyone would find that a concept so difficult to grasp. (If you believe that it should be in the rules, that's when you post a new Q to MMP and see what the A gets you. For example, the 2nd ed. Chapter E rules outright omitted a couple of fairly important 1st ed. clarifications to the air support rules. That seemed odd to me so I submitted a Q and it turned out the clarifications had been omitted by accident and were soon restated as new errata.)

Just recently I was looking at an old official Q&A about how wire affects human waves. The Q&A was essentially in two parts; the first part was incorporated into the text of the 2nd ed. rules already, and the second part outright contradicted the 2nd ed. rules (but did not contradict the version of the 1st ed. rules that existed at the time the Q&A was originally published). So here's an example of how the 2nd ed. rules both incorporated and overturned prior Q&A. The net result was that I realised that I was wasting my time even looking at the old Q&A in the first place. Similarly, anyone who posts a 1st ed. Q&A, official or not, and believes that it "solves" anything for a 2nd ed. rules question are simply deluding themselves and wasting everyone's time, not least their own.

Should that be the case, then this is what some people that are not Bruce find at least a debatable line of seeing things.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that everything is only an opinion. While someone else might see this issue as "debatable", the reality is that they are what we call in the industry "wrong". As in, "you are mistaken, sir". The mistaken party can accept it, learn from it, and move on; or they can petulantly deny it. Only one of those approaches is actually helpful.
 

Eagle4ty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
2,908
Likes
821
Points
113
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
#38
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:6 KJV

It’s a game and they be rules no laws here, may the best gamer win the competition :)
So true, at best they resemble regulations, and as such when the regs are re-written all before it is without effect unless incorporated into the new regulation. But now there's tradition, and that's a whole different matter entirely.:nod: