Infantry 'changing direction' while in Bypass

[Honosbinda]

I think A4.32 is where you want to look, not in the smoke grenade rules.



So, An infantry unit tossing smoke grenades/planting DC with its last mf while in bypass is voluntarily ending it's move in bypass -- I think that's clearly NA.



You think A4.43 is implying a weapon can't be dropped because Demo charges and smoke grenades can be placed? Isn't it just the opposite? If you can place a Demo charge, you can drop a weapon (like say, a demo charge, for instance). You were relying on realism earlier... I think you're pretty clearly on the wrong side of realism on this point.

I think that A4.32 is NOT where I want to look for rules about units that are NOT broken

This points to how poorly organized these rules are in this case.

Indeed, you have correctly pointed out that such units cannot voluntarily end their move in bypass. This rule should be under rule A4.3 for clarity. The rules for A4.32 should be about broken units only, not good order units.

Further, the OP's query about being able to move backward or not should not have to be interpreted in a rather poor example diagram.

A4.43 discussion: for clarity, what I am saying is that the allowed actions in A4.43 are to place smoke and DCs. 'Dropping SWs' is not indicated as an allowed action while in bypass. So, no, it's not the opposite as you think. We aren't supposed to write in rules about things that are not written in the rules (ideally) so by that interpretation we can't say that such dropping is allowed in bypass. Furthermore, placing demos and smoke cost MFs. Dropping SW handily through the window while passing by the obstacle costs 0 MFs. Don't think so.

(It would make a lot more sense to allow dropping of SW for 0 MF only at the start of a unit's movement phase, not during it, but that's for another discussion)

A4.43 discussion continued: here, it's you who is on the wrong side of realism arguments, because I daresay that dropping a SW should costs some MFs when done through a window or hurled through the trees to the units inside the hex and thereby, as you say, getting 'absorbed' into the hex. In fact, my realism argument is that this shouldn't be allowed at all -- but if allowed, it shouldn't cost zero movement factors.

What's your counter-argument?

I'd also like to point out that units spread out in a location/obstacle rather than bundled in specific vertex are more likely -- a lot more -- to be able to effectively place DC or smoke. Frankly, I don't think either of these should be allowed in bypass, either. Bypass is a tight manuever around obstacles, not a battle manuever. Maybe heroes or leaders could be allowed to place DCs in such circumstances, but in this game it requires, for some reason, an entire squad to blanket the hex with smoke.

How are they going to do that from a vertex point? They would need to be deployed in regular formation.

Putting aside this minor debate, the whole set of rules A4.3 should be organized more effectively to clarify these matters. The whole write-up of A4.3 is what my British wife would call a bodge job. A reference in A24.1 regarding smoke placement in bypass wouldn't hurt, either. Same for A24.3 wrt DC placement.

This isn't a Perry Sez situation, this is a 'Playerz recommending to Perry what he should do to fix the rules section' situation

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Neither 1 nor 2 is legal? They can't retrace their own steps? An AFV can... it stops, starts in reverse and backs up along the hexside. AFVs can do this but infantry can't?! I think its worth a Perry sez.

I think neither is legal.

 

[Pyth]

@Honosbinda...

I agree the RB's wording and the organization is sometimes (rather literally) mindboggling. I don't think anyone disagrees. What should be clearer or could be said better in the RB is hardly worth mentioning -- but I think everyone gets frustrated by it occassionally.

My counterargument about --

"A4.43 discussion: for clarity, what I am saying is that the allowed actions in A4.43 are to place smoke and DCs. 'Dropping SWs' is not indicated as an allowed action while in bypass."

Yes you are right, it is not explicitly allowed. It is also not explicitly disallowed. If either were the case we wouldn't be discussing it. COWTRA is the principle you are advocating and I'm a fan of COWTRA. I usually find the argument you are making there persuasive, but not in this instance. If a 1MF action is allowed with a SW it is very hard for me to see how that doesn't also allow a Zero MF action with that same SW.

As for the 'absorbed into the obstacle' stuff... this is just a 'sleaze' in the rules of the kind that imo is, like skulking, quite acceptable, because it seems to me to represent something real soldiers on a real battlefield do with the poetry of rules for 2D men on 2D terrain. Should it cost 1MF? Probably, but since this minor possibility wasn't fully covered in the rules, the 0 MF 'absorbtion' seems the lesser of two evils. (The greater evil imo being to disallow it entirely.) There are many quirks in the rules around bypassed obstacles. Residual placed by firing at units in bypass on the North side of rowhouses will effect later units bypassing on the South of the rowhouses. Is that perfect? Maybe not but the RB is plenty granular as it is! Instead of complaining about that sort of thing (there are dozens of examples), the veteran ASL commander makes use of them, which is exactly what Von Marwitz was contemplating when he wrote the Original Post.

I think neither is legal.

That's fine. I rarely very rarely bet against your opinion on these matters... I'd love to know what the reasoning is behind it. Where does the clarity that makes you think this isn't worth a Perry Sez come from (if that is indeed your opinion)? Is it the backtracking, or the backtracking in combination with the 'further activity' that makes you think this is illegal by the rules as is? -- Can infantry backtrack a bypass? Can infantry drop a demo charge in an otherwise legal bypass? Other SWs? Can infantry make a 'perpendicular' bypass (J7/K8 in the OP)? -- The perpendicular bypass is probably a stretch but the other questions seem practical enough to be worth asking. And that isn't saying I know what the answers should be. (Although I have an opinion )

I think a Q should be drafted. I nominate Von Marwitz. It's his fault.

 

[Honosbinda]

@Honosbinda...

I agree the RB's wording and the organization is sometimes (rather literally) mindboggling. I don't think anyone disagrees. What should be clearer or could be said better in the RB is hardly worth mentioning -- but I think everyone gets frustrated by it occassionally.

My counterargument about -- Yes you are right, it is not explicitly allowed. It is also not explicitly disallowed. If either were the case we wouldn't be discussing it. COWTRA is the principle you are advocating and I'm a fan of COWTRA. I usually find the argument you are making there persuasive, but not in this instance. If a 1MF action is allowed with a SW it is very hard for me to see how that doesn't also allow a Zero MF action with that same SW.

As for the 'absorbed into the obstacle' stuff... this is just a 'sleaze' in the rules of the kind that imo is, like skulking, quite acceptable, because it seems to me to represent something real soldiers on a real battlefield do with the poetry of rules for 2D men on 2D terrain. Should it cost 1MF? Probably, but since this minor possibility wasn't fully covered in the rules, the 0 MF 'absorbtion' seems the lesser of two evils. (The greater evil imo being to disallow it entirely.) There are many quirks in the rules around bypassed obstacles. Residual placed by firing at units in bypass on the North side of rowhouses will effect later units bypassing on the South of the rowhouses. Is that perfect? Maybe not but the RB is plenty granular as it is! Instead of complaining about that sort of thing (there are dozens of examples), the veteran ASL commander makes use of them, which is exactly what Von Marwitz was contemplating when he wrote the Original Post.

'What should be clearer or could be said better in the RB is hardly worth mentioning.'

Surely you don't believe that. That's hyperbole at best. I'll take it as such.

It sounds good though, if a bit demeaning for those of use who do care.

If there is anything to be frustrated by, it's the intolerance out there to changing the rules when they need to be changed.

That's why we get smarmy, unfunny answers or short, quick rather know-it-all-ish answers to completely valid issues. As you are now the recipient of, case in point. No support, just 'I think....' from a known rules expert. True, well known indeed, but a satisfactory answerer in this case? Heck no. I'm glad you 'complained' about wanting to know more reasoning. Saying it in a nice way is still a complaint, bro.

Surely these experts can take the time to provide it, right?

If anything, you should be encouraging more dialog, not providing pat statements as per above discouraging such...

'...I'm a fan of COWTRA. I usually find the argument you are making there persuasive, but not in this instance.'

Well, I don't care if you are persuaded or not, COWTRA is perfectly applicable here. Try to pull that move on me in a game and you'll get bounced back to cadet school Then again! By the tournament director (if he knows what he's doing).

If Perry clarifies you are right, feel free to lord if over me as you please! But obviously getting the clarification was necessary and something you want with a demand for a Perry sez. But in the absence of such, it's COWTRA, persuaded thy be or not.

'this is just a 'sleaze' in the rules of the kind that imo is, like skulking, quite acceptable,'

Skulking is a part of the game they couldn't figure out how to deal with without screwing up game play too much. Besides, it make for a good reason to flank the enemy to prevent it, if possible.

But just because we have to deal with sleaze doesn't mean we should add more of it like this. I'm against it.

'Instead of complaining about that sort of thing (there are dozens of examples), the veteran ASL commander makes use of them, which is exactly what Von Marwitz was contemplating when he wrote the Original Post.'

oh. So now this 'sort of thing' is complaining?

Not trying to improve the play of the game by getting the rules improved when there are obvious flaws? Did you consider that interpretation?

It sounds like you're bucking for a promotion over at MMP and with about ten more years of that attitude you might get one.

They don't like players complaining much, either.

The TRUE veteran commander of ASL, bro, does his best, not only to kick azz through using rules loopholes, but strives to improve the game as it is, in spite of all the resistance. I hope we can count on you, too.

 

[Pyth]

@Honosbinda

'What should be clearer or could be said better in the RB is hardly worth mentioning.'

It sounds good though, if a bit demeaning for those of use who do care.

Please don't search my words for ways to take offense. I assure you whatever specifics we may disagree about I think you and I are on the same team (Team ASL) and I if I give offense it is not intentionally.

I could go point by point but I don't want to get into an (even more) extended back and forth. I think the guy who is replying to your screenfulls of text with screenfulls of reply is hardly the guy to accuse of not caring. We both want the ASL game and the ASL community to be as strong as possible.... though we may disagree about the means, or even what that means.

That's why we get smarmy, unfunny answers or short, quick rather know-it-all-ish answers to completely valid issues. As you are now the recipient of, case in point. No support, just 'I think....' from a known rules expert. True, well known indeed, but a satisfactory answerer in this case? Heck no. I'm glad you 'complained' about wanting to know more reasoning. Saying it in a nice way is still a complaint, bro.

Surely these experts can take the time to provide it, right?

Critical comment alert -- I couldn't disagree with you more about the adequacy of Klas' answer, or the efforts of various rules experts on this forum. I think you are starting to sound dangerously entitled when you do. I could not have learned ASL even as incompletely as I have without the help of GameSquad Rules & Errata folks, Klas and JRV first among them.

-- "Surely these experts can take the time..." -- I don't even know how to reply to that. This forum is free and I'm under the impression no one is getting paid. The way I see it there's a whole lot of free labor being donated to ASL here by these experts and it is done for the love of the game and not much else. I strongly encourage you to revisit your remarks and revise your perspective. I see Klas, JRV, others answering questions, many of them voiced in the same petulant "I'm demanding answers, dammit" tone you are using, and I see them maintaining their composure and answering questions with what has come to look to me like infinite patience. I also don't mean to single out Klas and JRV to the point of diminishing other's contributions, there are dozens of other experts, near experts, semi-experts, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. But other than my self-proclaimed debt no one owes anyone anything here except common courtesy.

I have to mention the irony here in your remarks about caring about 'improving the game' etc. regarding me... This exchange of ours has delayed me posting a long post that I just know is going to get me punched in the face, repeatedly, by pretty much every expert, because I have some heretical things to say about improving certain rules. But I believe what I'll be saying and I think the discussion is healthy.

At times in the past I have taken a high & mighty tone here that was completely unearned. I've had to check myself and remind myself that there are many people about who have contributed much more to this hobby than I ever will and it behooves me to remember that as well as to remember that no one has put me in charge of the ASL rules committee, and that's a good thing. I think you may be due a self-check yourself.

In solidarity,

Pyth

 

[Honosbinda]

@Honosbinda



Please don't search my words for ways to take offense. I assure you whatever specifics we may disagree about I think you and I are on the same team (Team ASL) and I if I give offense it is not intentionally.

I could go point by point but I don't want to get into an (even more) extended back and forth. I think the guy who is replying to your screenfulls of text with screenfulls of reply is hardly the guy to accuse of not caring. We both want the ASL game and the ASL community to be as strong as possible.... though we may disagree about the means, or even what that means.



Critical comment alert -- I couldn't disagree with you more about the adequacy of Klas' answer, or the efforts of various rules experts on this forum. I think you are starting to sound dangerously entitled when you do. I could not have learned ASL even as incompletely as I have without the help of GameSquad Rules & Errata folks, Klas and JRV first among them.

-- "Surely these experts can take the time..." -- I don't even know how to reply to that. This forum is free and I'm under the impression no one is getting paid. The way I see it there's a whole lot of free labor being donated to ASL here by these experts and it is done for the love of the game and not much else. I strongly encourage you to revisit your remarks and revise your perspective. I see Klas, JRV, others answering questions, many of them voiced in the same petulant "I'm demanding answers, dammit" tone you are using, and I see them maintaining their composure and answering questions with what has come to look to me like infinite patience. I also don't mean to single out Klas and JRV to the point of diminishing other's contributions, there are dozens of other experts, near experts, semi-experts, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. But other than my self-proclaimed debt no one owes anyone anything here except common courtesy.

I have to mention the irony here in your remarks about caring about 'improving the game' etc. regarding me... This exchange of ours has delayed me posting a long post that I just know is going to get me punched in the face, repeatedly, by pretty much every expert, because I have some heretical things to say about improving certain rules. But I believe what I'll be saying and I think the discussion is healthy.

At times in the past I have taken a high & mighty tone here that was completely unearned. I've had to check myself and remind myself that there are many people about who have contributed much more to this hobby than I ever will and it behooves me to remember that as well as to remember that no one has put me in charge of the ASL rules committee, and that's a good thing. I think you may be due a self-check yourself.

In solidarity,

Pyth

Nobody here is taking offense so easily. I'm just calling it as I see it, no deep searching required to read and interpret. But thank you for your mitigating remarks. Don't worry, I don't mind, I'm not a millennial who requires safe spaces for discourse and I don't mind a little hyperbole for effect.

Speaking of mitigating, not sure how you now see adequacy in an answer which before you obviously indicated was lacking!

Let me spell it out from my point of view without reference to what you had said. An answer like this: 'I think it's this way,' without any logical support, is and remains inadequate.

Period.

I don't care if it's Jupiter himself giving the answer, no matter his previous accomplishments, it's simply not good enough.

Anyone can give that an answer like that and all them would be answering inadequately with the exception of Perry, who, by fiat of Curt Schilling, gets to do it. As does Curt himself, of course.

Perhaps I don't share the same lofty regard about Gamesquad et al because I learned the game otherwise, without their help, long before this forum existed and possibly long before any of them had ever picked up the rule book.

I'm sure I'd feel differently were it otherwise, but I'd still expect more complete answers to questions. And so do you.

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by dangerously entitled. I'm looking around, where's the danger? Anyone is entitled to ask for or even demand better reasoning/explanations just as anyone is entitled not to provide it if they so choose.

Let me put it a more general way since you think I'm poking a finger: I'm sure ANYONE can take the time the provide more complete answers if they want to CONVINCE people their opinions are correct and that's true of EXPERTS here too, none of whom have earned enough laurels for me to roll over and pant:

'thank you thank you for sharing the air you breathe with your wise unsupported opinion.'

I don't accept pat answers that are just expressions of an opinion from anyone about these rules. If that's high and mighty of me, well then -- damn -- I'm high and mighty and proud of it.

For example, JRV and you gave me good answers above because rules citations were provided supporting the opinions. I was wrong about a couple of things -- and that happens when I don't scour the rules for all possible exceptions before I pop off in here. Hey, you guys both took the time. You took even more time providing more elaboration and discussion and I'm grateful for it.

Unfortunately, you aren't distinguishing a tone of mirth from a tone of petulance in this case, but then again, you don't know me, so I forgive you.

Still, I don't get how you see any of this as sulky or bad-tempered. No evidence I see of that, so that's an ad hominem attack -- or at best, a very poor choice of wording on your part.

So you can take that to the self-checkout, alright? Since you're recommending I check into the ASL asylum for a tune-up.

That's that, as least as far as I'm concerned. You can have the last word if you want.

In the meantime, I look forward to your promised forthcoming heresies which might turn a predicted irony into a real one. cheers Marc.

 

[Pyth]

Marc, if I read your tone wrong forgive me, its the internet, it happens. I dont know you, as you say.

I listen to Klas like bankers used to listen to Alan Greenspan... if he says tersely "I think it's illegal" I take that to mean: "I don't think this issue is worth a lot of time or is very difficult or interesting. Im ready to move on. Its on you to figure out why this is. Do your home work. Think for yourself. Dont demand to be spoon fed."

 

[Eagle4ty]

Well, I would complete the Bypass of J7/J8 by moving into I8 and then making a 'new' bypass afterwards, bypassing J7/J8 again and completing it moving to the new forward direction K8. This takes 4MF altogether, while the original (illegal) approach would only have cost 2MF.

von Marwitz

An interesting adjunct to your line of thought could be is it legal to move into bypass of J7 using the J7-J8 hexside and place Smoke in I8 for 2MF and continue to use bypass using the I8-J7 hexside in conjunction with the J7-J8 hexside bypass for a cost of 1MF then declare CX to move into I7 for a total MF cost of 5MF and avoid the CX penalty for attempting to use Smoke? I would think this would not be allowed as I believe the complete MF expenditure and movement for the bypass around the J7 obstacle (i.e. J7-J8 & J7-I8 hexsides) must have been completed prior to the Smoke attempt into I8. Sure would be neat though if say the only defensive fire against that moving unit was at the I7-I8-J7 vertex or in I7 and the fire had to pass through the I8 hex.

 

[Robin Reeve]

When Klas says "I think", he is simply explaining that the rules are indeed not that clear about a topic.
He expresses that he is not absolutely sure of his answer and that, perhaps, there should be some clarification or erratum in the rules.
Not being able to grasp the possibility of that nuance in his answer is strange.

I don't think that anyone here holds that the rulebook is perfect.
When a thread goes on (on topic), it often reveals that there is a loophole in the rule, or that collecting and connecting data is not easy, or that there is a need for an errata.
This often leads to ask MMP the question and to receive a "Perry sez" answer.

I don't see the need to constantly call the rulebook rubbish.
It certainly could have been worded many different ways or organised differently - everybody agrees here.
Changing it drastically won't ever happen, whatever our level of frustration.
So why not overcome the frustration, and adress rules problems as they come, detecting the possible needs of clarification and errata ?
It is an empirical way to proceed and we all try (with more or less efficiency) to improve the gaming experience.
And, indeed, in the long run, Klas and jrv come out as being the most efficient to adress rules questions.
Their intuitions, when they confess that they don't find the most precise references in the rules, prove right most of the time.
But, of course, nobody is unfallible and a debate can go on past the experts' posts, if one needs more satisfying answers.

IOW, is there really a serious problem here, about how the rules debates are led?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Regarding "backtracking" while using Bypass - there is already an old Q&A rearding that - also referring to the A4.31 EX as done in post #10 above.

A4.3 May an Infantry unit bypass a hexside and then return to its prior hex along that hexside?
A. No; see the A4.31 Example. [Compil8]
8) 18 September 1998

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Can infantry drop a demo charge in an otherwise legal bypass? Other SWs?

Not sure.

On a related note, I searched for a rule stating what happens when a unit is KIA while in Bypass and if has SW that "survives" - but I couldn't find it spelled out (though I could have missed it). My guess would be that those SW would be considered to be "in the obstacle" after the KIA. For later recovery, it really doesn't matter, since it is enough to be in the same Location as the unpossessed SW.

Can infantry make a 'perpendicular' bypass (J7/K8 in the OP)?

I am fairly certain this Q would be returned with a "No" as an answer, should a Q&A be sent to MMP.

 

[von Marwitz]

On a related note, I searched for a rule stating what happens when a unit is KIA while in Bypass and if has SW that "survives" - but I couldn't find it spelled out (though I could have missed it). My guess would be that those SW would be considered to be "in the obstacle" after the KIA. For later recovery, it really doesn't matter, since it is enough to be in the same Location as the unpossessed SW.

We do have rules info of what happens to such SW if a unit breaks while in Bypass:

A4.32 BROKEN IN BYPASS: Infantry that voluntarily ends its MPh in an obstacle hex must pay the full MF cost of that obstacle unless it entered at the road movement rate (4.132); Infantry may not voluntarily end its move using Bypass. If the unit breaks while using Bypass, it remains in the open portion of the obstacle hex until the end of its MPh and is subject to the FFNAM (and usually also FFMO) DRM for multi-hex movement in the open for additional First Fire attacks made against it to or through the hexsides it traversed during that MPh. The broken unit and all portaged equipment are assumed to be in the obstacle during and after Final Fire.

Thus I would find it reasonable to assume, that the same mechanics will work for surviving SW of KIA'ed units.

von Marwitz