Intensive Fire in Defensive Fire

[Flarvin]

I agree with Bruce that this is a statement that generally makes IF legal, and I suppose that Bruce et. al. agree with me that this general IF allowance applies unless specifically disallowed by other rules.

This rule does nothing in defining when IF is legal, it just defines what is the benefit of IF. The reason for this is the use of “An Intensive Firing Gun”, which means the gun is in the act of IF and not trying to determine if it can IF.

Flarvin

 

[Flarvin]

I do not have a particular "position" in this debate other than the one the rules seem to support.

As I've mentioned before, I will be cool with whatever ruling becomes official and hopefully that ruling will be supported clearly in the rules even if errata/clarifications are required.

This is one great debat though!

I completely agree with your above statements. I do not care which side becomes official and just would like the rule clarified. I think this is a great debate and is just adding to my understanding of this game (or religion by some :laugh: ). I having been playing this game (with SL and its modules) for 26 years and it seems there is always something to learn.

Flarvin

 

[Treadhead]

...that's not true. You should go back and read the thread before over-simplyfiying your opponents' arguments...

I stated "IMO", so how can an opinion be "true" or "not true". I believe what I said.

I certainly do not intend to over-simplify anyone's point of view.

I think I am fully versant in the various arguments that have been made.

Let me just say: I'm not convinced by any of them. I think they are wrong, and I truly believe it comes down to the rule that I mention.

Again, I do not mean of over-simplify and thereby imply that any particular argument is simplistic.

I just don't think I can restate or re-argue any specific point in a new way, and I can only sum up my opinion in a nutshell, as it were. In this case, I honestly and emphatically believe that the various arguments are overblown and under-relevant, and the only case to be made is that IF is not allowed at all when marked by Final Fire at any point during the DFPh, but at that the case is weak.

That is my opinion, and I guess I should say "IMO" after every statement. But then again, I thought that everything expressed here is just "opinion", and insofar as I am the one stating it, that makes it "in my opinion". "IMO" is a given, is it not?

I wouldn't expect anyone to pay any particular attention, but I would point out that my prolonged participation on this one subject should be an indication of how strongly I believe these counter-arguments are just way off base. Normally I "just don't care" enough to continue on a single argument. But in this case...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Hubbs5]

Ok I can see both sides of the coin here and have seen good arguments for both. Since I am a bottom line kind of guy and like to know how the rule works, BEFORE I get into that situation, I need to know what the official ruling on this is. If I am playing in a tournament and my opponent tries to argue one side or the other, what can I go to that's official to end any arguments?

 

[Robin Reeve]

I need to know what the official ruling on this is. If I am playing in a tournament and my opponent tries to argue one side or the other, what can I go to that's official to end any arguments?

Hopefully, Journal 7 will have an erratum that offers an official answer to the problem.
Up to now, we have a "Perry sez", but that is not an official answer.
In a tournament, you could rule after that "Perry sez" - but being clear that it is a temporary settling of the issue, in wait of an official ruling (just in case the official answer is to be different from that Perry sez).

 

[rdw5150]

"Hopefully, Journal 7 will have an erratum that offers an official answer to the problem.
Up to now, we have a "Perry sez", but that is not an official answer.
In a tournament, you could rule after that "Perry sez" - but being clear that it is a temporary settling of the issue, in wait of an official ruling (just in case the official answer is to be different from that Perry sez)."

Hi!

I have not been to a ton of tournaments, (5 ASLOKS and 2 WO), but in all those games (about 80) this issue have never came up. Everyone plays it the same way (that I have played at least).

There are times when I think we read the RB a little too closely:laugh:

Peace

Roger

 

[Sparafucil3]

On the contrary, it is my belief that C5.6 provides the support for allowing IF.

"An Intensive Firing Gun automatically gains one ... additional shot during that Player Turn."

Note here that it is for the entire Player Turn. Within a Player Turn, the DFPh would be eligible. So DFPh is so far still allowed.

"A Gun cannot use Intensive Fire until it has already exhausted its normal ROF."

Note here that a Gun that has maintained ROF at the start of the DFPh will not have a fire marker of any kind. So far still allowed during the DFPh.

"A Gun which has Intensive Fired replaces its fire phase counter with an Intensive Fire counter."

First the inclusive "its fire phase counter", covering all fire phases. Note also when in the case of a Gun starting the DFPh with ROF, as soon as it loses its ROF it would be marked with the appropriate "fire phase counter", i.e. Final Fire. Here the instruction is to replace the Final Fire counter with an IF counter. So far still allowed in DFPh.

All of this tells me that IF is allowed during the DFPh under the conditions mentioned. So COWTRA, I believe that IF is de facto allowed during the DFPh... unless, of course...

... it is restricted by any other rule. In my opinion it has not been demonstrated that such a restriction exists with regards to a Gun that meets the conditions in C5.6.

The only possible argument (IMO) is the statement about being marked with a Final Fire counter in A8.4. The "already marked" statement. My views on that are already known, I suspect.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

Hey Bruce,
How if we are going to pedantic on the language A8.4 lets also address the fact that C5.6 awards you a noun and not a verb. A shot is not an action, the right to use that shot is governed by other rules. -- jim

 

[apbills]

Egads .. we resort to SK rules to resolve an impasse in the ASLRB.
[snip]...
Alan, why do you leave out that bit in A8.4 that says units/weapons marked with a FF counter can not fire period with, apparently, no "EXC:"?

First, Chapter K has nothing to do with the Starter Kit. Chapter K is the training manual, and covers the full ASLRB, not the watered down SK version. I guess my first statement was not clear - I am no longer trying to resolve an impasse, that clearly will not be resolved by me. I believe I stated we both know our positions - why would I then waste space and restate my position yet again? I merely pointed out the apparant official position in 2000 as reflected in their Chapter K words - not mine. Their words do not reference A8.4 - I was not involved, perhaps you should address your question to the person(s) who wrote Chapter K.

I do not have a particular "position" in this debate other than the one the rules seem to support.
As I've mentioned before, I will be cool with whatever ruling becomes official and hopefully that ruling will be supported clearly in the rules even if errata/clarifications are required.

I listed the points of the the no IF position - I think I understand the logic behind it. I think it's flawed logic, but I understand how you get from point A to point B. I believe the IF in Final Fire interpretation is fully supported by the rules, and I know you and others feel that the logic behind that position is flawed.
I think it is pretty clear given the roughly 50-50 split on the poll that somehow the interpretation of this rule has gone astray and we now have 2 lines of thought (maybe 3? or this 3rd may be just a reaction to the Perry Sez). 2 lines of thought are not good, and I assume Perry will clarify/correct this issue.

I think both you and I would agree that option #2 (FF at adjacent targets only) is clearly not supported by the rules, yet 30% of the respondants believe that is the case.

Perhaps everyone needs to go back and read their training manuals.... :nuts:

 

[Ole Boe]

I stated "IMO", so how can an opinion be "true" or "not true". I believe what I said.

But you said that "The only possible argument..." was something which is objectively not true, because there are several other arguments for this interpretation. If you had written that this was the only argument that you understood or thought had any merit or whatever, then your IMO would be in place. I guess it's something like that you meant though, which would be an opinion that is not "true" or "false". If so, we agree.

I certainly do not intend to over-simplify anyone's point of view.

Then I misunderstood you, but there are more than this one argument. All are not necessarily very good, but they do still exist, and saying that only one argument exists is IMO an over-simplification.

That is my opinion, and I guess I should say "IMO" after every statement. But then again, I thought that everything expressed here is just "opinion", and insofar as I am the one stating it, that makes it "in my opinion". "IMO" is a given, is it not?

Of course, so I think IMO or IMHO are generally pretty redundant. I still use them myself, so I'm not consistant...

 

[Jim McLeod]

I think both you and I would agree that option #2 (FF at adjacent targets only) is clearly not supported by the rules, yet 30% of the respondants believe that is the case.

Had Perry not issued the PS on the matter, I doubt many, if any, would have picked #2 and be able to back it up with rule references.

Perhaps everyone needs to go back and read their training manuals.... :nuts:

... in the beginning, there was the Rally Phase ...

:cheeky:




=Jim=

 

[Largus_Means]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but it does support the current Perry Sayz postion of IF in the DFPh if adjacent when marked FirstFire.

In Journal #3 there is a tip from the trench on page #13.

"Is your postion being swarmed and the enemy about to capture your Gun for double CVP? Are you torn between taking one last shot and spiking the Gun? Never fear, you can shoot your Gun normally in PFPh or DFPh and then destroy it as Intensive Fire. Just be sure during DFPh that there is an adjacent enemy unit allowing you to Final Fire."

Just another ember to the fire, I think that for me this is the truth of it all. During the DFPh no IF if marked with Final counter, and only IF if marked with First counter if an enemy unit is adjacent.

Largus

 

[apbills]

In Journal #3 there is a tip from the trench on page #13.

"Is your postion being swarmed and the enemy about to capture your Gun for double CVP? Are you torn between taking one last shot and spiking the Gun? Never fear, you can shoot your Gun normally in PFPh or DFPh and then destroy it as Intensive Fire. Just be sure during DFPh that there is an adjacent enemy unit allowing you to Final Fire."

Rules support Tips, Tips do not "support" rules.

The rules do not support that Tip.

 

[Tater]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but it does support the current Perry Sayz postion of IF in the DFPh if adjacent when marked FirstFire.

In Journal #3 there is a tip from the trench on page #13.

"Is your postion being swarmed and the enemy about to capture your Gun for double CVP? Are you torn between taking one last shot and spiking the Gun? Never fear, you can shoot your Gun normally in PFPh or DFPh and then destroy it as Intensive Fire. Just be sure during DFPh that there is an adjacent enemy unit allowing you to Final Fire."

Just another ember to the fire, I think that for me this is the truth of it all. During the DFPh no IF if marked with Final counter, and only IF if marked with First counter if an enemy unit is adjacent.

Largus

FYI..."Tips" have been corrected from past journals...more than once I think.

 

[Oberst Balck]

Hello

I was just wondering if this has been resoleved ?

I am playing it ( IF) vs adj targets only these days, prep fire being the main option.

This has been the " apple pie" question of 2006 I think. :halo:

I would also like to ask if ATG's are the same as AFV ( MA) when it comes out...

 

[Ole Boe]

I was just wondering if this has been resoleved ?

I am playing it ( IF) vs adj targets only these days, prep fire being the main option.

IF vs non-adjacent targets is also clearly legal during DFF. It's only the DFPh that is contested.


The current status AFAIK is that Perry asked for a summary as a preparation for J7 errata - which I wrote and sent him 2-3 weeks ago. I haven't heard from him since then.

I would also like to ask if ATG's are the same as AFV ( MA) when it comes out...
But are considered Guns (when firing as orndnance), so all Gun rules apply both to vehicular and non-vehicular Guns - including Intensive Fire rules.

 

[Jim McLeod]

IF vs non-adjacent targets is also clearly legal during DFF. It's only the DFPh that is contested.


The current status AFAIK is that Perry asked for a summary as a preparation for J7 errata - which I wrote and sent him 2-3 weeks ago. I haven't heard from him since then.

I would also like to ask if ATG's are the same as AFV ( MA) when it comes out...
But are considered Guns (when firing as orndnance), so all Gun rules apply both to vehicular and non-vehicular Guns - including Intensive Fire rules.

All good!

This thing isn't over yet.

I wonder when J7 will make its appearance?





=Jim=

 

[Sparafucil3]

My only hope is that when it comes out I can stop being querulous and bitchy about it. -- jim

 

[BobO]

My only hope is that when it comes out I can stop being querulous and bitchy about it. -- jim

Jim,
you are only querulous and bitchy every 28 days or so.


Bob O'