J13 errata

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Am I being obtuse? J13 errata updates A7.55.
Previous: "If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target ..."
New: "If units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other in the same Location are going to fire at the same target ..."

Is the meaning the same? For some reason my head is saying it should read "If units/weapons in the same Location capable of forming a FG with each other are going to fire at the same target ..."

I think I spend too much time parsing sentences.
 

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
305
Reaction score
133
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Hi apbills,

Fun. Okay, I grew up as an American ex-pat in Europe, and my American English spelling and grammar are a mess; so, I work on it. Here's what I've got: 1) let's call the conditions cited in the rules adverbial phrases (they're applying conditions to the verb phrase "are going to fire"); 2) adverbs used in standard English should be organized as follows: manner, place, frequency, time, and purpose. It seems to me that the new structure is more correct. Manner ("capable of forming with each other") appears to me to be properly positioned before place ("in the same location").

I'm learning every day; so, grammarians, chime in.

Cheers,
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
You may be correct, but the way I read it "in the same Location" is applying a condition to "capable of forming a FG with each other", not a condition on the "units/weapons". The mandatory FG rule is about units/weapons in the same location. Both conditions apply to units/weapons, so maybe it needs some additional punctuation? maybe a comma?
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Another errata.
C12.3 adds "If firing within hex, the zone is only that hex." What hex? Should this be "If firing within its hex, the zone is only that hex."? Even that is shorthand for "if firing at a target within its hex" given you always fire from within your hex.

regardless, I assume this is resolving the problem of determining the direction of the backblast zone when you have no real "opposite direction of the LOF".
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
The errata is designed to prevent the Ammunition Shortage sleaze which would otherwise allow mmc and mg to fire separately at the same target.
The errata worsens ASL ammo shortage, simulates ammo-discipline idiocy, and skews against Partisan OBs in existing scenarios. Why do that?

[Original rule was elegant genius. I argued against this "correction." Mission fail on my part.]

The only reason for the original exemption of ammo-short MG from Mandatory FG was precisely to model how necessary ammo discipline was as a tactic. When troops know they're short, they do not operate as usual. This is obvious.

Prior verbiage allowed players the option to be intelligent w/their limited-life MGs. The changed verbiage mandates Fight Stupid.

The change is a blunder. The game is made worse owing to it. This is obvious.

Dense.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Had a situation recently where the previous A7.55 wouldn't quite make the mark. A Squad with a LMG (both Good order) fire at a CE ht; the MG was using the TH but would still cause a Specific Collateral Attack vs the CE on the IFT if a hit was secured vs the crew so was basically ineligible to fire with the Squads Inherent FP even though both would fire at the same target.
 

fanatic+1

Ryan Kent
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
100
Location
San Rafael, CA
Country
llUnited States
Had a situation recently where the previous A7.55 wouldn't quite make the mark. A Squad with a LMG (both Good order) fire at a CE ht; the MG was using the TH but would still cause a Specific Collateral Attack vs the CE on the IFT if a hit was secured vs the crew so was basically ineligible to fire with the Squads Inherent FP even though both would fire at the same target.
MG firing to hit an AFV and then having to roll TK fire as ordnance and are explicitly excluded from the restrictions of A7.55 regardless of collateral effects of a hit.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Also, in the Debriefing, the changes for scenario A75 Medal of Honor are mistakenly listed as being for "A85 Medal of Honor".
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Another errata.
C12.3 adds "If firing within hex, the zone is only that hex." What hex? Should this be "If firing within its hex, the zone is only that hex."? Even that is shorthand for "if firing at a target within its hex" given you always fire from within your hex.
"within hex" is sort of defined in a couple of other places:
To Hit DRM Chart:
E. Fire within hex

Index:
Firing Within Hex (i.e., firing at zero range):


regardless, I assume this is resolving the problem of determining the direction of the backblast zone when you have no real "opposite direction of the LOF".
It is.
 
Last edited:

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
"within hex" is sort of defined in a couple of other places:
To Hit DRM Chart:
E. Fire within hex

Index:
Firing Within Hex (i.e., firing at zero range):
Even Case E writes it out in for you...
5.5 CASE E; FIRING WITHIN HEX: Any Gun firing at a target within its own hex must ...

I clearly understood what the term was saying, I just didn't see the need to shortcut it by taking out a few words and force someone to go figure out what the term meant.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Had a situation recently where the previous A7.55 wouldn't quite make the mark. A Squad with a LMG (both Good order) fire at a CE ht; the MG was using the TH but would still cause a Specific Collateral Attack vs the CE on the IFT if a hit was secured vs the crew so was basically ineligible to fire with the Squads Inherent FP even though both would fire at the same target.
Is this actually correct? If you fire a MG using the TH table, I think you are considered ordnance.
C.2 ORDNANCE: Any weapon that must secure a hit on a To Hit Table before resolving the effect of that hit on either the IFT or To Kill Table is termed ordnance. The same weapon may or may not be considered ordnance depending on its use; a Gun with an IFE capability (2.29) is not considered ordnance while using IFE because it does not make a To Hit DR.

That would mean, per A7.55, that MG would fall under the exception (given it fires as ordnance).
"...they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC ..."
 

Dan Kosko

Recruit
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
First name
Dan
Country
llUnited States
In ASL Journal 13 in the errata it states that "Good Order units/weapons" should be replaced by "units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other" essentially leaving out the words "Good Order" and adding those at the end.

But in the EASLRB 2.04 it left the words "Good Order" in. Is this correct or should the words "Good Order" actually be removed? Do they HAVE to be good order units (though the answer is kind of obvious that they do)? It doesnt state that in 7.5. Should Good order be added to 7.5?
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
In ASL Journal 13 in the errata it states that "Good Order units/weapons" should be replaced by "units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other" essentially leaving out the words "Good Order" and adding those at the end.

But in the EASLRB 2.04 it left the words "Good Order" in. Is this correct or should the words "Good Order" actually be removed? Do they HAVE to be good order units (though the answer is kind of obvious that they do)? It doesnt state that in 7.5. Should Good order be added to 7.5?
That's an error in 2.04. I have sent MMP an email about it.
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
That's an error in 2.04.
An opinion of yours not shared by all.

For obvious reasons, that bit of J13 errata was the error -- rather than the eASLRB incorporate it, J14 should rescind it. For cause.

I like to suppose that Executive Wisdom has intervened already to prevent that change to the ASLRB.
I have sent MMP an email about it.
It is my further supposition that Executive Wisdom might continue to show by considering but declining your personal wish for application of this clearly errant change.

WRT Ammo Shortage and the behavioral changes that induced historically, the substantially-unchanged decades-old rule-as-writ is elegant in it's "realistic" capture of that behavior.
25002
The J13 errata to it would be a gross corruption of a subtle elegance in the rules. Why kill that? Hopefully, that change will be nerfed.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
A Berserk squad in a hex with other Good Order infantry can now firegroup in Dfire.

They cannot fire seperately at the same target from this errata forward.
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
Someone was kind enough to point out w/an example a valid motivation for consideration of removal of "Good Order" from A7.55, sentence 1:
a_helpful_email said:
...consider this: it is Final Fire. A M4 Sherman and a 9-2, 6-6-6, .50 are in the same Location. They 9-2 MMC/HMG fire at a location and get no result. Now the Sherman wishes to fire its MG's at the same Location. Is this allowed in the original rules? Imagine it had an IFE MA wished to fire at the same Location. Can it?

A7.55 MANDATORY FG: If Good Order units/weapon in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).

The answer is no, it could not. It ran afoul of Mandatory FG rules. As originally written, all the units in the Location are GO and MUST firegroup and they can't unless the AFV in question is a half track. Clearly, this isn't how the rules have been played for decades so something had to be done.
His example, though, drew my eye to something else.

[TBH, I had so-focussed on the J13 deletion of "Good Order" that I missed the rather elegant eASLRBv2.04 insertion of "capable of forming a FG with each other” (see below).]
eASLRB_v2.04 said:
7.55 MANDATORY FG: If Good Order units/weapons capable of forming a FG with each other in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).
...and the highlighted text was not present in eASLRB_v2.03.

This lone insertion, unmentioned in J13 but present in eASLRB_v2.04, is apparently an afterthought -- and seemingly addresses "the problem" w/out deleting "Good Order."

AFAIK, there remain no justifications for deletion of “Good Order” from A7.55, sentence #1. Hence, I've fair confidence the J13 A7.55 erratum will be rescinded and a suitable replacement will be published re the insertion instead of the "capable of..." text.

[At risk of being premature, Well done, MMP, for a needle very finely threaded.]
 
Last edited:
Top