J7 Errata about the use of Intensive Fire during DFPh

[rdw5150]

"To sum up (Ignoring rate): PREP FIRE --> 2 shots, the second as IF
FIRST FIRE --> 2 shots without target limits (second as IF)
FINAL FIRE --> If marked FIRST FIRED, may shoot ADJACENT as IF
If unmarked, may shoot once, be marked FINAL FIRED, no IF

I think the intent is to apply this to all ordanance guns, including AFV MA, although I recognize that C5.6 does say "crews" and that the "slippery slope" of pedantic parsing of the language will once again keep this issue alive for ever. -- jim"

This is what I think it is saying as well. My FtF buddies and I have been debating this issue (we are NOT happy) and feel this is the intent.

I also agree that the "crew" wording is incredibly bad given the rules lawyers out there:nuts: I feel that the rules is to pertain to all AFV, MA as well.

Game has been around for 20 years why mess with it (this badly)? Fix the things that need fixed, but I see no reason for this change.

<SHRUG>

Peace

Roger

 

[KevinG]

> FIRST FIRE --> 2 shots without target limits (second as IF)

So, an IF shot during the MPh is not limited to a target equal or closer than the nearest KEU ?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

> FIRST FIRE --> 2 shots without target limits (second as IF)

So, an IF shot during the MPh is not limited to a target equal or closer than the nearest KEU ?

That is correct - fire away !

 

[Sparafucil3]

> FIRST FIRE --> 2 shots without target limits (second as IF)

So, an IF shot during the MPh is not limited to a target equal or closer than the nearest KEU ?

Correct. At least thats my take. The only real change is that a Gun, which begins the Final Fire Phase unmarked by any fire marker, is not afforded the opprotunity to Intensive Fire once it exhausts rate. -- jim

 

[KevinG]

good, that's how I'd always played it. Was this ever in doubt (I seem to remember a debate about it at some point)? or am i imagining things. Or did the J7 A8.3 errata clear this up ?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

good, that's how I'd always played it. Was this ever in doubt (I seem to remember a debate about it at some point)? or am i imagining things.

No you are not imaginig that there was a debate. As to wheter it was ever in doubt - yes it was - as people obviously played it differently.

I personally believe that most people allowed a Gun that started the DFPh unmarked (by First/Final Fire) to take an IF shot in the DFPh after losing ROF.

Or did the J7 A8.3 errata clear this up ?

Haven't gotten J7 yet, but supposedly some errata in it changed/clarified (depending of your view) this rule.

 

[KevinG]

> I personally believe that most people allowed a Gun that started the DFPh unmarked (by First/Final Fire) to take an IF shot in the DFPh after losing ROF.

> Haven't gotten J7 yet, but supposedly some errata in it changed/clarified (depending of your view) this rule.

Yes.

A8.3 after 'A DEFENDING Infantry unit' add "/(its MG/IFE-weapon)

So I guess this takes Guns out of the mix and implies there was never an issue with AFV.

For the record i hate this change (I cant call it a clarification as i agree with Klas and others that very few played it this way). I dont like the way that Guns/AFV are treated one way in the Prep Fire and DFF phase (with essentially no IF restrictions) and then suddenly become like SW in Final Fire. I say let them IF in FF without the adjacent restriction and irrespective of their Fire marker. IF is one of the fun parts of the game. It is a gamble. All they have done is taken something good away IMO. I have been a fan of everything else that has been changed. WA great. HW great. Platoon movement great. Bridge TEM - dont care. But this one really sucks.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

> Haven't gotten J7 yet, but supposedly some errata in it changed/clarified (depending of your view) this rule.

Yes.

A8.3 after 'A DEFENDING Infantry unit' add "/(its MG/IFE-weapon)

So I guess this takes Guns out of the mix and implies there was never an issue with AFV.

I think the errata for this change/clarification was for a rule in Chapter C - presumably C5.6.

 

[Robin Reeve]

A8.1 ... Defensive Fire is unique in that it can occur during the enemy MPh as well as during its own DFPh.

If one considers that DFF and DFPh are a defensive fire time cut in two parts, one can understand some restrictions to IF during the DFPh.
When DFPh, part of the time has been taken by the enemy MPh and DFF...
Now, as ASL is a sequential game (i.e. not simultaneous), some abstractions are needed, and they won't "fit" with all situations.
In this case, if the attacker is simply firing without moving, the DFF opportunities disappear and the game system makes the defender have less defensive fire opportunities...
Now, if we try to link defensive fire with Prep Fire, we see that both opponents have the same number of opportunities to fire and IF, but at some moments, one seems to have the hand over the other.

 

[Reepicheep]

To sum up (Ignoring rate): PREP FIRE --> 2 shots, the second as IF
FIRST FIRE --> 2 shots without target limits (second as IF)
FINAL FIRE --> If marked FIRST FIRED, may shoot ADJACENT as IF
If unmarked, may shoot once, be marked FINAL FIRED, no IF

Jim, I just want to say that I found this summary extremely helpful to get my head around what has happened. I feel like I have been going crazy with all the discussion trying to work out how the rules play now. Assuming your summary was correct (!!), then it's very helpful and I think I understand how ordnance can now use IF under the new errata.

 

[Ole Boe]

I'd love to help, but I haven't been able to figure out how I go through 4.21D once, and then loop back to 4.21D again for the same unit.

I don't follow you. When the DEFENDER comes to step 4.21D (The During the DFPh step for those without the ASOP at hand), the DEFENDER stays in that step for all of his units as long as he has any units which can do something useful in that step. He may do the actions in that step in any order with any unit and even do the same action many times with the same unit - as long as this is otherwise allowed in the rules.

This is nothing special about step 4.21D, but applies to most steps of the ASOP, so I really don't understand what you mean about going through the step once and looping back.

2.22A also never guides you back to the beginning of 2.22A after firing, so I am not sure of the differences between Prep Fire (2.22A) and Defensive Fire (4.21D) in that regard.

They work similarily as described above.

Ole, Jim, Larry and others should be able to explain this as they understand that mechanism and the differences between the ASOP wording for 2.22A and 4.21D.

The steps work in the same manner. The important difference in this discussion, is that 4.21D explains exactly what units/weapons that can and cannot fire depending on First/Final/Intensive Fire counters while 2.22A has no such explanation, thus leaving that to the rule text.

Also notice that the loop back for MPh is for each new moving unit, and occurs at the end of ITS MPH, thereby allowing the next moving unit to move and be shot at, and the ASOP specifically calls out this loop.

Yes, so the "ITS" MPh steps are different than most others steps in the ASOP in two regards:
1) You cannot do actions with different units in any order
2) You can step back to a previous step under certain restrictions.

This is special handling that is explained at the start of the MPh steps, and is very different from most other steps (including the PFPh and DFPh steps) where you can do anything legal as many times as you want in any order with any unit within a step.

In addition, I am now stumped on if a tank is allowed to Intensive Fire during DFPh. I think given the updated wording, YES, it still is.

C5.6 now says that when a crew is marked with a Final Fire counter it can not IF. For a tank, I don't believe the crew is ever marked with any counter, so I think it is still legal.

I grant that C5.6 would be better worded if instead of "crew of the Gun" it said "crew/Gun" - but that is true about another requirement of IF as well. IF cannot be used if the crew is shocked, but A7.4-.42 tells us that it is the AFV that is shocked.

We also know that the higher numbered rule does NOT apply to IF, since that is why this whole IF thing came up - i.e., A8.4 was NOT superceded by C5.6, although I assume the CHANGE was made to C5.6, so that higher numbered rules would be consistent with lower number rules.

A8.4 was not superceeded by C5.6 because C5.6 didn't say explicitely that A8.4 or any other general fire rule was excepted by C5.6. C5.6 says nothing about IF being illegal if the crew is broken, but it is still illegal due to A10.4 even though C5.6 is a higher numbered rule.

You just cannot use the higher number rule to break previous rules like that - unless the higher numbered rule specifically says that it supercedes those other rules.

 

[apbills]

If one considers that DFF and DFPh are a defensive fire time cut in two parts, one can understand some restrictions to IF during the DFPh.
When DFPh, part of the time has been taken by the enemy MPh and DFF...
Now, as ASL is a sequential game (i.e. not simultaneous), some abstractions are needed, and they won't "fit" with all situations.
In this case, if the attacker is simply firing without moving, the DFF opportunities disappear and the game system makes the defender have less defensive fire opportunities...
Now, if we try to link defensive fire with Prep Fire, we see that both opponents have the same number of opportunities to fire and IF, but at some moments, one seems to have the hand over the other.

I don't agree at all. Since they are one phase specifically split to allow MOVEMENT and fit within the construct of allowing units that move to be fired upon at the time of movement - i.e., that is the change from SL to ASL, those units that have not fired until DFPh have just as much time as those firing on moving units. The difference is the game sequencing that in ASL forces the defender to fire at MOVING units during MPh if they want to fire at them in other than their final Location.

SL ALWAYS allowed IF in DFPh. There was NO firing in MPh. Since ASL now allows firing in Movement Phase, that didn't equate to some kind of limited firing in DFPh.

How did the addition of firing during Movement Phase somehow limit the ability of defenders to fire at stationary targets? Units were always moving before, and it didn't seem to affect the ability of a defender to properly prioritize and fire at HIS target, regardless of the targets activities or other units activities around him. In a single Player turn there is still the same amount of time for each player.

Think of the DFPh as an extension of the MPH, only this time the Defender gets to select each of the remaining non-moved units to fire at.

Unfortunately your analysis of equal number of fire opportunities is not correct. It depends on whether or not your opponent moves. Against moving units, you get IF, against non-moving units you do not.

The clearist example is the case where you have a unit adjacent to you at the start of the player turn. That unit Prep Fires. You are forever limited to just one shot at it. If another unit moves adjacent to you, you can defensive first fire, and final fire IF at it.

From a GUN perspective, this is a big change. You always had the ability to Fire one more shot during that player turn, with the only exception being you could not move and then IF fire during the AFPh. This was a unique capability for a GUN. You risked breakdown due to the higher ROF you gained, but in some cases you may need it. This is not the only characteristic of a GUN. You need to hit the target first (unlike an MG/IFE weapon).

GUNS were GUNS. Now in MPh/DFPh they are just SW, even if they are tank mounted.

 

[apbills]

A8.4 was not superceeded by C5.6 because C5.6 didn't say explicitely that A8.4 or any other general fire rule was excepted by C5.6. C5.6 says nothing about IF being illegal if the crew is broken, but it is still illegal due to A10.4 even though C5.6 is a higher numbered rule.

You just cannot use the higher number rule to break previous rules like that - unless the higher numbered rule specifically says that it supercedes those other rules.

Please Ole, tell me you are just kidding.

7.1 Fire attacks are the main process by which a unit attacks enemy units. Fire attacks can occur in the PFPh and AFPh by the ATTACKER and in the MPh and the DFPh by the DEFENDER, but no unit can fire its inherent FP/SW/Gun in more than one fire phase (A.15) per Player Turn. Otherwise, players may fire all, some, or none of their units in any applicable fire phase.

8.4 FINAL FIRE: That portion of Defensive Fire which occurs during the DFPh is called Final Fire. During Final Fire any of the DEFENDER's units that are not marked with a First, Final, Intensive, or No Fire counter may fire. Any such units/ weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, therefore also possibly benefiting from PBF (or TPBF). A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire. Final Fire affects all applicable units in a target Location - not just those that may have moved - but without any modifiers for FFNAM/FFMO.

I see no explicit exception to the A7.1 rule in A8.4 or A8.41. It doesn’t say it supersedes A7.1 either. Since the higher numbered rule does not do as you say, than IF must be available in DFPh since it is available in MPh. In fact, C5.6 is kind of a waste, since it does not explicitly state it supersedes A7.1 and so if pinned you can actually still IF.

If you read the Introduction, it actually states the opposite of what you have said - Lastly, whenever a seeming contradiction appears between rule cases, the higher alpha-numeric rule case always takes precedence, barring mention of a specific exception (e.g., B1 is higher numbered rule that A1).

Unless the higher number rule explicitly states an exception, it ALWAYS takes precedence.


Notice that until the errata came out - regardless of the other positions - C5.6 took precedence, and GUNS could IF during DFPh, since there was no explicit exception in the C5.6 rule for the A8.4 rule. If that was not the case, there would have been NO reason to modify C5.6, since it did not explicitly state any exceptions to previous rules.

 

[KevinG]

ug, so now where there are 2 stationary vehicles firing at each other, the phasing player can IF, but the defender cannot?

This _really_ sucks. Things are being changed to suit the rules lawyers pet interpretations, rather than being clarified so they have nothing to lawyer on about. I hope this is not the shape of things to come.

I am really dissapointed that this was given the ok.

 

[Brien Martin]

ug, so now where there are 2 stationary vehicles firing at each other, the phasing player can IF, but the defender cannot?

This _really_ sucks. Things are being changed to suit the rules lawyers pet interpretations, rather than being clarified so they have nothing to lawyer on about. I hope this is not the shape of things to come.

I am really dissapointed that this was given the ok.

And folks wonder why I'm selling my ASL kit ... the rules lawyers are just ruining the game ...

Brien

 

[Robin Reeve]

And folks wonder why I'm selling my ASL kit ... the rules lawyers are just ruining the game ...

Anyway, you have opted for ATS a long time ago...

 

[Ole Boe]

Please Ole, tell me you are just kidding.

No I'm not. I believe the higher numbered rule is the single most broken rule in the entire ASL system, and that it's not worth anything at all, except as source for confusion. I think you may have still misunderstood me a bit though...

I see no explicit exception to the A7.1 rule in A8.4 or A8.41. It doesn’t say it supersedes A7.1 either. Since the higher numbered rule does not do as you say, than IF must be available in DFPh since it is available in MPh. In fact, C5.6 is kind of a waste, since it does not explicitly state it supersedes A7.1 and so if pinned you can actually still IF.

I don't follow you at all here. I'm not at all saying that any rule must say "this rule supercedes rule x.xx" for it to do so.

What I'm saying is that all parts of lower-numbered rules are in effect, except in those specific details that a higher-numbered rule changes. When C5.6 tells us that a Gun gets one additional shot, it does so under all restrictions in previous rules. A few of them are mentioned in C5.6, but most are not.

C5.6 does not say that it can only do so in a fire phase, that the crew must be Good Order or that the Gun cannot be limbered or malfunctioned, and it doesn't say that an AFV can only use IF as BFF from the same hex it previously fired. Only the part about limbered and BFF are higher-numbered rules than C5.6, so if you take the higher numbered rule literally, only twose two restrictions apply to IF.

I know you agree with me that a malfunctioned Gun with a broken crew cannot use IF in the CCPh, even though C5.6 is a higher numbered rule, but my argument is that A8.4, A8.41 and the ASOP applies just as much as those other rules to restrict IF.

If you read the Introduction, it actually states the opposite of what you have said - Lastly, whenever a seeming contradiction appears between rule cases, the higher alpha-numeric rule case always takes precedence, barring mention of a specific exception (e.g., B1 is higher numbered rule that A1).

I know, and I also know that anyone who takes that rule literally, will break about every single ASL rule. What I believe the rule should say, and how I believe 99% of seemingly contradictions are solved, is that the more detailed rule takes precedence over the less details, but only in those areas where it is more detailed.

A10.4 is more detailed about the capabilities of broken units than C5.6, so it still applies to prevent a broken unit from using IF, even if C5.6 is a higher numbered rule.

Notice that until the errata came out - regardless of the other positions - C5.6 took precedence, and GUNS could IF during DFPh, since there was no explicit exception in the C5.6 rule for the A8.4 rule. If that was not the case, there would have been NO reason to modify C5.6, since it did not explicitly state any exceptions to previous rules.

Even if you think the higher numbered rule can be applied so literally, then the ASOP takes precedence over it when it comes to order of actions (Is IF allowed after being marked with a Final Fire counter), but I think you should also explain why C5.6 takes precedence over A8.4/A8.41, but not A10.4


Finally, let me say that you have some good points - especially the one about the wording of C5.6, where it should say "crew/Gun" instead of "crew of the Gun ". I see that such a discussion tend be polarized, which is a shame, because I'm not really saying that I think the J7 errata is unproblematic - but rather that I believe (and Perry does too as explained in the TftT) that the errata only clarifies what the rule was before the errata.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

- but rather that I believe (and Perry does too as explained in the TftT) that the errata only clarifies what the rule was before the errata.

It seems to me that the majority of the players thought the rule was something else for 20+ years.

And that (IMHO) should be a large factor when clarifying/changing a rule.

 

[Ole Boe]

It seems to me that the majority of the players thought the rule was something else for 20+ years.

And that (IMHO) should be a large factor when clarifying/changing a rule.

I actually agree with you Klas. I'm not at all saying that the errata is unproblematic, but I'm still trying to explain it.

 

[Treadhead]

I believe the higher numbered rule is the single most broken rule in the entire ASL system, and that it's not worth anything at all, except as source for confusion.

I really don't agree with this sentiment, Ole. I'm surprised to read this statement.

What I believe the rule should say, and how I believe 99% of seemingly contradictions are solved, is that the more detailed rule takes precedence over the less details, but only in those areas where it is more detailed.

In fact, that's what happens.

E.2: "Whenever a seeming contradiction occurs between rule case ... " (emphasis added)

It is only within those contradictions (i.e. the "details") that the higher rule takes precedence.

... because I'm not really saying that I think the J7 errata is unproblematic - but rather that I believe (and Perry does too as explained in the TftT) that the errata only clarifies what the rule was before the errata.

First, I'm troubled by an errata -- which ostensibly is supposed to clarify something -- is still considered "problematic".

Second, I was a little offended by the wording of that Tip, which said that "A8.4 (is) pretty clear". That is a total load of BS.

I'm not at all saying that the errata is unproblematic, but I'm still trying to explain it.

That is an amazing comment. WOW!

Maybe it's just me, but an errata should be self-evident, and not require further explaining. If it is still "problematic" and require still further explaining, then perhaps more time and thought should have been taken before the errata was made.

Sorry, but I've become suspicious of the path these errata and so-called "clarifications" seem to be taking. It's an easy and cheap comment to make on my part, but dammit that's how I feel. I'm really unhappy about how decisions to change rules are being made.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken