Mandatory LOS for concealment loss/gain (can it be true?)
- Thread starter Will Fleming
- Start date
apbills
Elder Member
The only reason the table states "from the nearest" is so we don't get into stupid discussions about which column takes precedence when you have both units at <= 16 and >= 17. (which given historical data is a 100% probability).
Bruce's premise that the A12.14 " If the only Good Order enemy ground unit in LOS is itself concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), that enemy unit must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his; the viewing unit's momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained." means that if you have more than one unit you have no option, is bluntly - way off base.
On the other hand, the rule could easily be re-written to be more clear and prevent this kind of backwards thinking.
If the only Good Order enemy ground units in LOS are themselves concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), one of the enemy units must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his. The viewing unit's momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained.
I believe the above is how 99.9% of the ASL world plays. I have never found anyone who played otherwise. (until I started to read this thread).
Bruce's premise that the A12.14 " If the only Good Order enemy ground unit in LOS is itself concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), that enemy unit must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his; the viewing unit's momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained." means that if you have more than one unit you have no option, is bluntly - way off base.
On the other hand, the rule could easily be re-written to be more clear and prevent this kind of backwards thinking.
If the only Good Order enemy ground units in LOS are themselves concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), one of the enemy units must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his. The viewing unit's momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained.
I believe the above is how 99.9% of the ASL world plays. I have never found anyone who played otherwise. (until I started to read this thread).
James Taylor
I love women with brains
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
I recognize that you feel my interpretation is a stretch, but to your specific criticism that the rules in no way link LOS Checks to specific players I continue to maintain that "in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit" speaks to a specific unit/side, and since neither player may make free LOS checks otherwise, it is the controlling player of that unit that gets to determine if the *optional* LOS Check is made.
Just as the controlling player makes PAATC, MC or other checks associated with their unit, they make LOS Checks as well.
There is a further note I would add, and that is directed at your point about the rules not addressing the situation specifically enough. I'm in agreement with this, but I believe that in part is due to the "honor system House Rule" recommendation of 12.16.
What would be nice would be for there to be (at least one) detailed documented method for this House Rule. (Perhaps alternatives as well). Do those need to be in the RB? Possibly preferred, but not necessarily.
I'm not sure I have the time currently (given with all the posts there are that require responding too
), but assuming I could make the time I'd be happy to participate in the creation of such a documented House Rule.
JT
Actually Tate, I have no problem in learning to play the rules differently if so needed, but I do appreciate the overall tone of your reply.
I recognize that you feel my interpretation is a stretch, but to your specific criticism that the rules in no way link LOS Checks to specific players I continue to maintain that "in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit" speaks to a specific unit/side, and since neither player may make free LOS checks otherwise, it is the controlling player of that unit that gets to determine if the *optional* LOS Check is made.
Just as the controlling player makes PAATC, MC or other checks associated with their unit, they make LOS Checks as well.
There is a further note I would add, and that is directed at your point about the rules not addressing the situation specifically enough. I'm in agreement with this, but I believe that in part is due to the "honor system House Rule" recommendation of 12.16.
What would be nice would be for there to be (at least one) detailed documented method for this House Rule. (Perhaps alternatives as well). Do those need to be in the RB? Possibly preferred, but not necessarily.
I'm not sure I have the time currently (given with all the posts there are that require responding too
), but assuming I could make the time I'd be happy to participate in the creation of such a documented House Rule.JT
Treadhead
Senior Member
I haven't pressed too hard about the "only" unit being concealed, etc.
This is fantastic. I would have not problem with this, vis-a-vis concealed viewers. It would retain most of the FoW control that many feel is mandatory.
And really, my contention primarily concerns unconcealed enemy units. I agree that the intent (most probably) is that concealed viewers have the option to momentarily drop it to cause concealment loss. But that option is only available to concealed viewers.
IMO, players have conflated that to include all viewers.
Bruce
Last edited:
Treadhead
Senior Member
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
The "?" player has the concealment, and to retain it, checks for LOS to an enemy unit.
That is a major crux of the issue: the POV of the instruction.
Whenever the ASLRB says to compare something relative to the "enemy", I take that instruction as being directed to the friendly player.
Bruce
From my understanding, a statement such as this is from the friendly player's point of view.
The "?" player has the concealment, and to retain it, checks for LOS to an enemy unit.
That is a major crux of the issue: the POV of the instruction.
Whenever the ASLRB says to compare something relative to the "enemy", I take that instruction as being directed to the friendly player.
Bruce
apbills
Elder Member
I may have misplaced the people in the thread and what they were supporting.
As for my words, they would still need work as they do not cover the single concealed unit at this time.
alanp
Philosopher of ASL
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
Here is the crux.
And why would the CP (concealed player) need to check to see if they have Concealment? They may drop it at any time--in fact are told they can to prevent this free LOS check as many have already posted--the unit is only concealed for the opponent (assuming you remember what you have under the '?' counter); you do, I presume, have Right of Inspection of your own stacks. Another assumption, I know, but one of many I make while playing ASL.
Here is the crux.
And why would the CP (concealed player) need to check to see if they have Concealment? They may drop it at any time--in fact are told they can to prevent this free LOS check as many have already posted--the unit is only concealed for the opponent (assuming you remember what you have under the '?' counter
); you do, I presume, have Right of Inspection of your own stacks. Another assumption, I know, but one of many I make while playing ASL.
Treadhead
Senior Member
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
What if they wish to retain concealment at every opportunity?
A "?" unit is compelled (by my reasoning) to lose that "?" as a result of performing certain activities under certain conditions.
When a "?" unit performs an action, a possible result of that action is "?" loss.
Like every other time a unit performs any action, the results and consequences of that action are the responsibility of the owning player to implement.
Bruce
What if they don't want to drop it at any time?
What if they wish to retain concealment at every opportunity?
A "?" unit is compelled (by my reasoning) to lose that "?" as a result of performing certain activities under certain conditions.
When a "?" unit performs an action, a possible result of that action is "?" loss.
Like every other time a unit performs any action, the results and consequences of that action are the responsibility of the owning player to implement.
Bruce
James Taylor
I love women with brains
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
There is nothing explicit in A12.14 to say that the concealment losing player MAY Check LOS. However, in multiple instances through the concealment rules we have examples of the concealment stripping player "acting" to "force loss" or "deny gain".
1) The concealment stripping player MAY temporarily reveal a concealed unit to force loss.
2) The concealment stripping player MAY Check LOS to reveal a concealed unit performing a concealment loss activity.
3) The concealment denying player MAY place a HIP unit on board underneath a concealment counter in order to deny gain.
4) The concealment denying player MAY Check LOS to deny gain.
In 1 & 3 the concealment losing player is absolutely not allowed to perform a LOS Check. Yet these other mechanics seem to carry very little weight with your interpretation of the rules. For me that is crux.
JT
You are saying this is the "crux" of the issue. There are other instances within the RB where the POV is similar and yet it is obvious that the other player may perform an action: e.g. "11.16 BROKEN UNITS: A broken unit in the same location with an enemy unit may be attacked in CC and is subject to a -2 DRM to the CC DR." Would you suggest that the broken unit is allowed to conduct the attack because of the friendly POV?
There is nothing explicit in A12.14 to say that the concealment losing player MAY Check LOS. However, in multiple instances through the concealment rules we have examples of the concealment stripping player "acting" to "force loss" or "deny gain".
1) The concealment stripping player MAY temporarily reveal a concealed unit to force loss.
2) The concealment stripping player MAY Check LOS to reveal a concealed unit performing a concealment loss activity.
3) The concealment denying player MAY place a HIP unit on board underneath a concealment counter in order to deny gain.
4) The concealment denying player MAY Check LOS to deny gain.
In 1 & 3 the concealment losing player is absolutely not allowed to perform a LOS Check. Yet these other mechanics seem to carry very little weight with your interpretation of the rules. For me that is crux.
JT
Treadhead
Senior Member
Re: I'm home and with my RB again!
A11.16: "A broken unit in the same location with an enemy unit may be attacked in CC..."
A11.16 (next sentence): "Broken units may never attack..."
What I see are three sentences, each with "broken unit" as the subject of the sentence.
What I see are three qualifying sentences directed at both players.
From the point of view of the subject, the subject may never attack, and the subject may be attacked.
[The wording of the rule is very precise, although many seem to apply "common sense" and assume it means more than what it says.]
I see a rule declaring that concealment is lost when in LOS. That's about the extent of it.
I see that same rule in the same light as the rule about the broken unit. It is a sentence directed at both players, telling them the result of any action by one of their concealed units. Unlike the broken unit rule above, this sentence however, lacks any reference to what the enemy unit "may" do.
For the implications on concealment gain, see below.
I see no statement or phrase pertaining to what the "enemy" player "may" do. Nor do I see anything about the opposing player participating in the process at all, and certainly not being required to check the chart.
I see in A12.121, an option for the ATTACKER to gain concealment, and directions for how to determine if it may do so. [ASOP Step 8.44A (ATTACKER)] I see nothing in A12.121 about the DEFENDER's or the "enemy's" role in performing this activity.
I see in A12.14, a direction to the concealed unit about what happens if it performs a concealment-loss activity in LOS of the enemy. [For moving units, ASOP Step 3.32A (ATTACKER)] I see nothing in A12.14 about the opposing player's role in performing this activity.
In point of fact, I see these rules as being instructions for both players in the process. However, I see the subject of each activity as "non-concealed Good Order unit", and "concealed unit", respectively. In other words, the unit checking for a change in its concealment status.
Furthermore, I don't see anything optional suggested about these rules. I see them as non-optional game results, to be implemented as required by the circumstances.
I understand that a philosophy has developed with regard to LOS and to which side is obligated to check LOS. I am further led to understand that this seems to have developed from virtues such as common sense, sportsmanship, playability, and even competitiveness.
I am also led to believe that it is a common perception among those sharing that philosophy, that a literal interpretation of the rules is lacking in the virtues of common sense, sportsmanship, playability, and competitiveness. I believe that can be the only reason for some of the reactions to a literal approach of playing by the rules. I also believe that such a viewpoint is fallacious.
I have in this post tried to be clear and concise.
Regards,
Bruce
A10.4: "Broken units may neither attack in any way..."James Taylor said:
A11.16: "A broken unit in the same location with an enemy unit may be attacked in CC..."
A11.16 (next sentence): "Broken units may never attack..."
What I see are three sentences, each with "broken unit" as the subject of the sentence.
What I see are three qualifying sentences directed at both players.
From the point of view of the subject, the subject may never attack, and the subject may be attacked.
A12.14. An option granted by rule.
[The wording of the rule is very precise, although many seem to apply "common sense" and assume it means more than what it says.]
I see no rule that says the viewing player may do anything.
I see a rule declaring that concealment is lost when in LOS. That's about the extent of it.
I see that same rule in the same light as the rule about the broken unit. It is a sentence directed at both players, telling them the result of any action by one of their concealed units. Unlike the broken unit rule above, this sentence however, lacks any reference to what the enemy unit "may" do.
A12.14: "The owning player can voluntarily remove any concealment at any time during his or his opponent's Player Turn..."
For the implications on concealment gain, see below.
In A12.121, I see a sentence telling the would-be concealment-gaining unit to determine three things: it's category, whether it is in LOS of an unbroken enemy ground unit (and it's range), and whether it is in concealment terrain. I further see an instruction to the would-be concealment-gaining unit to cross-index those facts to find the appropriate triangle on the chart.
I see no statement or phrase pertaining to what the "enemy" player "may" do. Nor do I see anything about the opposing player participating in the process at all, and certainly not being required to check the chart.
I have the polar opposite view.
I see in A12.121, an option for the ATTACKER to gain concealment, and directions for how to determine if it may do so. [ASOP Step 8.44A (ATTACKER)] I see nothing in A12.121 about the DEFENDER's or the "enemy's" role in performing this activity.
I see in A12.14, a direction to the concealed unit about what happens if it performs a concealment-loss activity in LOS of the enemy. [For moving units, ASOP Step 3.32A (ATTACKER)] I see nothing in A12.14 about the opposing player's role in performing this activity.
I hope that my comments above will help clarify how the mechanics influence my interpretation of the rules.
In point of fact, I see these rules as being instructions for both players in the process. However, I see the subject of each activity as "non-concealed Good Order unit", and "concealed unit", respectively. In other words, the unit checking for a change in its concealment status.
Furthermore, I don't see anything optional suggested about these rules. I see them as non-optional game results, to be implemented as required by the circumstances.
I understand that a philosophy has developed with regard to LOS and to which side is obligated to check LOS. I am further led to understand that this seems to have developed from virtues such as common sense, sportsmanship, playability, and even competitiveness.
I am also led to believe that it is a common perception among those sharing that philosophy, that a literal interpretation of the rules is lacking in the virtues of common sense, sportsmanship, playability, and competitiveness. I believe that can be the only reason for some of the reactions to a literal approach of playing by the rules. I also believe that such a viewpoint is fallacious.
I have in this post tried to be clear and concise.
Regards,
Bruce
Last edited:
James Taylor
I love women with brains
Bruce,
You've stated that the friendly POV is the crux of your argument.
Please read 11.16 again. NOWHERE does it say what the enemy unit can do. It is using the SAME POV voice as 12.14, but clearly it is NOT instructing the friendly, i.e. broken unit on what it may do.
From my perspective I've shown you an example in the rules where the same POV voice is used and it is not an instruction to the friendly player. Therefore your contention that whenever the friendly POV voice is used that it is instructing the friendly unit is not proven. You need something else to make the case that 12.14 is being instructive to a friendly unit.
As far as the rest of it.
The only one worth discussing IMO is 4).
Who strings when a unit is trying to gain.
Well... guess what?
"6.11 LOS CHECKS" does not allow free LOS checks for concealment gain 12.121... only for 12.14 removal.
So you may have to determine it, but by a strict reading of the rules NEITHER player is allowed to get out the sewing thread.
Hmmmm.... kind of impractical isn't?
So what happens.... players extend their suggested "honor system House Rule" to deal with the situation as follows:
Who holds the string does not matter. What matters is who decides if the string is strung... and that is the player denying the concealment gain. He makes the determination if he is willing to show the other player that the LOS exists or if he will allow him to gain concealment unchallenged.
I know you don't agree with it, but it really does not matter. You have no answer as to a rule that will allow a string to be drawn to deny concealment gain, because the rules don't address it, and in fact forbid it. But we know it must be determined. So as a practical matter we incorporate it into our honor system... thereby contributing to the FoW aspect of the game. Is the LOS there, or not?
Finally, Bruce, I've debated this with you for 8 days now. I've shown within the rules what I believe is a good story that supports the way that the game is being played by many, many players. You've heard from Perry.
Nothing personal, but at this point I think its time for me to move on to other things.
JT
You've stated that the friendly POV is the crux of your argument.
Please read 11.16 again. NOWHERE does it say what the enemy unit can do. It is using the SAME POV voice as 12.14, but clearly it is NOT instructing the friendly, i.e. broken unit on what it may do.
From my perspective I've shown you an example in the rules where the same POV voice is used and it is not an instruction to the friendly player. Therefore your contention that whenever the friendly POV voice is used that it is instructing the friendly unit is not proven. You need something else to make the case that 12.14 is being instructive to a friendly unit.
As far as the rest of it.
The only one worth discussing IMO is 4).
Who strings when a unit is trying to gain.
Well... guess what?
"6.11 LOS CHECKS" does not allow free LOS checks for concealment gain 12.121... only for 12.14 removal.
So you may have to determine it, but by a strict reading of the rules NEITHER player is allowed to get out the sewing thread.
Hmmmm.... kind of impractical isn't?
So what happens.... players extend their suggested "honor system House Rule" to deal with the situation as follows:
Who holds the string does not matter. What matters is who decides if the string is strung... and that is the player denying the concealment gain. He makes the determination if he is willing to show the other player that the LOS exists or if he will allow him to gain concealment unchallenged.
I know you don't agree with it, but it really does not matter. You have no answer as to a rule that will allow a string to be drawn to deny concealment gain, because the rules don't address it, and in fact forbid it. But we know it must be determined. So as a practical matter we incorporate it into our honor system... thereby contributing to the FoW aspect of the game. Is the LOS there, or not?
Finally, Bruce, I've debated this with you for 8 days now. I've shown within the rules what I believe is a good story that supports the way that the game is being played by many, many players. You've heard from Perry.
Nothing personal, but at this point I think its time for me to move on to other things.
JT