Ordnance SMOKE and Target Size

[Sparafucil3]

then generally make your day miserable.

A game would never make my day miserable. It might frustrate me, cause me to curse for a few moments, even shake my head in disgust, but never miserable. Only people can do that and against those I generally just concede and move on. Life is too short to play ASL with a**holes. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[Everest]

Memory plays tricks regarding the +2 for Smoke. I was positive that I had seen a note about this akin to the one for concealment issue. Needless to say I cannot now find any evidence of such a note. What I recalled was that the plus two, along with the dispersed smoke placed except in the PFPh, were both game mechanics to reflect the fact that smoke was fired as multiple shells, or multiple canisters within a single shell, and that there were going to be, in any interval of time, considerably more smoke producing munitions landing than would be the case with HE. I know this moves the discussion on not at all but thought I'd throw in my fading memory for what it is worth - and to point out that there could be reasons for different mechanics for smoke and HE.

 

[James Taylor]

Explain why it is harder to smoke a StuG than it is to smoke out a 7-0 leader? The StuG is much, much larger. I think Fort is right, size shouldn't matter for for any ATT because you are pounding the hex.

I never played taking into account size for smoke shots. That's a new issue for me. As far as standing the test of time, I'm not sure how universal that is. Perhaps someone should run a poll...

Steve

My opinion is that there is too much of an issue being made of trying to make reality reflect this precisely. I think the rules work the way they do for playability reasons.

The StuG is harder to smoke because it has a small target modifier.

Its not very often that the efficient use of smoke assets is to smoke a 7-0 leader, so perhaps from a playability point of view it was unnecessary to apply smoke modifiers based on the size of a single man.

I'm familiar with the experience of encountering a new issue with learning a new ASL rule. It happens to me once or twice a year. IIRC, you've been involved in pointing out a few of those to me, .

The first time I encountered this was in my very first tournament playing Mitch Bilicki, who pointed it out to me. Eric Baker confirmed that for me and I was just glad to learn how to play. Since then I've always played it that way... against Mudge, Klautky, Ginnard, Dennis, Rossi, etc, etc.

Its not something that comes up every game... maybe because I (and others) don't shoot at targets that are small, but instead fire in front of them... to make sure I get the extra pip to get the Smoke in. +3 is not as good as +4 but it is way better than +0.

JT

 

[Steven Pleva]

My opinion is that there is too much of an issue being made of trying to make reality reflect this precisely. I think the rules work the way they do for playability reasons.

The StuG is harder to smoke because it has a small target modifier.

Its not very often that the efficient use of smoke assets is to smoke a 7-0 leader, so perhaps from a playability point of view it was unnecessary to apply smoke modifiers based on the size of a single man.

I'm familiar with the experience of encountering a new issue with learning a new ASL rule. It happens to me once or twice a year. IIRC, you've been involved in pointing out a few of those to me, .

The first time I encountered this was in my very first tournament playing Mitch Bilicki, who pointed it out to me. Eric Baker confirmed that for me and I was just glad to learn how to play. Since then I've always played it that way... against Mudge, Klautky, Ginnard, Dennis, Rossi, etc, etc.

Its not something that comes up every game... maybe because I (and others) don't shoot at targets that are small, but instead fire in front of them... to make sure I get the extra pip to get the Smoke in. +3 is not as good as +4 but it is way better than +0.

JT

I agree that this is not a big deal. It is rare that you smoke out single leaders and it is probably fairly rare when you need to put a smoke round on a vehicle that has a size DRM. So no matter what the outcome here is, I don't think it will change a whole lot.

You say the rule is because that is the rule. Seems circular to me. Okay, then I gather you don't want to see the rule changed because you don't want change. I can accept that as a valid reason. I agree that no rule should change without a good reason. Excessive change is bad. However, IMHO, that holds no water regarding what the rule should say.

In essence, since you have no counter to my argument, you are conceding the reality part of this discussion, correct?

Merry Christmas!
Steve

 

[James Taylor]

I agree that this is not a big deal. It is rare that you smoke out single leaders and it is probably fairly rare when you need to put a smoke round on a vehicle that has a size DRM. So no matter what the outcome here is, I don't think it will change a whole lot.

You say the rule is because that is the rule. Seems circular to me. Okay, then I gather you don't want to see the rule changed because you don't want change. I can accept that as a valid reason. I agree that no rule should change without a good reason. Excessive change is bad. However, IMHO, that holds no water regarding what the rule should say.

In essence, since you have no counter to my argument, you are conceding the reality part of this discussion, correct?

Merry Christmas!
Steve

I say that I think the rule exists because the designer wanted it to be more difficult to hit certain units based on their size. I think the designer chose to implement the rule in a way that may not reflect reality as we all might think of it, but focused on delivering a playable result.

I don't know if this is what the designer intended... its just my best guess.

I'm not in favor of changing the rule because what I've heard/seen proposed in that regard seems to be a pretty broad change based on my playing experience.

And, at the same time I'm not convinced that the proposed change, (i.e. setting aside target mods for any ATT shot), will deliver the intended result, (i.e. giving us a game that reflects the reality of combat more accurately, or that it will make the game *better*).

Common-sense wise I would agree that hitting a vehicle should be easier than hitting an SMC *in most cases*. But in the design for effect world of ASL I'm not sure that is the relationship the designer felt needed to be modeled.

Happy New Year!

JT

 

[Steven Pleva]

I say that I think the rule exists because the designer wanted it to be more difficult to hit certain units based on their size. I think the designer chose to implement the rule in a way that may not reflect reality as we all might think of it, but focused on delivering a playable result.

I don't know if this is what the designer intended... its just my best guess.

I'm not in favor of changing the rule because what I've heard/seen proposed in that regard seems to be a pretty broad change based on my playing experience.

And, at the same time I'm not convinced that the proposed change, (i.e. setting aside target mods for any ATT shot), will deliver the intended result, (i.e. giving us a game that reflects the reality of combat more accurately, or that it will make the game *better*).

Common-sense wise I would agree that hitting a vehicle should be easier than hitting an SMC *in most cases*. But in the design for effect world of ASL I'm not sure that is the relationship the designer felt needed to be modeled.

Happy New Year!

JT

I guess that's where we differ. You are assuming the rules are intentional, while I do not. The original rules had scores of mistakes and holes in the them. How are we to know this isn't another one? We don't have access to the designer's original intent, so we must figure it out for ourselves. I am willing to start from a clean slate in these cases. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully, we can get a definitive ruling on this from Perry so everyone can play by the same rules...

Happy MLK Day!
Steve

 

[Sparafucil3]

I guess that's where we differ. You are assuming the rules are intentional, while I do not. The original rules had scores of mistakes and holes in the them. How are we to know this isn't another one? We don't have access to the designer's original intent, so we must figure it out for ourselves. I am willing to start from a clean slate in these cases. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully, we can get a definitive ruling on this from Perry so everyone can play by the same rules...

Happy MLK Day!
Steve

Mortars getting ROF with SMOKE was one of those errors and clearly way more unbalancing than a single pip due to size. Should that one be fixed too? -- jim

 

[Fort]

Mortars getting ROF with SMOKE was one of those errors and clearly way more unbalancing than a single pip due to size. Should that one be fixed too? -- jim

I thought two wrongs did not make a right?

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

If Gary and Steve want to put a petition together for Perry making Target Size NA for SMOKE placement, sign me up.

I'm usually a "play the rules as is" kind of guy, but in this case, i think a change is in order especially considering that there already is an exception for SMOKE placing in that an empty hex doesn't apply the concealed modifier for SMOKE placing.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I thought two wrongs did not make a right?

I didn't say it did. I just wonder if the decision to correct the ills of perceived errors in the rules would next extend to knon mistakes. -- jim (and I don't concede that target size in SMOKE shots is a mistake]

 

[Chas]

Hey, wasnt my slippery slope argument off?!?! Now it is all ATT need to disregard target size.

Fort, great stuff from the infantry school; however, not contextually relevant. That is referring to screening smoke over a large area. In ASL terms that is more similar to a barrage firing smoke between enemy and you. It has nothing to within ASL of firing smoke onto a specific target. A 40M hex is not a 'large area' in these terms.
Placing smoke in the same hex as an enemy unit would be obscuring smoke, especially in that the unit within gets an additional +1 for firing out. I agree that there is some oddities with small, normal, and large targets when multiple types are in a hex in that you only need to hit the easiest target.

the real argument is that some of you are making is why/how can I hit the small/normal target easier when there is a normal/large target in the hex. Yes, this sucks. But I like the fact that when a Tiger is in a hex and a small gun is in a different hex, one is easier than the other. This fits with the rules in a much higher % situation than the much rarer situations brought out as situations where the rule is bad.

With the rules as written target size applies to ATT. Contrary to some comments here I have never played or seen it played where it doesnt matter.

I agree that driving a double small target into a hex to prevent a smoke shot there is odd and could be perceived as sleazy. Then again, we could find numerous examples throughout various rules where something simliar can come up.

Bottom line is no clarification is needed from Perry. If he ever does rule on this, it is a rules change.

Chas

 

[James Taylor]

I guess that's where we differ. You are assuming the rules are intentional, while I do not. The original rules had scores of mistakes and holes in the them. How are we to know this isn't another one? We don't have access to the designer's original intent, so we must figure it out for ourselves. I am willing to start from a clean slate in these cases. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully, we can get a definitive ruling on this from Perry so everyone can play by the same rules...

Happy MLK Day!
Steve

Well, I'm pretty well convinced that the designer intended target size mods to apply to ATT shots:

11.2 EMPLACEMENT: The To Hit procedure vs a Gun which has not been hooked up and which has not been moved since the start of the scenario (11.3) can be resolved in either of two ways at the firer’s option. An Emplaced Gun can be fired on using the Area Target Type (the Gun’s Target Size [2.271] is a To Hit DRM unless inside a pillbox/cave; B30.32 and G11.83) with a +2 TEM (once hit) for being Emplaced; or it can be fired on using the Infantry Target Type, with the +2 Emplacement TEM and the Gun’s Target Size used as a combined To Hit DRM. For OBA or other FP attacks, the +2 Emplacement TEM applies on the IFT [EXC: FT; A22.2]. In all cases, however, the Emplacement TEM cannot be used in addition to any other positive TEM; the Gun’s owner may choose one or the other, but not both. There can possibly be different To Hit Numbers for units in the same hex. A Gun can never be Emplaced on a paved road, bridge, runway, Rooftop, or in Bamboo and does not receive the +2 TEM while manned by a squad.​

Now... did the designer intend target size to apply to Smoke, which he (presumably) knowingly used the ATT to define how it is fired?

I think so, and the reason I think so is because of the +2 TH modifier when firing Smoke within 12 hexes. The rules offer us no explanation for this modifier.

IMHO that mod is there to offset the effects of target size, concealment, etc. So far as I have read nobody who feels the size mods shouldn't apply has addressed the +2 modifier. For me that is an overall significant increase in the effectiveness of firing Smoke, which I don't have any reason to believe (from a reality or a playability point of view) is necessary.

Personally, I don't think a ruling is necessary, and agree with Chas... if Perry sez "no size mods for Smoke shots" it will be a rules change.

However, I also think that there is NO question about the RB that is a BAD question. Any information that we can get from Perry that makes it so that we can ALL play by the same rules is valuable information.

Happy Presidents Day!

JT

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

JT,

In terms of making SMOKE easier to place by making target size NA, i think overall, it will make it slighly more difficult.

More likely one wants to place SMOKE on a large target Tiger/Panther/Sherman than a small size vehicle.

 

[Steven Pleva]

JT,

In terms of making SMOKE easier to place by making target size NA, i think overall, it will make it slighly more difficult.

More likely one wants to place SMOKE on a large target Tiger/Panther/Sherman than a small size vehicle.

The target size DRM is a neutral effect. It will help in some cases and hurt in others.

I disagree that the rules are clear on this issue. The rules indicate that you can fire at a hex devoid of units. I don't think it says anywhere that you have to fire at a non-HIP unit if one is present. That may be the ultimate ruling, but it certainly is not 100% clear to me.

If the ruling is you have to fire at a unit, that creates some rules questions. Can you choose to fire at a hypothetical HIP unit instead of a known unit? Or must you fire at a non-HIP unit if one exists? Does the target size DRM of a HIP or concealed unit count? If so, what is the protocol for making that determination? If there is a HIP 7-0 with a concealed, CE StuG and your opponent rolls a 7 (9TH) what happens? Do you temporarily show the StuG and claim the shot missed? Or do you have to reveal the 7-0 and start making NMCs?

Seems to me that it would be simpler to just make smoke shots versus a hex, not a unit...

Steve

 

[Steven Pleva]

Well, I'm pretty well convinced that the designer intended target size mods to apply to ATT shots:

11.2 EMPLACEMENT: The To Hit procedure vs a Gun which has not been hooked up and which has not been moved since the start of the scenario (11.3) can be resolved in either of two ways at the firer’s option. An Emplaced Gun can be fired on using the Area Target Type (the Gun’s Target Size [2.271] is a To Hit DRM unless inside a pillbox/cave; B30.32 and G11.83) with a +2 TEM (once hit) for being Emplaced; or it can be fired on using the Infantry Target Type, with the +2 Emplacement TEM and the Gun’s Target Size used as a combined To Hit DRM. For OBA or other FP attacks, the +2 Emplacement TEM applies on the IFT [EXC: FT; A22.2]. In all cases, however, the Emplacement TEM cannot be used in addition to any other positive TEM; the Gun’s owner may choose one or the other, but not both. There can possibly be different To Hit Numbers for units in the same hex. A Gun can never be Emplaced on a paved road, bridge, runway, Rooftop, or in Bamboo and does not receive the +2 TEM while manned by a squad.​

Now... did the designer intend target size to apply to Smoke, which he (presumably) knowingly used the ATT to define how it is fired?

I think so, and the reason I think so is because of the +2 TH modifier when firing Smoke within 12 hexes. The rules offer us no explanation for this modifier.

IMHO that mod is there to offset the effects of target size, concealment, etc. So far as I have read nobody who feels the size mods shouldn't apply has addressed the +2 modifier. For me that is an overall significant increase in the effectiveness of firing Smoke, which I don't have any reason to believe (from a reality or a playability point of view) is necessary.

Personally, I don't think a ruling is necessary, and agree with Chas... if Perry sez "no size mods for Smoke shots" it will be a rules change.

However, I also think that there is NO question about the RB that is a BAD question. Any information that we can get from Perry that makes it so that we can ALL play by the same rules is valuable information.

Happy Presidents Day!

JT

It's clear the designers intended size to count for HE ATT shots, but as far as I can tell there is no such indication for smoke shots.

Happy Valentine's Day!
Steve

 

[apbills]

I think so, and the reason I think so is because of the +2 TH modifier when firing Smoke within 12 hexes. The rules offer us no explanation for this modifier.

IMHO that mod is there to offset the effects of target size, concealment, etc. So far as I have read nobody who feels the size mods shouldn't apply has addressed the +2 modifier. For me that is an overall significant increase in the effectiveness of firing Smoke, which I don't have any reason to believe (from a reality or a playability point of view) is necessary.

I disagree completely with your thinking. I believe the reason for the +2 is due to the nature of SMOKE.

ATT demands you place fire throughout the hex. The "TH" number is lowered for HE ranges 1-12 supposedly due to the need to turn the gun bore more in order to cover the entire hex at those closer ranges. It then goes back up to an 8 for ranges 13-23.

For SMOKE, you don't need to hit any specific target within the hex in order to have an effect. Just placing the canisters in the hex is all that is necessary. Most smoke rounds had multiple canisters per shell, increasing the ability to spread SMOKE into an area (since you don't normally want all of it on one spot). The +2 is a counter to the lowering to 7 for close ranges, and is there to reflect the relative ease in getting an effect for SMOKE vs HE. It has nothing to do with concealment, target sizes, or any other of the ATT mods.

Straight up, no mods - it is easier to place SMOKE into a 40m area than it is to hit anything with HE close enough, or directly, and have an effect.

The difference is, depending on the target, it could be easier or harder to hit a target with HE, yet there is no change to the underlying terrain which needs to be hit in order for SMOKE to be placed.

 

[James Taylor]

I disagree completely with your thinking. I believe the reason for the +2 is due to the nature of SMOKE.

ATT demands you place fire throughout the hex. The "TH" number is lowered for HE ranges 1-12 supposedly due to the need to turn the gun bore more in order to cover the entire hex at those closer ranges. It then goes back up to an 8 for ranges 13-23.

For SMOKE, you don't need to hit any specific target within the hex in order to have an effect. Just placing the canisters in the hex is all that is necessary. Most smoke rounds had multiple canisters per shell, increasing the ability to spread SMOKE into an area (since you don't normally want all of it on one spot). The +2 is a counter to the lowering to 7 for close ranges, and is there to reflect the relative ease in getting an effect for SMOKE vs HE. It has nothing to do with concealment, target sizes, or any other of the ATT mods.

Straight up, no mods - it is easier to place SMOKE into a 40m area than it is to hit anything with HE close enough, or directly, and have an effect.

The difference is, depending on the target, it could be easier or harder to hit a target with HE, yet there is no change to the underlying terrain which needs to be hit in order for SMOKE to be placed.

I'm not so sure we "diasgree completely". You say it is due to the "nature of Smoke", I say we have the +2 to offset concealment, size mods, etc.

Both of us are saying that it is easier to hit with Smoke, right?

I'm simply saying that because smoke is easier to hit with, the designer added in the mod to offset some of the game mechanics that can make it difficult.

JT

 

[apbills]

I'm so sure we "diasgree completely". You say it is due to the "nature of Smoke", I say we have the +2 to offset concealment, size mods, etc.

Both of us are saying that it is easier to hit with Smoke, right?

I'm simply saying that because smoke is easier to hit with, the designer added in the mod to offset some of the game mechanics that can make it difficult.

JT

In your case you are using the +2 mod as part of an postion that the use of target size modifiers for SMOKE is valid, since the +2 mod is there to counter target mods.

In my case I am saying regardless of targets in an area, SMOKE is easier to place for effect. The +2 is for that reason.

Regardless of the "realities", the bottom line is the rules (C8.52) state SMOKE is placed if the "target hex" is hit. The rules are not clear at all on how you hit a "target hex" vs. how you hit a "target unit".

It is also clear that there are some real inconsistancies with firing SMOKE at upper levels that do not come into play with HE, since HE must hit a unit, and SMOKE needs to hit "the hex".

The rules are also clear that you can target a "building", yet they give no specifics on how you would actually do that, other than hitting a unit in the building.

I agree that target size modifiers are used for any ATT shot as currently in the rules, however, with the ambiguous rules for targeting terrain and the targeting hexes, it needs to be cleared up. I would not make it my top priority.

 

[hershmeister]

Alan - nice work reinforcing the need for a fix for the bypass auto concealment stripping sleaze!

 

[apbills]

Alan - nice work reinforcing the need for a fix for the bypass auto concealment stripping sleaze!

It is a problem. I am not sure how I would fix it.

Perhaps change the rule from "at the end of the MPh" to "at the end of the CCPh", which would allow the unit to keep "?". The big issue is HIP units. Since you are IN the Location, they would need to be placed onboard at least during the CCPh.

Edit: Actually, the best change would probably be to place any HIP units concealed in the Location at the start of the CCPh and allow them to decide if they are going to attack in CC or not, and would need to take a PAATC to keep concealment (which would make the sequence - place any HIP at beginning of CC, during CC roll for ambush, if successful you could withdraw, take PAATC to determine if "?" could be kept in the Location, and then decide on CC).