Perry Sez about HIP squad equiv SSRs

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
This may help us, regarding a not so recent debate...

Question : When a SSR specifies that a squad equivalent may set up HIP, may one set up 1 squad (or 2 HS) AND 4 SMCs (in other locations), as 4 SMCs are 0 squad equivalents (i. e. 1 squad + 4 SMCs = 1 squad equivalent)?

Answer : If the SSR allows SMC stacked with the HIP squad(-equivalent)(s) to be HIP, then only SMC stacked with HIP MMC may benefit from this SSR.
If the SSR refers to only "MMC"/"squad(s)"/"HS"/"crew(s)" being HIP, then no SMC may benefit from this SSR.
If the SSR only mentions "squad-equivalents," then 1-5 SMC may set up HIP in lieu of a HS.
....Perry
MMP
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
941
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
hmmm

Did he answer your question regarding the 2HS in different locations?

perhaps I am missing something, it is early and I have not had coffee.

Peace

Roger
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
rdw5150 said:
perhaps I am missing something, it is early and I have not had coffee.
You're probably missing the old discussion...

A typical SSR may say something like "The German may use HIP for <= 1 Squad Equivalent and all SMC/SW that sets up with it"

The problem is that the ASLRVv2 says that less than 5 SMC is zero Squad Equivalents. So if you HIP one squad in one Location, and three leaders in different Locations, then you've technically only HIP'ed 1 Squad Equivalent.

This is a loophole that obviously breaks with the SSR's intention, and this Perry sez mostly says that we should stick to the clear intention and ignore the technical loophole that some rules lawyer (not me) found.
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
... the technical loophole that some rules lawyer (not me) found.
It's so hard to tell with the simple written word, but you were being tongue-in-cheek, right?

(Without some smilie or something, it's difficult to determine sarcasm, irony, etc.)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Yes, I was Bruce ;)

Seriously though, although I sometimes spread out smilies, I like to be ironic withouht necessary adding smilies - its like saying "joke" after you've said something (you think is) funny.

Sometimes I end up saying it was a joke in a later post, just to make sure though (like in the ongoing weapon recovery thread)...
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
about written, verbal and non verbal communication

Ole Boe said:
I like to be ironic withouht necessary adding smilies
Just be conscious that written communication does not send "non verbal" messages (even less than voice on the phone) and the risk of not being understood the right way is much more important.
On our French speaking forum, the moderators [I am one of them] are asked not to be too ironical (or if they are, to give enough clues of the real orientation of their words), because of the high risk of misunderstanding.
In the other thread you are referring to, your ironical sentence was followed by this smilie : :angry: which led me to think you were seriously flushed I had "doubted" you... It you had put a :devious: or even a :OHNO: , your intent would have been more visible...
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Robin said:
Just be conscious that written communication does not send "non verbal" messages (even less than voice on the phone) and the risk of not being understood the right way is much more important.
You're right of course. When not adding smilies or other explicit hints, the chance is that some will misunderstand. Its easy to make a wrong step here.

In the other thread you are referring to, your ironical sentence was followed by this smilie : :angry: which led me to think you were seriously flushed I had "doubted" you... It you had put a :devious: or even a :OHNO: , your intent would have been more visible...
I guess I used the :angry: smilie to strengthen the irony, not to visually tell that it was a joke. I understand that since most people here don't know me, they don't know that I would never become angry for something like that either, but since I think "it's better to be sorry than safe", I guess I'll take the chance now and then in the future too. ;)
 

jimfer

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
875
Reaction score
231
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Country
llUnited States
Single equivalents and Hip

How will Perry's ruling affect many of the existing scenarios?

Scenarios that have Heros or a multitude of leaders armed with shaped charged weopons might upset the balance. What do we need to do to get rulings from Perry to become offical rules and how do you get the Scenarios updated so that everyone is playing the same rules?

Perplexed,
Jimfer
 

da priest

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
10
Location
Lebanon, Mo., turn r
jimfer said:
..Scenarios that have Heros or a multitude of leaders armed with shaped charged weopons might upset the balance. ..
Are there even 5 of these out there?

Can anyone name 3?

And did any of them have the HIP SSR in question?

Really don't see a problem.
 
Top