Pillbox, wire and a DC walk into a bar...

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Hey All,

I searched but did not find an answer. Can a unit adjacent to a pillbox, place a DC on the pillbox if the pillbox is below a wire counter. I see where a DC cannot be placed FROM on top of a wire counter but have not found any limitations to placing the DC on the pillbox with wire in the pillbox hex. Thanks

Mike
 

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
762
Reaction score
209
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
Don't know the answer, but I'd like to add "Does the pillbox have an inherent trench?" how would that affect the above question.
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
The pillbox does not have an inherent trench. However, if placed in the same hex as a trench or adjacent to the trench then the pillbox is considered a bunker. This affects movement into and out of the pillbox but would not affect the original questions situation.

Mike
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
q&a said:
A23.3, B26., & B30. Can a same level unit, in an adjacent ground level hex place a DC which will affect the occupants of a pillbox if the pillbox hex also contains a wire fortification?
A. Yes, essentially ignore the Wire.
JR
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Thanks JR. Even using Site Search I seem to have difficulty finding the Q & A that I need.

Mike
 

A_T_Great

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
804
Reaction score
578
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
The barkeep says, "I can serve the other two but you should know not to mix drink with drugs!"
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
No-one seems to be discussing how inconsistent that particular Q/A is.

'Essentially ignore the wire [except if you are on top of it, then you can't.]'

So you can sidle up to a PB from 40 meters away to place a DC on it, but can't do that from a closer position on top of the wire, nearer to the PB?

At the very least it seems the placing unit (from outside the hex) should have to make a roll to see how many MPs need to be used to place the DC under the wire and get it to the location where the pillbox actually is. As a unit hung up on wire would have to do. Otherwise, the DC placed from outside the hex attacks the wire only, nothing else. Just a suggestion.

There is a similar QA indicating that units can place DC on locations with minefields and ignore the minefield. Another bad (or at best, lazy) decision, imo. Possibly made because it would destroy play balance in certain scenarios, is that the reason?

Here we must again resort to looking words up in the dictionary on behalf of those who write the ASLRB and the Q/A -- to place: put in a particular position.

How is a unit going to place a DC in a particular position, that is, get it next to the PB where it can have some effect, without getting across the wire or maneuvering around some mines?

Has anyone ever seen a guy in a movie 'pl
ace' a DC in a pillbox by heaving it 40 meters across the wire? Hollywood must have had it wrong in 'Hell is for Heroes.' Steve McQueen wasting all that time, trying to clear the minefield and losing his life 'placing the DC' by the pillbox, right?

Heck, he should have remained on his own side of the lines, shouldn't he? 'Give me that DC, bud; I'll take care of that PB from this here trench.'


Neither ruling makes sense in a gaming system that is, for the most part, internally consistent.

Okay, now bring it on, the 'but ASL terrain is only meant to be an abstraction, Marc.' 'Don't be silly, Marc, you can't use realism arguments for a game like ASL, bish-bosh, be off with you' haha :) :)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Neither ruling makes sense in a gaming system that is, for the most part, internally consistent.
Your argument does not seem to be based on internal consistency within the game system. I don't see you have identified any contradiction between rules. Your argument seems to be a "reality" argument. Do you have a specific rule that you have identified as being inconsistent with the way these are played?

JR
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Your argument does not seem to be based on internal consistency within the game system. I don't see you have identified any contradiction between rules. Your argument seems to be a "reality" argument. Do you have a specific rule that you have identified as being inconsistent with the way these are played?

JR
I didn't indicate that there were any contradictions in the rules. That isn't necessary to point out inconsistency in the game design -- of this game, or any game.

The game system includes how the system works when playing the game, not just the rules that make up the game. Otherwise, they're just rules of a game nobody plays.

The Q/A clarifying the rules demonstrates the very inconsistency I pointed out. The game system now allows play that is inconsistent with the aspects of the design objective, which seem to be, unless I am mistaken, to provide a very detailed and enjoyable simulation of tactical WW2 combat (that is, a war game that simulates reality).

Do you think that this is not the design objective of ASL? Have I got that wrong?

Does anyone think that being able to chuck a DC across the wire and into the PB without having to deal with mines and wire is, by any means, consistent with the aforementioned design objective? Because I don't think it is, just as I don't think that the rules make any sense in not allowing riders to bail out when on an NT AFV but allowing them to do so from a turreted AFV -- because it can turn the turret to sweep them off. As if that was ever done as some kind of tactic!

Again, no rules contradiction, just an internal inconsistency in game play due to the rules as written. Because the simulation breaks down.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Again, no rules contradiction, just an internal inconsistency in game play due to the rules as written. Because the simulation breaks down.
Usually when I hear of an internal inconsistency, I think that is something where the object is inconsistent with itself, not in reference to some external thing. I would call what you are pointing out an "external inconsistency", i.e. an inconsistency between one model (ASL rules) and another model (your understanding of reality, or possibly your understanding of how reality maps to ASL rules). As long as the rules are internally consistent, I'm good. That you feel there is an inconsistency between the rules and some other model, well that would seem to be a problem you have to solve on your own.

JR
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Usually when I hear of an internal inconsistency, I think that is something where the object is inconsistent with itself, not in reference to some external thing. I would call what you are pointing out an "external inconsistency", i.e. an inconsistency between one model (ASL rules) and another model (your understanding of reality, or possibly your understanding of how reality maps to ASL rules). As long as the rules are internally consistent, I'm good. That you feel there is an inconsistency between the rules and some other model, well that would seem to be a problem you have to solve on your own.

JR
If we are going to pick nits, as you seem to want to do here, I don't 'feel' anything of the sort. I've analysed something, not emotionally responded to something.

As you are well aware, ASL is a game system that is completely designed in reference to external things. The objects of the game, for example a unit counter and how it is used, are based on modeling actually phenomena in the real world.

As such, any reference to internal inconsistency in ASL is completely justified if ASL is incorrectly modeling elements of WW2 tactical warfare. I don't particularly care if you disagree with this point. So, I refute your argument that I am using 'some other model' to describe this inconsistency, although I don't disagree that I may have to solve it without your assistance, since you seem to think it's okay for DC to appear by magic.

Clearly, in this case, wrt to using DC to have them magically appear in front of a pillbox on the other side of the wire and mines, this is without doubt logically inconsistent with what you and I both know about how DC are used or can be used. Poof! ASL has just turned into a fantasy game. Hey, JR, if you want to play a fantasy game, I'd pick another one besides ASL if I were you! As if my weird perception of WW2 reality is in any way inferior to some other magnificently superior one...

Further, I say to you, that it doesn't matter if you want to nitpick the definition of internal consistency, without even attempting to answer the questions I've posed in my post.

This kind of response that you've provided here, is a typical trick of people in forums, which I see all the time, ad nauseam , who have been out-argued or have no meaningful retort, but still a) refuse to participate in the dialog and b) must find some minor flaw in the argument presented, in order to de-legitimize a perfectly clear and valid presentation of the issue.

Kindly answer these questions I've already posted above, that is, if you want to engage in a dialog about this in a more reasoned matter; otherwise, you're just nipping at the edges of the issue and in a manner which is not in the least hitting the target as you intend. For your convenience, here they are again:

1) The game system now allows play that is inconsistent with the aspects of the design objective, which seem to be, unless I am mistaken, to provide a very detailed and enjoyable simulation of tactical WW2 combat (that is, a war game that simulates reality). Do you think that this is not the design objective of ASL? Have I got that wrong?

2) Does anyone (including you, JR) think that being able to chuck a DC across the wire and into the PB without having to deal with mines and wire is, by any means, consistent with the aforementioned design objective?

cheers, Marc
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I would say this Q&A is a quick fix. Like putting a plastic sheet on a leaking roof. Given the constraints of the Q&A format, i would say it served its purpose at the time it was issued. However, a reference attached to the Q&A saying "errata incoming" would have been a very welcome addition to the Q&A text. Because the arguments laid down by Honosbinda deserve some serious discussion and, possibly, warrant a couple of extra sentences carefully drafted to solve the inconsistency with the rest of the pillbox rules. And here's where the "quick fix" becomes the "lazy fix" because there's less and less appetite to do proper rule maintenance. And i understand how frustrating it is to suggest sensible solutions and to only get a condescending answer saying essentially that the problem doesn't even exist.
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
I would say this Q&A is a quick fix. Like putting a plastic sheet on a leaking roof. Given the constraints of the Q&A format, i would say it served its purpose at the time it was issued. However, a reference attached to the Q&A saying "errata incoming" would have been a very welcome addition to the Q&A text. Because the arguments laid down by Honosbinda deserve some serious discussion and, possibly, warrant a couple of extra sentences carefully drafted to solve the inconsistency with the rest of the pillbox rules. And here's where the "quick fix" becomes the "lazy fix" because there's less and less appetite to do proper rule maintenance. And i understand how frustrating it is to suggest sensible solutions and to only get a condescending answer saying essentially that the problem doesn't even exist.
All of the above, excellent analysis, thank you very much. I agree that it was a quick fix, probably just to get it out of the way so play could continue or something.

I do get tired of 'we've got to do everything we can to justify preserving the rules as they are,' attitude, an unnecessary proclivity for a game as superb as ASL. There should always be a strive for excellence along with preservation.

Questioning authority around here is absolutely necessary to prevent the hive mind from developing any further than it already has. Marc
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
We need lone heroes to fight the evil hive (or sheep? or mob?).
 
Top