Rat Pocket Charts ver 2

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
FFE:2 Correction and Fire (page 24). Both of the arrows out of the box "Disregarding SMOKE, does Observer have LOS to Base Level of FFE hex?" are labeled "No." The box "You must Correct the FFE:2 (Mandatory Correction) or Cancel the Fire mission.." has an extra period and is missing the "Correct" arrow. The box "Do you wish to Cancel FFE:2?" is missing a "Yes" arrow. Footnote g, "chosse" is misspelled.

Converting and/or Correcting a SR (page 23). The second arrow out of the "Correction is mandatory if SR is not Canceled" is not labeled.

Artillery Request (AR) and Spotting Round (SR) placement (page 22). On the Accuracy dr chart, note that no drm apply to a pre-registered hex [C1.732].

FFE:C Procedures. On the IR chart, the decision "Did Observer have LOS to a Gunflash or an Known enemy unit?", first "an" should be "a", but more importantly, the two arrows labeled "yes" and "no" imply that the player only has one option based on his answer to the decision point. Even if the Observer has LOS to a Gunflash or a KEU, the "no" method of placement (place IR in any hex that is a multiple of six hexes away) may be chosen.

Also in general throughout the OBA flowchart, the official ones distinguish between actions that have no decision and decisions by enclosing actions in eight-sided boxes (boxes with their corners "clipped," e.g. "Place AR" under "Contact and Access") while decisions are in rectangular boxes. The Rat Pocket Charts need not use that exact style, but it would be nice if the two different behaviors were distinguished somehow (e.g. one marked with double border or some other way).

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The PFk is shown over the eight FP column on the IFT/IIFT. According to the C8.31 HE equivalency table, it should be over the twelve FP column.

edit: I was not looking at the IIFT right. The IIFT shows the PFk over the twelve FP column (really 10-12 FP columns; perhaps which column is meant could be made clearer). The IFT has it over the eight FP column, with bits bleeding into six FP and twelve FP, as Bruce notes below. Also as Bruce notes, the C37 & C47 should be over the twelve FP column.

JR
 
Last edited:

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
The PFk is shown over the eight FP column on the IFT/IIFT. According to the C8.31 HE equivalency table, it should be over the twelve FP column.
Actually "PFk / C37 / C47" are shown over the 6, 8 and 12 columns. I guess that means that all those weapons/ammo types have a range of FP, according to the RAT charts.

Of course all three should be over the "12" column only. (C47 isn't on the official charts or in Chapter C, LFT picked this up from Ole Boe's IFT/IIFT charts. C47 = 12 FP comes from Chapter H (Chinese MAVN C).
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Not sure if this is already mentioned.

Errata : "To Hit & To Kill Chart". Case L .. ATR is exempted even though it's a LATW. IE .. according to C6.3 ATR gets the minus DRM for Point Blank.

(Xavier Zhang found this)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Not sure if this is already mentioned.

Errata : "To Hit & To Kill Chart". Case L .. ATR is exempted even though it's a LATW. IE .. according to C6.3 ATR gets the minus DRM for Point Blank.

(Xavier Zhang found this)
The green "L" says "Not applicable to LATW using own To Hit Table". The ATR does not use its own TH table, i.e. it uses the standard one, and note L does not apply to it.I believe the C5 table is correct in this case.

JR
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
6.3 CASE L; POINT BLANK RANGE: Ordnance [EXC: non-ATR LATW using its own TH table; 13.]firing at a range of one or two hexes is considered to be firing at Point Blank Range and adds the -1 DRM of Case L to its TH DR if firing at two-hex range, or the -2 DRM of Case L to its TH DR if firing at one-hex range, unless firing at a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle or Motorcycle-Rider

ATR is not included in this "EXC"
ATR is an Ordnance.

Why doesn't Case L apply to it?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Note L on the TH table does not apply to Case L, i.e. Case L does apply to an ATR.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Ops you're right. We missed the line below. Thx sir
It's easy to miss between the color and the layout. It would be nice if in the next version the two lines are not separated by quite as much interline space and/or there were vertical column dividers, or something else to make it clear that the entry has a second line. I too did not notice the second line until I looked over the notes a second time.

JR
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
The color coding of the entries is how to track the lines of code here: Cross: red color, airplane : purple, L: all green text, red dot: red text, S: blue text.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The color coding of the entries is how to track the lines of code here: Cross: red color, airplane : purple, L: all green text, red dot: red text, S: blue text.
There is nothing wrong, per se, with the color coding. I found it visually hard to see that there was a second line for note L. Once you see it, it is hard not to see it, but I am saying that at first glance it looks as though note L has only one line. Even if you do not see the problem yourself, I think the fact that two owners reported the problem (and one took the trouble to post about the perceived issue) indicates that it would be nice to do something about it for the benefit of those that do have the problem. Decreasing the interline spacing would probably work; adding intercolumn dividers might also work. You may have to just accept that even though you don't see the problem, others do.

JR
 

LaFajita

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
17
Location
Montross, VA
Country
llUnited States
Looking my Rat Charts v.2, I noticed that a whole page of Chapter D charts is missing? Am I the only one with this problem?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Looking my Rat Charts v.2, I noticed that a whole page of Chapter D charts is missing? Am I the only one with this problem?
I am not sure what you mean by "Chapter D charts." From MMP there is a chart that has "D2 Non-Terrain Related Vehicular MP Expenditures" at the top of one side. Is that what you are missing one page of? Or do you mean you are missing a page from LFT in the Rat Charts?

JR
 

LaFajita

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
17
Location
Montross, VA
Country
llUnited States
I am not sure what you mean by "Chapter D charts." From MMP there is a chart that has "D2 Non-Terrain Related Vehicular MP Expenditures" at the top of one side. Is that what you are missing one page of? Or do you mean you are missing a page from LFT in the Rat Charts?

JR
Thx 4 your reply. I'm referring to the Rat Pocket Charts. On the back of the 2nd page of the Overrun Chart, there is chart for Chapter D, which includes C13.7 Anti-Tank Magnetic Mine, D2 Non-Terrain Related Vehicular etc.

In the ASL rule book, the Chapter D has charts on the front and back. The back side of this sheet contains charts on stun, STUN, Recall, Shock, and UK. It also has a chart for (D3) AFV phase/motion etc., D1.8 Vehicular MG, and C13.3 Panzerfaust. None of these are in the Rat Charts. They do, however include C8.4 Canister FP.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Parts of the C13.3 chart appear a C13.31 PF chart on p. 20 of the rat charts. It would be nice to have some/all of the rest of it, especially the PF availability dr modifiers. The C13.7 ATMM chart is on p. 28 with the C8.4 canister FP chart. The other charts (D1.8 & D5.34-C7.4) do not appear, and I am guessing this was a deliberate design decision. I personally think they would take too much real estate for too little gain, but you and others may have a different opinion.

JR
 

LaFajita

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
17
Location
Montross, VA
Country
llUnited States
That's OK, as long as it was an editorial decision, and not an oversight. My mileage varied, is all.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
That's OK, as long as it was an editorial decision, and not an oversight. My mileage varied, is all.
I don't know for a fact that it was an editorial decision; that is purely speculation on my part. I do not have the other items on that page either, so I don't think you have a defective one (although we both could have defective ones). If you refer to some or all of those charts frequently, by all means ask that they be included.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A12.152 searching on page 5: the headline reads, "A12.152 SEARCHING (MMC only)". I would prefer, "A12.152 SEARCHING (at least one MMC)" because SMC can participate as long as there is a MMC involved.

JR
 
Top