Silent Night Deadly Night

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
8.41 DAMAGE: ...A Damaged glider suffers Casualty Reduction to one or more of its Passengers (dependent on Random Selection dr), with all other Passengers taking a NMC.

747 and 8-1 is in the Glider.
747 gets selected for CR.
What happens next?
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,564
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
747 is reduced to a 337 and both units take a NMC with no leadership DRM for the 337 per the 8.5 EX
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
The rule is clear as well. And examples are not rules...and should be reflections on the rules not rules themselves as this one clearly is contrary to the rule.

SK3 RB is RIFE with errors in the examples.
and that's a modern RB
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Agreed with Stew that neither tables nor examples are supposed to substitute for/scaffold the rules. The rule is clear but not congruent with the example. Since when do we pick the example over the rule to make a decision about what happens?

However, if a tournament director has a look at this situation, the result will probably be as Doug says. What's needed is a Q and A for this. so as to eliminate the incongruence.
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,651
Reaction score
851
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
I don't see any problems with the example. While in the air the glider was Damaged (by the AA Gun). It then landed safely. Upon landing (per E8.41) since it is damaged (only once) one unit suffers CR and all units (surviving the CR) take a NMC.

What isn't real clear is that E8.41 only applies after resolving the Landing DR, although reading the first 2 sentences of E8.4 implies this.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
I don't see any problems with the example. While in the air the glider was Damaged (by the AA Gun). It then landed safely. Upon landing (per E8.41) since it is damaged (only once) one unit suffers CR and all units (surviving the CR) take a NMC.

What isn't real clear is that E8.41 only applies after resolving the Landing DR, although reading the first 2 sentences of E8.4 implies this.
You don't roll for CR while the Glider is in the air.
It's either going to be destroyed by 2x damage or just landing damaged.
You roll for CR in the ADV Fire phase before they emerge as there isn't a point to rolling for it in the MPh. Why waste time rolling until they become INF? All counters are identified as Damaged or not.

Their isn't a problem with the example other than not following the rule.
The rule doesn't state ALL units take a NMC. That much is clear.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,564
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Just as a matter of interest, is there anything in the rulebook that suggests that an EX carries less weight than whatever it is illustrating? Barring such a presumption, should the EX not actually carry more weight as it is illustrating the rule in practice as opposed to interpretation?
Is this any different from when an official Q&A gives an answer which is difficult to reconcile with the wording of the rules eg the reaction fire thread where a persuasive argument was presented that the OVR flowchart and the Q&A on which it was based might not accurately reflect the wording of the rulebook?
Obviously players can agree on any house rule that they wish and choose whatever interpretation of a rule that they prefer but, if agreement cannot be reached, surely an official Q&A (including Perry Sez since MMP acquired the rights to ASL) has to be followed?
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Just as a matter of interest, is there anything in the rulebook that suggests that an EX carries less weight than whatever it is illustrating? Barring such a presumption, should the EX not actually carry more weight as it is illustrating the rule in practice as opposed to interpretation?
Is this any different from when an official Q&A gives an answer which is difficult to reconcile with the wording of the rules eg the reaction fire thread where a persuasive argument was presented that the OVR flowchart and the Q&A on which it was based might not accurately reflect the wording of the rulebook?
Obviously players can agree on any house rule that they wish and choose whatever interpretation of a rule that they prefer but, if agreement cannot be reached, surely an official Q&A (including Perry Sez since MMP acquired the rights to ASL) has to be followed?
These are good questions.

If examples were to carry more weight than the rulebook, people would insist on examples for every rule because they would think there had better be an example to 'prove' the rule correct. It's just not a good idea to give examples even more weight than the rules themselves. There are rulebooks out there that make a muck of this and suggesting we do that here will offer the chance for the same muck.

Should examples of chess play trump the rules of chess, for example?

It is different because the example could be wrong, since there is a conflict, either the rule is wrong or the example is. A ruling on this matter settles it so I agree an official ruling settles it, I don't see why not?

[Edit -- Most definitely, the rule should be correct, so if the example is the way to play it, the rule should change to match it.]

There are plenty of game rules out there I've seen where the example has it entirely wrong and it would affect game play in other aspects of the rule book. I think it's more sensible that the rule be correct, not the example.
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
In the aslrb examples in the rulebook are rules. The weight is even between them.
That's nice to make an edict about, but it means not much. It gets a few likes, well done, I suppose -- succinctly spoken and all fans of 'examples are as good or better than rules' have been collected in thumbs.

Unfortunately, here is the definition of 'example:' "a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule."

Given that any example is only a single illustration and one of many that could be made, it's always the rule that matters first, never the example, because only one rule is made. Nobody makes examples without rules; therefore, rules, shall we say, RULE. Sorry, example equity lovers!

Insofar as the cited example is not illustrative of the rule as written, it's the example that's wrong. The example, in fact, points to an illustration of a different rule than what is written. This is obvious and it's not necessary to make an edict about it. There is no debate; the example is either illustrative of the rule, or it's not. In this case, it's not.

It should be -- and is -- possible to play ASL without reference to any examples at all. However, it's impossible to play ASL on the basis of examples alone.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Are they resolved in the SK4 RB? That is the modern RB.
Players that don't have the SK4RB are playing all the rules incorrectly if the Examples are followed over the rules.

Maybe that's why SK4 RB is Free.
 
Last edited:

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Obviously players can agree on any house rule that they wish and choose whatever interpretation of a rule that they prefer but, if agreement cannot be reached, surely an official Q&A (including Perry Sez since MMP acquired the rights to ASL) has to be followed?
...and the rule/example being corrected as necessary IN the RB (especially now since it's digital)

Q: If the example didn't exist, how would you resolve the CR? As you have referenced the example instead of the rule in your initial response.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,564
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
...and the rule/example being corrected as necessary IN the RB (especially now since it's digital)

Q: If the example didn't exist, how would you resolve the CR? As you have referenced the example instead of the rule in your initial response.
To be honest, when I was looking at 8.41 originally, my initial thought was that it might not be saying what it intended to say. 8.5 confirmed that my suspicion was correct. Effectively, they create a K/0 result which doesn't otherwise exist.
 
Last edited:

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
1,755
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Players that don't have the SK4RB are playing all the rules incorrectly if the Examples are followed over the rules.

Maybe that's why SK4 RB is Free.
Tell them to download it. If you have the ASLRB1, it has rules "wrong" or even if your ASLRB only goes to Journal 10, it contains "inaccuracies."

The dogged pursuit of perfection is the human quest. But to expect that we ever get to say "I have arrived" is utopian naivete. Life is messy but ASL is pretty damn good.
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Tell them to download it. If you have the ASLRB1, it has rules "wrong" or even if your ASLRB only goes to Journal 10, it contains "inaccuracies."

The dogged pursuit of perfection is the human quest. But to expect that we ever get to say "I have arrived" is utopian naivete. Life is messy but ASL is pretty damn good.
Okay, definitely it's damn good. But that's no reason to shine on what are clear mistakes in the rule book. And who the hell is asking for dogged perfection? It's just about getting something fixed, recently noticed, that's easy to fix with a PDF rule book, now that we (finally) have one! Perhaps Stew is bantering for more perfection (and why not, with PDF rules now), but as far as I can tell, this is just about a mistake in the example for E8.5.

No reason to obfusticate what obviously needs to be corrected just to settle with a really questionable solution of -- 'oh heck, it's no big deal, let's just say that examples are part of the rules. Yeah, that's it! So I sayeth, so let it be so, yah that's right and a bunch of people agree with me too, so hey ho, done.'

Sorry, not done. There are some who stubbornly evade perfectly logical and valid arguments and what's naive of me is to expect otherwise, I reckon! Is that it, then? Once one loses the argument, those who won are utopian troglodytes? ha! Thanks for the laugh; I am totally infected with mirth :) In fact the laughter is endless, to be sure...
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,441
Reaction score
3,382
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
That's nice to make an edict about, but it means not much. It gets a few likes, well done, I suppose -- succinctly spoken and all fans of 'examples are as good or better than rules' have been collected in thumbs.

Unfortunately, here is the definition of 'example:' "a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule."

Given that any example is only a single illustration and one of many that could be made, it's always the rule that matters first, never the example, because only one rule is made. Nobody makes examples without rules; therefore, rules, shall we say, RULE. Sorry, example equity lovers!

Insofar as the cited example is not illustrative of the rule as written, it's the example that's wrong. The example, in fact, points to an illustration of a different rule than what is written. This is obvious and it's not necessary to make an edict about it. There is no debate; the example is either illustrative of the rule, or it's not. In this case, it's not.

It should be -- and is -- possible to play ASL without reference to any examples at all. However, it's impossible to play ASL on the basis of examples alone.
I'm not certain where you are getting your definition of "example" from but it's not from the ASLRB.
What other parts of the ASLRB are you choosing to exclude? The index? The charts?
Can you play simply by examples? Of course not, that's a facile statement to make.
Where 2 possible interpretation of a rule exist and there is an example, then that example illustrates how the rule is to be played.
The examples, just like the index, are a part of the rules.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
631
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Hey Robin, you are funny to change my avatar to your behavior.

Extremely mature for an old man and moderator that attacks the participants of this forum.
 
Top