SW Transfer

[Fort]

Looking over A4.431, how would you resolve this situation:

A leader carrying a SW, a broken squad, and an unbroken squad all in the same location;
The Leader freely transfers the LMG to the unbroken squad and then Rallies the broken squad. Is this legal?

A4.431 says SW may be freely transferred during the RPh, and the ASOP places this action before rallies.

If this is not legal, what does the use of freely mean?

What say you?

(The Rally phase section states "each unit may attempt only one type of action" I am leaning towards the difference between attempt and freely meaning you can do as many free actions as you want, constrained by sequence of play [EX: you could not Rally a broken unit, then transfer to the unit, because free transfer comes before rally attempts].

Prisoner Transfer A20.5 supports this reasoning and it is stated clearly that such transfer does not penalize either unit's RPh/APh capabilities/actions...and that the transfer is as a SW.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Gary:

I think it's legal. I think this is exactly what the "freely" means. It is in opposition to the notion of recovery of a SW by a leader from a broken unit (per A4.44). Such a recovery would be the leader's action for the RPh and would therefore preclude rallies.

S

 

[Arlecchino]

I'm spectating the game where this situation happen.
I was not sure about that rules also because can be confused with the recovery action that seem to exclude that a leader can do both rally and recovery.

"4.44 RECOVERY: Infantry may claim possession of an unpossessed SW/Gun at the start of any RPh as their sole action during that RPh, provided they make a Recovery Final dr < 6 (Δ)."

But that's transfer, not recovery and i don't find any rules about that yet.

Edit : Also this rules from A10.7 could explaine the situation.

"A leader may attempt only one action per phase"

But freely i think that don't count as an action... so at the moment the answer could be yes he can do both the rally and the transfer.

 

[Fort]

Gary:

I think it's legal. I think this is exactly what the "freely" means. It is in opposition to the notion of recovery of a SW by a leader from a broken unit (per A4.44). Such a recovery would be the leader's action for the RPh and would therefore preclude rallies.

S

I'm spectating the game where this situation happen.
I was not sure about that rules also because can be confused with the recovery action that seem to exclude that a leader can do both rally and recovery.

"4.44 RECOVERY: Infantry may claim possession of an unpossessed SW/Gun at the start of any RPh as their sole action during that RPh, provided they make a Recovery Final dr < 6 (Δ)."

But that's transfer, not recovery and i don't find any rules about that yet.

ASOP 1.14B labels this as an attempt....which fits in with the paradigm.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

ASOP 1.14B labels this as an attempt....which fits in with the paradigm.

Yep. I agree completely with the (new?) second half of your post (after "What say you?"). I think that explains it precisely.

S

 

[WBRP]

I always interpreted the 'freely' as meaning no dr required and no limit on what gets swapped around or to which units. However, I would still consider it an action for all units taking part.

 

[Faded 8-1]

I always interpreted the 'freely' as meaning no dr required and no limit on what gets swapped around or to which units. However, I would still consider it an action for all units taking part.

I agree with this interpretation. A leader gets one RPh action. Transfer is an action.

The prisoner section is an exception to normal SW transfer, which is why it's spelled out there that prisoner transfer does not affect RPh/APh capabilities. Were that true for normal SW transfer, there would be no need to state the exception in the prisoner rules.

I think you are trying to read too much into the word 'freely'.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I think you are trying to read too much into the word 'freely'.

And I think you're not reading anything into it, which begs Gary's original question as to why it's there. However, your points are good and make me think this is a much less clear issue than I had thought. And now I'll make it even more gray. The ASOP does list exceptions to the "one action per unit per" as follows:

[EXC: repairing > one SW/Gun (A9.72); leader rallying > one unit (A10.7); Recovery (A4.44) is not an action by a broken unit]. (emphasis mine, see below)

So a couple things from those exceptions:

1) Note that rearranging SWs is not listed, so the question really does rest on what "freely" means.
2) What the heck does that third one mean? If "by" were "from" I'd understand it....

Losing clarity by the moment,

S

 

[Morbii]

I think I agree with the drunken 8-1. It's still an action. I think "freely" just means that you can rearrange the stack, more or less. Using the example of two units is sort of a red herring because obviously it's just a swap. Once you add 3 or more units exchanging things, it becomes different because there are more units involved swapping things (and in a tourney scenario, maybe you'll end up swapping twice after changing your mind

Perhaps more than that, and back to the example of two, the word freely comes into play here because without it "accepting" a SW and "giving" a SW might both be considered an action (e.g. could two units basically trade SW without the word "freely"?)

 

[Faded 8-1]

Good observations about the ASOP.

And I think you're not reading anything into it, which begs Gary's original question as to why it's there.

Sure I am. I think 'freely' means what WBRP posted; that there is no limit on how many SW get swapped around. Nothing more than that, but nothing less than that either.

 

[Faded 8-1]

I think "freely" just means that you can rearrange the stack, more or less. Using the example of two units is sort of a red herring because obviously it's just a swap. Once you add 3 or more units exchanging things, it becomes different because there are more units involved swapping things (and in a tourney scenario, maybe you'll end up swapping twice after changing your mind

Perhaps more than that, and back to the example of two, the word freely comes into play here because without it "accepting" a SW and "giving" a SW might both be considered an action (e.g. could two units basically trade SW without the word "freely"?)

Yes, that's a good explanation of what 'freely' means... at least by one interpretation.

...drunken 8-1.

More like stoned 8-1. :smoke:

 

[Morbii]

More like stoned 8-1. :smoke:

doh! I probably should have paid more attention to the avatar!

 

[Fort]

The more I look into this, the more I believe that SW transfer is NOT an action that is limited/limits other attempts to perform actions as do actual attempts. The reality argument is that it is much easier to hand over a weapon than to run around looking for one in a 1600m2 area....or do you think it is easier to hand over control of 10-20 prisoners than an LMG?

I see nothing in the rules to prohibit the free transfer of SW's between Good Order units in the Rally phase....it is not an attempt to do anything....multiple ATTEMPTS are precluded.

 

[Fort]

And I think you're not reading anything into it, which begs Gary's original question as to why it's there. However, your points are good and make me think this is a much less clear issue than I had thought. And now I'll make it even more gray. The ASOP does list exceptions to the "one action (attempt) per unit per" as follows:

[EXC: repairing > one SW/Gun (A9.72); leader rallying > one unit (A10.7); Recovery (A4.44) is not an action by a broken unit]. (emphasis mine, see below)

So a couple things from those exceptions:

1) Note that rearranging SWs is not listed, so the question really does rest on what "freely" means.

neither is rearranging Prisoners

2) What the heck does that third one mean? If "by" were "from" I'd understand it....

it is referring to a leader taking a SW from another broken unit....the Broken unit has not attempted/taken an action, but the leader has.

Losing clarity by the moment,

S

You forgot the part in red...which IS in the actual rule. Why is the word (attempt) there? Wouldn't it's (attempt) exclusion be more in line with the opposition's reading of the situation in this case?

These are all ATTEMPTs....SW transfer is not an ATTEMPT. Words in the ASLRB mean things.

The bottom line or two of A4.44 state that a SW may not be transferred in the same phase as it is recovered...This would not be needed if SW transfer was a limiting factor (attempt) action in a single phase.

 

[Faded 8-1]

Why is the word (attempt) there?

I think it's there to clarify that if you try to deploy (or repair a weapon, or pick up a weapon) and fail the roll, it still counts as your one RPh action.

Recombining, like transfer, is also automatic (and therefore not an 'attempt' by your reasoning), but still counts as the sole RPh action.

The bottom line or two of A4.44 state that a SW may not be transferred in the same phase as it is recovered...This would not be needed if SW transfer was a limiting factor (attempt) action in a single phase.

Good point, although that restriction could also matter in APh (squad transfers a SW to a HS in APh before advancing, HS and leader advance into a minefield, HS is elim but leader survives unbroken, leader can't recover SW because it was transferred this phase).

 

[Fort]

I think it's there to clarify that if you try to deploy (or repair a weapon, or pick up a weapon) and fail the roll, it still counts as your one RPh action.

Recombining, like transfer, is also automatic (and therefore not an 'attempt' by your reasoning), but still counts as the sole RPh action.

Recombining is SPECIFICALLY limited to the sole action by the Recombine rule itself.

 

[Morbii]

Recombining is SPECIFICALLY limited to the sole action by the Recombine rule itself.

I think his point was that the "(attempt)" clause might be a red herring. There's nothing attempt-like about recombining (unless you consider that normally they need a leader - they could "attempt" to do it without one and always fail

It would be interesting to see what Perry has to say about this.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

You forgot the part in red...which IS in the actual rule. Why is the word (attempt) there? Wouldn't it's (attempt) exclusion be more in line with the opposition's reading of the situation in this case?

These are all ATTEMPTs....SW transfer is not an ATTEMPT. Words in the ASLRB mean things.

The bottom line or two of A4.44 state that a SW may not be transferred in the same phase as it is recovered...This would not be needed if SW transfer was a limiting factor (attempt) action in a single phase.

I didn't forget the part in red, Gary. I was copying from the ASOP, as I note, where that word is excluded. So, my error, but of poor sourcing, not poor memory. I still agree with you, but admit the other side has a not-crazy view here.

Excellent point about prisoner swap not being listed, either, and thanks for clarifying about the third exception (I was reading the "by" as relating to "recovery by" the broken squad and couldn't sort out how a broken squad could recover anything. One of those things that once you read it wrong once...)

S

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Good observations about the ASOP.



Sure I am. I think 'freely' means what WBRP posted; that there is no limit on how many SW get swapped around. Nothing more than that, but nothing less than that either.

Fair point. I don't agree, but do see what you mean. That interpretation doesn't devalue "freely" like I was thinking it did.

S

 

[Fort]

I think his point was that the "(attempt)" clause might be a red herring. There's nothing attempt-like about recombining (unless you consider that normally they need a leader - they could "attempt" to do it without one and always fail

It would be interesting to see what Perry has to say about this.

My point is that the example he used is more similar to SW transfer than not. It is not an attempt, is not labeled an attempt in the relevant rules clause, and involves no element of chance....BUT, unlike SW transfer, the unit(s) involved in the Recombine are specifically prohibited from doing any other action in that same phase, whereas the SW transfer rule A4.431 has no such exclusion in the entire A4.431 rules clause.

Good point, although that restriction could also matter in APh (squad transfers a SW to a HS in APh before advancing, HS and leader advance into a minefield, HS is elim but leader survives unbroken, leader can't recover SW because it was transferred this phase).

I don't think this is correct either. In this case I think the order of the events are important. Recovery and then transfer is prohibited, but Transfer then Recovery is not. SMC recovery in this type of situation is open to debate, BUT the rule seems to allow it as it is the only way to perform a recovery in the APh.
However, the phase it occurs in does not matter really as this type of action is specifically prohibited BY and IN the relevant rules section itself.