Valor of the Guards Q&A

boylermaker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
245
Reaction score
111
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the A6.12 reference, that is helpful. However, I'm not sure it resolves my original confusion, because A6.12 seems to me to be limiting specific LOS-draws to specific circumstances. So you can only draw LOS to a hexside if you can take a snap shot (or bypass or whatever, but the other situations aren't relevant here). In turn, you can only take a snap shot if you are "a unit wishing to make a Small-Arms/MG Defensive First Fire attack". Since reserves can't fire, it's not clear to me that they are allowed to string the non-standard LOS.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,196
Reaction score
3,828
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Thanks for the A6.12 reference, that is helpful. However, I'm not sure it resolves my original confusion, because A6.12 seems to me to be limiting specific LOS-draws to specific circumstances. So you can only draw LOS to a hexside if you can take a snap shot (or bypass or whatever, but the other situations aren't relevant here). In turn, you can only take a snap shot if you are "a unit wishing to make a Small-Arms/MG Defensive First Fire attack". Since reserves can't fire, it's not clear to me that they are allowed to string the non-standard LOS.
You make an interesting point. It would be very odd, however, if a vehicle could move into LOS without activating the reserve because the vehicle was in bypass. I think that is what you would have to conclude if you read A6.12 as you suggest.

JR
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
2,573
Location
Dublin
Country
llIreland
You make an interesting point. It would be very odd, however, if a vehicle could move into LOS without activating the reserve because the vehicle was in bypass. I think that is what you would have to conclude if you read A6.12 as you suggest.

JR
Never confuse "making sense" with the contents of the ASLRB! :D
 

boylermaker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
245
Reaction score
111
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Interesting. D2.37 says "Fire to/from a vehicle in Bypass alters the LOS rules somewhat because of the need to trace fire to/from the CAFP instead of the hex center."

Now, you could interpret this to mean that LOS is drawn to the CAFP only for fire attacks, meaning that reserves are not activated. However, I think that would leave us worse off than when we started, because wouldn't that also mean that vehicles in bypass are at the hex center for rout and concealment purposes? My inclination is to interpret D2.37 as starting from the point of fire attacks, then the passage (implicitly?) expands the situation to include all LOSs to/from the vehicle in bypass. If that's the case, then a reserve can (in fact must) use the CAFP instead of the hex center to check whether it can see the vehicle.
 

GamerGeek

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
32
Reaction score
1
Location
Winnipeg
Country
llCanada
Hi all,

Question regarding VOTG 2.613 RUSSIAN COUNTERATTACK DECLARATION. It states that you skip New CG Day & SAN Adjustment (12.614) which includes the section "Each side whose SAN is currently zero has it automatically raised to 2 (no CPP expenditure is necessary)." I think this is the only part in the refit phase where this happens. And if its skipped what are the ramifications for the Night Scenario?

Does the mean that if the German (or Russian for that matter) has their san reduced to below 2 in the daytime scenario, then that is the number used to generate the night SAN (ie 3 as it technically can drop to a SAN of 1 during the daytime scenario and the san of 1 +2 for night equals a final 3?).

Or do they have no SAN to add 2 too, thus they have no SAN at all for the Night scenario?

If the side with a low san spends CPP to raise their SAN is it raised from a 1 to a 2 (making the night SAN of 4), or from the 'default' of 2 to a 3, making the night SAN 5?

BB
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,196
Reaction score
3,828
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Question regarding VOTG 2.613 RUSSIAN COUNTERATTACK DECLARATION. It states that you skip New CG Day & SAN Adjustment (12.614) which includes the section "Each side whose SAN is currently zero has it automatically raised to 2 (no CPP expenditure is necessary)." I think this is the only part in the refit phase where this happens. And if its skipped what are the ramifications for the Night Scenario?

Does the mean that if the German (or Russian for that matter) has their san reduced to below 2 in the daytime scenario, then that is the number used to generate the night SAN (ie 3 as it technically can drop to a SAN of 1 during the daytime scenario and the san of 1 +2 for night equals a final 3?).

Or do they have no SAN to add 2 too, thus they have no SAN at all for the Night scenario?

If the side with a low san spends CPP to raise their SAN is it raised from a 1 to a 2 (making the night SAN of 4), or from the 'default' of 2 to a 3, making the night SAN 5?
I think that technically the SAN can never be reduced to zero. It is always reduced to one because all losses are one per A14.4. Apparently there is an assumption that when the SAN is removed, the value becomes zero. I would play it as if removing the SAN makes the SAN value zero instead of one. During the night scenario that side gets the night bonus to 2, then during the next day it is restored to two. Purchasing a SAN point gives that side a three at night, which would then be free "upgraded" to two the next day. This is just how I would play it. I think you will need to get some errata to get the "correct" way to play.

JR
 

GamerGeek

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
32
Reaction score
1
Location
Winnipeg
Country
llCanada
Thanks JR,

Thank your right on the never reduced to zero, A14.4 states pretty clearly that a SAN reduced from 2 is indeed a SAN of 1. My sense would be to play it as a SAN of 1 for the night scenario (raised to 3 due to night), with the possibility of a san purchase raising it to 4.

Would love any further thoughts from others. But errata or a Perry sez (or Tom sez) would certainly help clarify.

BB
 

Jeff Sewall

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
470
Reaction score
93
Location
Pittsburgh
Country
llUnited States
Thanks JR,

Thank your right on the never reduced to zero, A14.4 states pretty clearly that a SAN reduced from 2 is indeed a SAN of 1. My sense would be to play it as a SAN of 1 for the night scenario (raised to 3 due to night), with the possibility of a san purchase raising it to 4.
This is how I would play it.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,196
Reaction score
3,828
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
If you play the SAN as one, the SAN will never be returned to two "for free" unless you change that rule too. But since the rule seems broken, it's up to you to fix it.

JR
 

Jeff Sewall

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
470
Reaction score
93
Location
Pittsburgh
Country
llUnited States
In the domain of SAN numbers, 0 := 1 := -1756. And just to save you some typing, I realize there is no ASL rule for that, but some things are common sense.
 

Darren Kovacs

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
9
Location
Victoria BC
Country
llCanada
Russian Night Cloaking set up (Concealment vs Non-Concealment)

Can Russian cloaked units set up in Non-Concealment terrain during Night (as ATTACKER)?

This question just popped up in my head during my German set up for night. Actually a whole series of questions popped up despite playing several Night scenarios in the past but most have been answered from previous Q&A or rereading the rules.

The reason for the question which may be absurd stems from the fact that the Russians (as ATTACKER at night) can not setup ?/HIP at night in non-concealment terrain. Rule E1.4 states that cloaking is a form of concealment and all rules pertaining to concealment apply to cloaking (except for rules specified in the chapter E night rules). Now I don't know if I should take it this rule to apply to cloaked units restricting their setup on map (which is different from chapter E rules where the ATTACKER comes from offboard) where ?/HIP is not allowed in non-concealment terrain by the ATTACKER (per previous post 856). I might be biased being the German side at this particular time.

In the past, I hadn't thought about it and I also didn't realise the ATTACKER could not set up HIP/? in non-concealment terrain until recently. Looking for guidance, thoughts, or opinions.

Darren
 
Top