Ole Boe said:
I think that a good case could be made for allowing the Motion Atttempt which automatically fails since a dr <= 0 is required.
I agree. It seems to me that the Motion Attempt dr must be attempted before LOS is made.
This is not directly supported by the text, but there is a provision for checking whether there was LOS at the start of the MPh. And that provision says "subsequent", meaning after the Motion Attempt dr.
Apply the same logic in this case. Motion Attempt first, then check LOS.
Ole Boe said:
Note that it is legal to make a Motion Attempt while the enemy unitis out of LOS, and you may even succeed if the enemy unit spent enough MF/MP in your LOS before moving out of it.
Okay. Interesting enough.
Ole Boe said:
The only sentence which may support Peter's answer is the following: "The enemy unit must be one that had not been in the vehicle's LOS during that Player Turn prior to entering it during that MPh". Does this sentence require the enemy to actually enter LOS to make the Motion Attempt legal? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards a legal, but failed Motion Attempt.
That sentence means that the enemy unit must a) not been in the vehicle's LOS before b) entering that vehicle's LOS. So yes, at some point the enemy will have had to enter LOS to allow a Motion Attempt.
However, the question still comes down to sequence of events.
I believe the correct sequence is: 1) declare and make Motion Attempt; then 2) check LOS for MP spent in LOS; then 3) compare dr with appropriate MP amount actually in LOS; then 4) if no LOS ever existed, then Motion Attempt fails.
In Brian's example, the LOS may have been blocked "at that point", which I take to mean "the enemy unit's current Location". I note that this does not itself negate the Motion Attempt, because he may still have met all the requirements. He would then have to "backtrack" to determine how many MP
were spent in LOS. If it subsequently shows that zero MP were in LOS, then the Motion Attempt fails.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
[Edited for details: not actually "drm", rather compare the dr to the MP expended...]