Your favourite sentence in ASLRB?

[klasmalmstrom]

Ah. My mistake, again. My apologies.

No problem - I was a bit lazy with not including parts of the post I was commenting. Also, for the record, I agree with you that the rules are ambiguous/contradicting-itself on whether horses are units or not.

 

[Westy]

"A unit may jump from an upper building level only if the building depiction is within a counter edge width from the cliff/water depiction."

Say WHAT?! ???

Yep, it's in dem rulz... E6.1

von Marwitz

Awesome - $1,000 to anyone who has actually used it!

 

[Philippe D.]

My favorite sentence in the ASLRB is "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel."

OK, I immediately identified where the sentence comes from, so it's now the second English-language novel I remember the first sentence from (together with "In a hold in the ground there lived a hobbit"). Does that make me an official nerd?

(The others I know are all French classics - "Aujourd'hui maman est morte", or "Longtemps je me suis couché de bonne heure")

To stay on topic: "The cauldron of battle, which destroyed so many units that failed the test of arms, could also forge better soldiers and/or acts of desperation borne of heroism or despair." Pretty cool for a rulebook - and it's not even in a footnote. Note the "and/or", still.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

A horse is a horse, of course of course......

(My apologies to any Aussies or Germans who don't get the Mr Ed reference)

I think missing Mr Ed references should be lauded not apologized for.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Pretty cool for a rulebook - and it's not even in a footnote. Note the "and/or", still.

Which is absolutely funny as the virgule punctuation ("/") literally means "and or" making that mean "and, and or, or". -- jim

 

[R Hooks]

So it should be written: "note the /, still."?

 

[Robin Reeve]

Two sentences on the IFT:
#KIA, a death sentence
"-", a unharmed sentence

 

[Gordon]

 

[Ric of The LBC]

I counted 6 stories, Fake news.

 

[Gordon]

I counted 6 stories, Fake news.

Somewhere between 6 and 10 too many for me.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A10.53 INTERDICTION: A routing unit which enters an Open Ground hex without Low Crawl, in both the LOS and Normal Range of an unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it in that hex with at least one FP without any form of LOS Hindrance, is subject to a NMC and everything that normally entails ...

B10.31 HEIGHT ADVANTAGE: Any unit in a hex receiving Direct Fire from a lower elevation is entitled to a +1 TEM, provided that unit is not eligible to receive any other positive TEM ...

C.1 INDIRECT FIRE: Despite the fact that many Gun types were capable of Indirect Fire (indeed, most artillery and mortars were used primarily as Indirect Fire weapons), all ordnance weapons that appear on the mapboard are limited to Direct Fire To Hit procedures (or use IFE if capable). All ASL references to Indirect Fire apply to both OBA and mortars, although onboard mortars must secure hits using the To Hit Table in the same manner as Direct Fire weapons.

So, a unit on a hill top breaks and runs away. Can the mortar Interdict if its LOF crosses an elevation hexside? Does a Concealed unit which Assault Moves into a hex with HA lose ? if the mortar unit can draw an LOS across the crest line? What if the mortar has been malfunctioned? What if the mortar is not possessed? Thanks to @WuWei for reminding me of this little gem. -- jim

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A10.53 INTERDICTION: A routing unit which enters an Open Ground hex without Low Crawl, in both the LOS and Normal Range of an unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it in that hex with at least one FP without any form of LOS Hindrance, is subject to a NMC and everything that normally entails ...

B10.31 HEIGHT ADVANTAGE: Any unit in a hex receiving Direct Fire from a lower elevation is entitled to a +1 TEM, provided that unit is not eligible to receive any other positive TEM ...

C.1 INDIRECT FIRE: Despite the fact that many Gun types were capable of Indirect Fire (indeed, most artillery and mortars were used primarily as Indirect Fire weapons), all ordnance weapons that appear on the mapboard are limited to Direct Fire To Hit procedures (or use IFE if capable). All ASL references to Indirect Fire apply to both OBA and mortars, although onboard mortars must secure hits using the To Hit Table in the same manner as Direct Fire weapons.

So, a unit on a hill top breaks and runs away. Can the mortar Interdict if its LOF crosses an elevation hexside? Does a Concealed unit which Assault Moves into a hex with HA lose ? if the mortar unit can draw an LOS across the crest line? What if the mortar has been malfunctioned? What if the mortar is not possessed? Thanks to @WuWei for reminding me of this little gem. -- jim

A mortar isn't a unit. It has no MF/MP allotment per the Index.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A mortar isn't a unit. It has no MF/MP allotment per the Index.

But the unit possessing the Mortar is and is capable of firing Indirectly (C.1) which in theory, negates HA (B10.31). I guess I assumed folks would assume the Mortar was possessed. I used the phrase "mortar unit" in the Concealment loss portion. -- jim

EDIT to ADD: For the record, I don't think it should be able to strip or negate HA. Hence the reason I asked "what if the mortar was malfunctioned". I think it silly. I don't think Q&A has been asked on this to date either.

 

[bprobst]

Which part of "unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it" is unclear? Do you know of any situations where a malfunctioned or not-possessed SW/Gun is "capable of fire"?

I don't understand your questions at all. Those particular rules sections seem crystal clear to me. Nor do I understand what would make them "favourite sentences".

As for HA, a target unit is either eligible to claim it or it isn't. I don't think it makes a difference if the firing/interdicting unit can ignore the claim. The question is, is the target unit in "Open Ground" relative to the firer/interdictor? If the target is eligible to claim HA, then it isn't in "Open Ground", regardless of what DRM may or may not actually apply.

 

[Eagle4ty]

But the unit possessing the Mortar is and is capable of firing Indirectly (C.1) which in theory, negates HA (B10.31). I guess I assumed folks would assume the Mortar was possessed. I used the phrase "mortar unit" in the Concealment loss portion. -- jim

EDIT to ADD: For the record, I don't think it should be able to strip or negate HA. Hence the reason I asked "what if the mortar was malfunctioned". I think it silly. I don't think Q&A has been asked on this to date either.

But it has certainly popped up in a tournament, to my disadvantage as the guy with HA I might add. It has always been one of my pet peeves that the HA for a direct firing mortar is not applied to the TH DRM whereas it should not apply to the IFT effects DR only as C9.1 would seem to intimate. Alas, that has not been the interpretation. As you have mentioned, this leads to several very weird situations [EX: A concealed unit assault moving into an otherwise OG hex but with HA against a mortar crew with a functioning mortar (too funny to contemplate if the mortar was malfunctioned)]. Does that concealed unit lose its concealment? I guess the answer would be yes it would lose concealment as mortars don't take into account HA TEM and can even interdict in that situation (another pet peeve of mine that a unit requiring a TH DR should be able to automatically interdict, no TH DR needed-but that's for another thread possibly).

 

[Sparafucil3]

Which part of "unbroken enemy unit capable of fire on it" is unclear? Do you know of any situations where a malfunctioned or not-possessed SW/Gun is "capable of fire"?

The question is designed to be thought provoking Bruce, not to offend.

I don't understand your questions at all. Those particular rules sections seem crystal clear to me. Nor do I understand what would make them "favourite sentences".

They are all clear to me too, it is the interaction between them which I find interesting and open to potential confusion. I enjoy parts of the rules where the Interaction between then are interesting or paradoxical.

As for HA, a target unit is either eligible to claim it or it isn't. I don't think it makes a difference if the firing/interdicting unit can ignore the claim. The question is, is the target unit in "Open Ground" relative to the firer/interdictor? If the target is eligible to claim HA, then it isn't in "Open Ground", regardless of what DRM may or may not actually apply.

The rule interaction says that a unit possessing a mortar is using Indirect Fire so no HA (C.1) and thus moving units are in OG for Concealment Loss/Gain. If the mortar is broken, then the EXACT SAME unit would be using Direct Fire so HA would apply. IMO, the target does have HA in both instances. The rules don't support that. To me, that's silly.

FWIW, B1.14 also refers us to A10.531 Open Ground definition when referring to Hill/HA interaction so Advancing into an HA in the LOS of a unit possessing a mortar would also be Concealment Loss. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

EDIT to ADD: For the record, I don't think it should be able to strip or negate HA. Hence the reason I asked "what if the mortar was malfunctioned". I think it silly. I don't think Q&A has been asked on this to date either.

IIRC, there might be a Q&A (albeit unofficial) on this matter.

 

[Sparafucil3]

IIRC, there might be a Q&A (albeit unofficial) on this matter.

I could not find one among your collection. As you know, I grudgingly accept old Q&A, but I do find it odious. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I could not find one among your collection. As you know, I grudgingly accept old Q&A, but I do find it odious. -- jim

This is the one I recalled - don't know its origin or how old it is though.

A10.531
A concealed unit advances into an OG hill hex that is devoid of cover or SMOKE/smoke. The only opposing unit that can see that
movement is at a lower location and is armed with a mortar and within the effective range of the mortar and < 16 hex range. Does
the advancing unit lose concealment? Is the answer different if the unit at lower level is inside or outside of the effective range of
the mortar?
A. No. (The mortar is immaterial.)

Perhaps some errata is due in this matter?

 

[Sparafucil3]

This is the one I recalled - don't know its origin or how old it is though.

A10.531
A concealed unit advances into an OG hill hex that is devoid of cover or SMOKE/smoke. The only opposing unit that can see that
movement is at a lower location and is armed with a mortar and within the effective range of the mortar and < 16 hex range. Does
the advancing unit lose concealment? Is the answer different if the unit at lower level is inside or outside of the effective range of
the mortar?
A. No. (The mortar is immaterial.)

Perhaps some errata is due in this matter?

At least it agrees with me -- jim