Your favourite sentence in ASLRB?

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael I remember the C1 all to well.............the only weapon I know where you put the mag in ,cock it , leave the safety off and throw it into the room......damn hair triggered weapon..........more dangerous to the user than then the enemy

Hmm, 9mm in general seems to produce touchy weapons. We had a pistol range in the basement of our armoury, and as I recall the standing load position had the pistol held at a 45 degree angle. There were a number of bullet holes in the ceiling at about a 45 degree angle from the firing points.

 

[stuh42asl]

Yes.........in Chatham we used them to practice house clearing on the Range in gagetown......you had to watch you arcs, where you stepped, etc...I hated the damn things, but I liked the FNC1...heavy but it made sure anything it hit was not getting up, our C7 is useless. For me in combat I wanted to make sure if I hit a human target it would not get back up.....All the C7 does is wounds.....something tells me too many wounded enemy troops means live pissed off enemy troops who can fight back The FNC1 would go thru body armor as well. Makes a wonderful mess of a watermelon though.

 

[bprobst]

If the HA does not apply (Indirect Fire) and it is an otherwise Open Ground hex, there is no option left to us but FFMO.

There you go confusing pies and steaks again. Why can't you tell them apart? The rules have no problem distinguishing between "hexes/circumstances where you qualify for a positive TEM" and "hexes/circumstances where you don't qualify for a positive TEM" and the last condition is only occasionally equivalent to "Open Ground", and this is not one of those occasions. I feel sorry for all of your units in your games that have lost concealment (or worse) needlessly. A.2 I guess, but at least now you know.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The rules have no problem distinguishing between "hexes/circumstances where you qualify for a positive TEM" and "hexes/circumstances where you don't qualify for a positive TEM" and the last condition is only occasionally equivalent to "Open Ground", and this is not one of those occasions.

This is were we agree (it shouldn't be Open Ground) but the rules disagree with us. On the occasion where a unit is capable of firing on us with a mortar, that particular unit--per C.1--imposes a condition on our unit which makes HA non-applicable. If the hex is otherwise devoid of TEM or Hindrance, it is Open Ground absent the Q&A. This is why I am pretty sure there should be errata to follow that up. A10.531 most certainly is one occasion where this is relevant. That has application to routing.

Perhaps if you took a bite of the pie, you would find it's steak and kidney (shudder). -- jim

 

[holdit]

Perhaps if you took a bite of the pie, you would find it's steak and kidney (shudder). -- jim

No, no, no.



Kidneys are lovely. Yum.

 

[von Marwitz]

No, no, no.

Kidneys are lovely. Yum.

Well, the kitchen of the of 'the isles' off 'the continent' is of notorious renown for their tastiness...

But it is not Surströmming...

von Marwitz

 

[Gordon]

That's some kind of bio-weapon, outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Kidneys are lovely. Yum.

If by "lovely" you mean "Even Anthony Bourdaine refused to eat them", we agree. Even the thought makes me want to retch. -- jim

 

[bprobst]

If the hex is otherwise devoid of TEM or Hindrance, it is Open Ground

I would be very interested to know precisely which rule you think explicitly makes that statement; I am very sure that there is not one in my copy of the rules.

What you are saying is that a unit in a building that is being attacked by a FT is actually moving in OG. If you don't see that the rules at no point ever say such a thing, then I don't know what else to tell you. C.1 certainly doesn't say it. Pies aren't steaks, no matter how often you insist that they are.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I would be very interested to know precisely which rule you think explicitly makes that statement; I am very sure that there is not one in my copy of the rules.

What you are saying is that a unit in a building that is being attacked by a FT is actually moving in OG. If you don't see that the rules at no point ever say such a thing, then I don't know what else to tell you. C.1 certainly doesn't say it. Pies aren't steaks, no matter how often you insist that they are.

Boy, sure wish I had thought of that analogy way back when. I like the thought process but I can attest to the fact a Mtr can interdict a unit receiving only HA in an otherwise OG hex at least by the majority of the grognards here in the U.S. because Mtrs, using the principles of indirect fire and don't apply TEM to their shots (C1.52) and therefore FFMO can be as it is now considered OG to the Mtr. I've always hated the interpretation that it would be considered thus as a Mtr must sight just as any other direct firing weapon (C9.1 Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance...) if firing at a unit in its LOS/LOF. I agree the no TEM should be applied to the IFT effects DR but should added to the TH DR (thus negating FFMO possibility) as I believe that is what the rule is saying (C9.1 Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance but are treated as Indirect Fire weapons for fire resolution purposes; i.e., although they must make To Hit DR, the IFT effects of those hits are resolved using Indirect Fire principles and modifiers.); but that is certainly not how it's played; at least not by a majority of players in the U.S. from my experience.

 

[Andrew Rogers]

My "favourite sentence in ASLRB" ... is actually my favourite sentence from the broader set of Squad Leader rules

… from Cross of Iron when explaining the Portage Capacity of the classic Sniper SMC (which was, for the younger readers, a separate counter capable of regular movement) …

"A sniper has no portage capacity. Psychologically, he is a loner disinterested in all but the kill"

 

[Sparafucil3]

What you are saying is that a unit in a building that is being attacked by a FT is actually moving in OG. If you don't see that the rules at no point ever say such a thing, then I don't know what else to tell you. C.1 certainly doesn't say it. Pies aren't steaks, no matter how often you insist that they are.

No, I am not. I am saying that any unit receiving the -1 FFMO is moving in Open Ground. Saying I am arguing that a FT makes everything move in OG isn't so no matter how often you bring it up.

I would be very interested to know precisely which rule you think explicitly makes that statement; I am very sure that there is not one in my copy of the rules.

Here:

A10.531 OPEN GROUND: For purposes of rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction, an Open Ground hex is any hex in which the particular enemy unit(s) could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity (regardless of what attacks it actually made in previous phases), the -1 FFMO DRM. ...

Key point here: -1 FFMO DRM is moving in Open Ground. Compare that to what I said just a moment ago.

Now, lets build the rules chain to see what happens when a unit is moving on a hill hex and receives fire (hypothetically in the case of routing or concealment gain loss):

B1.14 HILLS: Any hill hex devoid of other terrain is also an Open Ground hex. 2L4, 2L5, and 2K5 are examples of Open Ground hexes. However, the -1 FFMO DRM does not apply (due to the +1 TEM for Height Advantage) for most fire traced from a lower elevation, and therefore that hex is not considered unmodified Open Ground (A10.531) for that type of Interdiction claim unless the routing unit is crossing a Crest Line through the same hexside crossed by the firer’s LOS (see 10.31).

Note the reference to A10.531 and that "most fire traced from a lower elevation" is subject to +1 for HA. Key point "Most", not all, and the reference to A10.531 (see above).

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 or CE DRM other than those caused by LOS Hindrances [EXC: a moving unit being fired on by Defensive First Fire is not eligible for the Height Advantage TEM if in entering the target hex it crosses a Crest Line through the same hexside that is intersected by the firer’s LOS]. A unit eligible for the +1 TEM for Height Advantage is not subject to Interdiction/FFMO by an attack to which that +1 TEM applies.

Notice, if you are receiving Direct Fire from a lower elevation you are entitled to +1 HA. Also notice that is says A unit eligible for the +1 TEM for Height Advantage is not subject to Interdiction/FFMO by an attack to which that +1 TEM applies.
And lastly:

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. All ordnance on the mapboard is considered either too close or inadequately prepared to use normal Indirect Fire techniques (i.e., SR and FFE process).

Mortars and OBA are Indirect Fire, not Direct Fire. So, if unit is moving in a hill hex, in otherwise Open Ground, and fired upon by a lower elevation unit manning an MG, they are receiving Direct Fire and eligible for a +1 HA DRM. If instead, that firing unit is manning a mortar, such fire is Indirect Fire. As Indirect Fire, the +1 for HA is NA. If a unit is not eligible for the +1 HA TEM, they ARE subject to -1 FFMO. As they are subject to -1 FFMO, they are moving in Open Ground as defined by A10.531.

While we are at it, lets take on this:

A22.2 DRM: FT attacks vs non-Armored units are resolved on the IFT but receive no DRM due to leadership/heroism or defender’s TEM except for non-CA attacks on a pillbox (B30.113). LOS Hindrances and the +1 DRM for CX usage apply to IFT attacks.

This does not say the TEM varies depending on the incoming fire type (as B10.31 does), it just says the TEM DRM is NA vs this particular attack. The TEM still exists, it is still +? depending on Terrain Type. The TEM would still be +1 HA and the +1 DRM would be NA to the FT IFT DR. Why is this you ask? Because a FT is using ... (wait for it) ... Direct Fire. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

Boy, sure wish I had thought of that analogy way back when. I like the thought process but I can attest to the fact a Mtr can interdict a unit receiving only HA in an otherwise OG hex at least by the majority of the grognards here in the U.S. because Mtrs, using the principles of indirect fire and don't apply TEM to their shots (C1.52) and therefore FFMO can be as it is now considered OG to the Mtr. I've always hated the interpretation that it would be considered thus as a Mtr must sight just as any other direct firing weapon (C9.1 Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance...) if firing at a unit in its LOS/LOF. I agree the no TEM should be applied to the IFT effects DR but should added to the TH DR (thus negating FFMO possibility) as I believe that is what the rule is saying (C9.1 Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance but are treated as Indirect Fire weapons for fire resolution purposes; i.e., although they must make To Hit DR, the IFT effects of those hits are resolved using Indirect Fire principles and modifiers.); but that is certainly not how it's played; at least not by a majority of players in the U.S. from my experience.

To be clear, as I have said elsewhere, I agree that HA should be applicable and I agree with the Perry Sez saying it is not Open Ground (Perry Sez is up thread). I just don't think the rules say that as written. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

In the introduction: Concentrate on what the rules do allow; not on what they don't specifically prohibit.
On one occasion when a player was maintaining that the rules didn't say he couldn't perform an action Fish picked up one of the boards, turned it around and said the rules didn't say he couldn't do that. Game, set and match to Fish.

My least favorite rule was A.14 in the first edition rules. Not the rule itself but it's placement at the beginning of the rulebook. I felt it was too confusing especially for the player reading the rules for the first time. I was glad to see the revision in the second edition that referenced it in chapter A but moved the actual rule to chapter D where it belonged.

 

[Russ Isaia]

No, I am not. I am saying that any unit receiving the -1 FFMO is moving in Open Ground. Saying I am arguing that a FT makes everything move in OG isn't so no matter how often you bring it up.


Here:

Key point here: -1 FFMO DRM is moving in Open Ground. Compare that to what I said just a moment ago.

Now, lets build the rules chain to see what happens when a unit is moving on a hill hex and receives fire (hypothetically in the case of routing or concealment gain loss):

Note the reference to A10.531 and that "most fire traced from a lower elevation" is subject to +1 for HA. Key point "Most", not all, and the reference to A10.531 (see above).

Notice, if you are receiving Direct Fire from a lower elevation you are entitled to +1 HA. Also notice that is says A unit eligible for the +1 TEM for Height Advantage is not subject to Interdiction/FFMO by an attack to which that +1 TEM applies.
And lastly:

Mortars and OBA are Indirect Fire, not Direct Fire. So, if unit is moving in a hill hex, in otherwise Open Ground, and fired upon by a lower elevation unit manning an MG, they are receiving Direct Fire and eligible for a +1 HA DRM. If instead, that firing unit is manning a mortar, such fire is Indirect Fire. As Indirect Fire, the +1 for HA is NA. If a unit is not eligible for the +1 HA TEM, they ARE subject to -1 FFMO. As they are subject to -1 FFMO, they are moving in Open Ground as defined by A10.531.

While we are at it, lets take on this:

This does not say the TEM varies depending on the incoming fire type (as B10.31 does), it just says the TEM DRM is NA vs this particular attack. The TEM still exists, it is still +? depending on Terrain Type. The TEM would still be +1 HA and the +1 DRM would be NA to the FT IFT DR. Why is this you ask? Because a FT is using ... (wait for it) ... Direct Fire. -- jim

I think you omitted a vital cite in your response (as forum gurus are wont to do).

Start at A10.531 of course but then you need to mention A4.6 and specifically the last sentence: "the -1 FFMO DRM does not apply whenever movement is combined with another effective protective TEM or LOS Hindrance" (I've reversed the order of the clauses, but that is essentially a quotation of the relevant part of the last sentence).

So if HA +1 TEM is the only possible TEM or LOS Hindrance in your circumstances, and it is inapplicable because the hypothetical firer (the test of A10.531) is not threatening you with Direct Fire, you would be subject to attack with the FFMO DRM, and thereafter are in Open Ground for Interdiction, etc. purposes.

But I digress (from the title of the thread). Sorry.

 

[Actionjick]

My "favourite sentence in ASLRB" ... is actually my favourite sentence from the broader set of Squad Leader rules

… from Cross of Iron when explaining the Portage Capacity of the classic Sniper SMC (which was, for the younger readers, a separate counter capable of regular movement) …

"A sniper has no portage capacity. Psychologically, he is a loner disinterested in all but the kill"

View attachment 13176

Sigh. Sniper counters, AFV's falling off cliffs onto buildings, HE near misses, the good old days when you didn't get a hernia from picking up the rules. Snipers were what I found to be the most objectionable change while playtesting ASL. Reminds me of another favourite sentence in the introduction about not seeing cherished rules from SL in the ASLRB. Never became a fan of the ASL concept of the sniper counter as representing random battlefield occurrences but the improvement to the system as a whole more than made up for my personal feelings about the " loner ".

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Sigh. Sniper counters, AFV's falling off cliffs onto buildings, HE near misses, the good old days when you didn't get a hernia from picking up the rules. Snipers were what I found to be the most objectionable change while playtesting ASL. Reminds me of another favourite sentence in the introduction about not seeing cherished rules from SL in the ASLRB. Never became a fan of the ASL concept of the sniper counter as representing random battlefield occurrences but the improvement to the system as a whole more than made up for my personal feelings about the " loner ".

It also leads to maybe my least favorite sentence in the ASLRB. From Chapter A, footnote 20 on snipers, about halfway through: "A side benefit of the rule in its present form is that it acts as a sort of balancing mechanism: the player getting the majority of the good DR is also likely to be subject to more Sniper attacks as a consequence." Just no. The numbers of rolls in ASL scenarios are simply not big enough to make it even remotely reliable that it works out this way. And from experience, every ASLer knows this is just a load of crap. Say it's a random element, fine. I don't like the rule, but fine. Say it's a balancing mechanism and...go away. It just ain't so.

 

[Actionjick]

It also leads to maybe my least favorite sentence in the ASLRB. From Chapter A, footnote 20 on snipers, about halfway through: "A side benefit of the rule in its present form is that it acts as a sort of balancing mechanism: the player getting the majority of the good DR is also likely to be subject to more Sniper attacks as a consequence." Just no. The numbers of rolls in ASL scenarios are simply not big enough to make it even remotely reliable that it works out this way. And from experience, every ASLer knows this is just a load of crap. Say it's a random element, fine. I don't like the rule, but fine. Say it's a balancing mechanism and...go away. It just ain't so.

Nicely put, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I think you omitted a vital cite in your response (as forum gurus are wont to do).

Start at A10.531 of course but then you need to mention A4.6 and specifically the last sentence: "the -1 FFMO DRM does not apply whenever movement is combined with another effective protective TEM or LOS Hindrance" (I've reversed the order of the clauses, but that is essentially a quotation of the relevant part of the last sentence).

So if HA +1 TEM is the only possible TEM or LOS Hindrance in your circumstances, and it is inapplicable because the hypothetical firer (the test of A10.531) is not threatening you with Direct Fire, you would be subject to attack with the FFMO DRM, and thereafter are in Open Ground for Interdiction, etc. purposes.

But I digress (from the title of the thread). Sorry.

Also a salient point. It's not that I elected to omit it, I didn't go looking for it as I believe my point was made therefor I didn't go digging deeper. Thanks for adding more weight to the argument. -- jim

 

[Russ Isaia]

Also a salient point. It's not that I elected to omit it, I didn't go looking for it as I believe my point was made therefor I didn't go digging deeper. Thanks for adding more weight to the argument. -- jim

No serious criticism intended. What you omitted was the cite (citation to rule), not the point.