Martí Cabré
Terrassa
Catalonia
-
Does having LOS to an entire hexside qualify to remove concealment from an enemy unit?
In our situation a unit had no LOS to two adjacent hexes were a unit moved using Non-Assault Movement, but they had LOS to the entire hexside. They could snap-shot the moving unit. Does this LOS suffice to remove the moving unit's concealment?
-
Pup Teevo
Seattle
Washington
-
I would say the unit loses concealment if not using Assault Movement.
The Concealment Loss/Gain Table says a unit loses concealment if it uses non-assault movement in the LOS of an enemy unit within 16 hexes. If the enemy unit has the LOS needed for a snap-shot then he has LOS enough to cause concealment loss (at least the way I read it  )
-
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
-
No.
-
Pup Teevo
Seattle
Washington
-
Tompy wrote: No.
A man of few words.
If you are saying that it is not sufficient to cause concealment loss can you please point to a RB section that supports this view.
-
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
-
I wish I could. My ASLRB is in storage and my eASLRB is unavailable at this time... Maybe I should go and load it up?
I could be wrong. I do know that you do not get -2FFMO/FFNAM for a snapshot. Maybe that's what I'm thinking.
-
Pup Teevo
Seattle
Washington
-
It's an interesting question and I can't find anything in the RB that addresses it directly.
But the Concealment Loss/Gain table says Concealment is lost if you use non-Assualt movement in the LOS of an enemy unit within 16 hexes. My thinking is if the enemy has LOS to take a shot then they must have LOS that meets this concealment loss clause.
But it's far from conclusive and I'd prefer to find something that spells it out more directly.
-
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
-
OK...
The Snapshot itself has nothing to do with the rules. Is the unit doing anything that would cause it to lose Concealment? No. It is not moving within LOS, etc.
However, there is a special rule that allows for a unit to take a Snapshot if an "atypical" LOS exists. These atypical LOS are not used for determining Concealment loss, but instead to facilitate other actions.
If however the unit receives at least a PTC, it loses concealment (even if not in LOS of any known GO units.
So in your example you would be firing 1/4 FP (Snapshot is Area Fire and Concealment is Area Fire). No FFMO/FFNAM would apply.
It's been a couple of years since I played so my Rules-Foo is weak and I can't seem to lawyer together a passage. But trust me. The above ideas are what make it so.
-
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
-
Also the rules seem to say things like, "LOS to the unit", but in SNapshot the LOS is to the hexside the unit is crossing, never "to the unit".
Thanks for making me get out my eASLRB and loading it on my new PC. Maybe I'll be inclined to play a VASL game or something.
-
Eric Neff
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
"A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt."
"Just once, I'd like to face an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets!"
-
Last sentence of A12.141:
"A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result."
-
Pup Teevo
Seattle
Washington
-
lesulm1 wrote: Last sentence of A12.141:
"A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result."
Thanks, Eric. Nice to see it so clearly stated. I foolishly expected that to be clarified in the A8.15 Snap Shot section.
-
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
-
My favorite rule like this (although this may be a close 2nd) is where it says you can only fire mortars from building rooftops.
-
Martí Cabré
Terrassa
Catalonia
-
Ok, thanks.
-
Robin REEVE
Switzerland
Gland
-
ASLNoob wrote: I foolishly expected that to be clarified in the A8.15 Snap Shot section. The best place to look for a given topic is the Index.
You often find rule references that you would not have thought of (or which would have taken some time to dig out).
In the specific case of the interaction or Snap Shot and concealment, the reference is given over there:
Quote: Snap Shot: A8.15 [Depression: B19.4 EX] [Entrance of/rebuffed from Enemy hex: A12.15] [Loss of Concealment: A12.141] [Residual FP NA: A8.223] [through Wall/Hedge: B9.2]
-
Martí Cabré
Terrassa
Catalonia
-
The Index! Of course. I should not play ASL after 0100. We'd had avoided some tedious ASLRB data mining.
-
Pup Teevo
Seattle
Washington
-
Robin wrote: ASLNoob wrote: I foolishly expected that to be clarified in the A8.15 Snap Shot section. The best place to look for a given topic is the Index. You often find rule references that you would not have thought of (or which would have taken some time to dig out). In the specific case of the interaction or Snap Shot and concealment, the reference is given over there: Quote: Snap Shot: A8.15 [Depression: B19.4 EX] [Entrance of/rebuffed from Enemy hex: A12.15] [Loss of Concealment: A12.141] [Residual FP NA: A8.223] [through Wall/Hedge: B9.2]
My point was that it should not be necessary to go to an index and then follow a huge multitude of references in order to find out how a single mechanic of the game works. Whatever is relevant to a Snap Shot should be in the Snap Shot section.
This scattergun approach is the great failing of the ASL rulebook. Most likely it's a result of the rulebook being written over a period of time and then never really consolidated before publication.
-
Eric Neff
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
"A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt."
"Just once, I'd like to face an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets!"
-
ASLNoob wrote: Whatever is relevant to a Snap Shot should be in the Snap Shot section.
I believe the goal was to not repeat rules. The rule I cited (A12.141) defines what happens when these two rules (concealment loss and snap shot) overlap. It could as easily be in the snap shot section, but somewhere the decision was made to put it in the concealment section. If it was in both, and all the other rules that deal with two ( or more ) rules interacting were in each section, I hate to think how big the RB would be.
-
Robin REEVE
Switzerland
Gland
-
ASLNoob wrote: This scattergun approach is the great failing of the ASL rulebook. The ASLRB is written as a reference book rather than a pedagogical endeavour.
I agree that it does not make reading it easy.
ASLNoob wrote: My point was that it should not be necessary to go to an index and then follow a huge multitude of references in order to find out how a single mechanic of the game works. Sorry, I missed that you were having a point here - my post was just an attempt to give usefull information, not enter a debate about how the RB is organized.
Now, if one faces the fact that the RB is organized like a reference book rather than like a pedagogical guide, it is absolutely necessary to have an Index which regroups the rule references about a peculiar topic.
In the present case, I don't think that one can speak of a "huge multitude of references". I only see six of them.
Note, too, that the Index allowed an immediate identification of the place where the rules question could be answered.
So, unless a new edition of the Rulebook is to be published, with the very important changes you seem to be calling for, the Index is the best way to go.
In practice, I can also testify that most questions are solved that way within minutes.
ASLNoob wrote: Most likely it's a result of the rulebook being written over a period of time and then never really consolidated before publication. That is a gratuitous and unfounded statement.
I agree that the RB could have been organized differently - but the repeating of rules would lead to an amplification of its volume.
But you simply cannot say that the RB was not consolidated before publication.
Sure, there have been errata published. But if you take into account the complexity and the mass of rules involved, you will have to admit that the volume of corrections and clarifications is very reasonable.
Among all the wargames I own and have played, the ASLRB stands out as one of the best worked set of rules.
Now, as MMP announced that they are working upon an eASLRB, perhaps will the rules consultation be eased.
But this thread is about a specific rules question, not the platform for a rant against the rulebook's organization.
-
Robin REEVE
Switzerland
Gland
-
lesulm1 wrote: I believe the goal was to not repeat rules. The rule I cited (A12.141) defines what happens when these two rules (concealment loss and snap shot) overlap. It could as easily be in the snap shot section, but somewhere the decision was made to put it in the concealment section. If it was in both, and all the other rules that deal with two ( or more ) rules interacting were in each section, I hate to think how big the RB would be. I agree with your understanding of the RB's organization.
The repetition of all interacting rules in each rules section would augment the volume of the RB... For an example, if one were to explain, at each place it appears, what is an MC or a DRM, the rulebook would be unreadable.
And, even if such a demultiplication of definitions were to be made, I would bet that some interactions still would not be answered that way, as the ASL system sometimes puts together more than two rules.
-
Martí Cabré
Terrassa
Catalonia
-
Using the ASLRB Index is just part of the correct way of using the ASLRB.
-
Gary Fortenberry
United States
Virginia
-
Tompy wrote: My favorite rule like this (although this may be a close 2nd) is where it says you can only fire mortars from building rooftops.
Not quite correct wording:
[b]23.85 GUNS:[/b ]No ⅝" counter weapon may occupy a rooftop, except for a mortar of ≤ 82mm which must be dm to be portaged to/from the rooftop (or between different Location of it). Such mortars may fire from those rooftops. A Gun may never be Emplaced (C11.2) on a Rooftop.
That is the correct 2nd edition wording.
-
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
-
lesulm1 wrote: Last sentence of A12.141:
"A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result."
Thanks! Very helpful.
-
|
|
