Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Advanced Squad Leader» Forums » Rules

Subject: Immobilised AFV firing within it's own hex rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Was playing a scenario yesterday where a Russian squad CC'd a German Stug and Immobilised it - the Stug had no usable MG's. In the following turn the squad, which was now held in Melee, was still able to be fired on by the Stug using it's MA with just a +2 (case E modifier, firing within the same hex) and +1 (buttoned up).

This seemed a little unfair on the squad, as they would have to be particularly stupid to get in the way of the main armament of a stationary tank - if turreted or still mobile I can see this, but not when it's IMM.

It must be said we got a number of rules wrong during the CC anyway - we didn't give the squad a 'street fighting' bonus, which would have resulted in the tank being destroyed and the above would not then have happened. We also made the tank crew take a Stun TC (which they passed anyway) which they shouldn't have done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BeatPosse wrote:
For other fire phases, I think it shoots the MA inside its hex with the normal penalties. I guess ASL infantry always attack mobile guns through the 10 degrees or so the gun could traverse.

This did seem peculiar - after successfully immobilising the Stug, having advanced in from it's flank, and now having a 350 degree arc of safety from the MA, they still get to be shot at, with no more penalties than if the Stug was still fully mobile ?!?!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
Was playing a scenario yesterday where a Russian squad CC'd a German Stug and Immobilised it - the Stug had no usable MG's. In the following turn the squad, which was now held in Melee, was still able to be fired on by the Stug using it's MA with just a +2 (case E modifier, firing within the same hex) and +1 (buttoned up).

This seemed a little unfair on the squad


And yet, those are the rules. Whoever said war was "fair"? Whoever said the game was "fair"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BeatPosse wrote:
For Defensive Fire, I think the AFV could only fire at targets moving into the hex through a covered hexside.


That is not correct.

What you say is correct when the target is moving into the hex, and the StuG is firing as Defensive First Fire (C5.51). When the target is already in the hex, and the StuG is just firing as regular Defensive Fire, it's no longer a requirement (C5.51 again).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
This did seem peculiar - after successfully immobilising the Stug, having advanced in from it's flank, and now having a 350 degree arc of safety from the MA, they still get to be shot at, with no more penalties than if the Stug was still fully mobile ?!?!


Before you get too hung up on the "peculiarities" of it -- consider that a single hex represents approximately 1600 square meters of territory. Where, exactly, is the tank in that vast expanse of ground? Where, exactly, are the infantry? The answer in both cases is "everywhere and anywhere". When, exactly, in the 2 minutes of time represented by a game turn, did the infantry actually assault the tank? The answer, similarly, is "some point in time and every point in time".

The game system is designed from the ground up to make precise answers to such questions impossible. How many rounds of ammunition does that StuG enter battle with? You don't know, and the answer (depending on the vagaries of the dice) might be none! Alternatively it might be "as many as it needs, with plenty to spare". You don't know. ASL gives the impression of being obsessive about lots of precise details -- but the reality is that it's the living embodiment of the concept of "design for effect". The game system is telling a story, and you play the game hoping that the story will be interesting and exciting (and usually, it is, because ASL tells a very good story indeed). If you start picking away at the details, you will inevitably just enjoy the story less. Why would you want to do that?

Instead of complaining about how the game seems to allow the StuG to perform impossible feats, why not instead speculate on why it would be possible? Why wouldn't the squad pick a "safe place" to sit and be immune to the StuG's gun? Well, just maybe, they think that there is no "safe place". Maybe they believe (for some reason known only to them) that they would be horribly exposed to other enemy units. Maybe the StuG is positioned in such a way that they cannot hope to physically assault it without exposing themselves to its fire. Maybe they really are that stupid (or, at least, inexperienced). There are a million "maybes". Pick one or pick none, but just play on and enjoy the story as it unfolds before your eyes.
6 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
Was playing a scenario yesterday where a Russian squad CC'd a German Stug and Immobilised it - the Stug had no usable MG's. In the following turn the squad, which was now held in Melee, was still able to be fired on by the Stug using it's MA with just a +2 (case E modifier, firing within the same hex) and +1 (buttoned up).

If the StuG is Immobilized it can't fire its MA within its own hex anymore, with the exception being as DFF vs units crossing the hexsides insides its CA.

D8.5:
"...However, after the phase (A.15) in which it becomes thusly Immobile, its bow mounted weapon(s) may be used against a target in that vehicle’s hex only during Defensive First Fire (thus its BMG is unusable in CC), only if the target is entering that hex from within the vehicle’s VCA,..."


Here is an official Q&A as well:

C3.2 & D1.81-.2, D8.5 Can a Gun fire in its own
hex (i.e., is its own hex considered in its CA)? Do
the same principles apply to BMG/CMG?
A. Yes; except during the MPh if the hex is
entered from outside the CA, when, even if the
moving target now expends MP for some other
purpose (e.g., firing sD or stopping and unloading
Passengers), the Gun would still have to turn its
CA to include the direction from which the hex
was entered, or if the bow-mounted weapon of an
Immobile vehicle (D8.5)
. Yes. [J1]
17 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BruceP wrote:
domus_ludorum wrote:
This did seem peculiar - after successfully immobilising the Stug, having advanced in from it's flank, and now having a 350 degree arc of safety from the MA, they still get to be shot at, with no more penalties than if the Stug was still fully mobile ?!?!

......The game system is telling a story, and you play the game hoping that the story will be interesting and exciting (and usually, it is, because ASL tells a very good story indeed). If you start picking away at the details, you will inevitably just enjoy the story less. Why would you want to do that?

Instead of complaining about how the game seems to allow the StuG to perform impossible feats, why not instead speculate on why it would be possible? Why wouldn't the squad pick a "safe place" to sit and be immune to the StuG's gun? Well, just maybe, they think that there is no "safe place". Maybe they believe (for some reason known only to them) that they would be horribly exposed to other enemy units. Maybe the StuG is positioned in such a way that they cannot hope to physically assault it without exposing themselves to its fire. Maybe they really are that stupid (or, at least, inexperienced). There are a million "maybes". Pick one or pick none, but just play on and enjoy the story as it unfolds before your eyes.


Bruce - ASL does indeed tell amazing stories and that is why I continue to play it after nigh on 30 years. It is the attention to detail and the usual consistency of that detail that helps give the stories their epic richness. I am also pretty good at rationalising what the system is trying to do when it has to resort to abstractions to avoid even more insane levels of complexity. However, it’s not perfect, anything this detailed cannot hope to be, and therefore there are still some occasions when inconsistencies do bring you out of the immersion in the drama that is unfolding and make you think ‘uhhh…what’, and where no amount of contorted imagination can quite rationalise what’s happening on the ground – where you end up having to resort to ‘well I guess them’s the rules’ is usually a sign that you have stumbled onto one of those inconsistencies.

I wrote the above before I saw Klas's post - it appears in this case there is no inconsistency and an immobile Stug behaves exactly as I would envisage, I was just not worthy of the rule book....again. Hurrah meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Sadler
United States
Olney
Maryland
flag msg tools
From the Halls of Montezuma...
badge
...to the Shores of Tripoli...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you, Klas!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
klasmalmstrom wrote:
If the StuG is Immobilized it can't fire its MA within its own hex anymore, with the exception being as DFF vs units crossing the hexsides insides its CA.


Oh well, there you go. I forgot about that rule completely. it's a shame C5.5 doesn't have a cross-reference to that rule (or does it, and I just missed it?).

EDIT: No, C5.5 does not refer to D8.5 at all. Nor, for that matter, do the Index entries for Same-Hex Fire and Firing Within Hex. Nor any other Index entry that seemed relevant. So far as I can tell, D8.5 is one of those rules whose existence you simply have to remember, because there are no other rules that will remind you of it. <sigh>

Ignore my ravings.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
However, it’s not perfect, anything this detailed cannot hope to be, and therefore there are still some occasions when inconsistencies do bring you out of the immersion in the drama that is unfolding and make you think ‘uhhh…what’, and where no amount of contorted imagination can quite rationalise what’s happening on the ground – where you end up having to resort to ‘well I guess them’s the rules’ is usually a sign that you have stumbled onto one of those inconsistencies.


I don't disagree with you at all. However, some players seem to obsess over them while ignoring the bigger picture. We all have our own particular sacred cows, I suppose.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
chris gammon
United States
Elk Grove
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are plenty of oddities in the rules. I pencil-in references that I think should be in there. Then there are things like this;
Rout Phase: (see RPh) A3.6
RPh (Rally Phase): A3.1
Well, a simple typo.

Some references spell out the full name and say (see xx) and when you get to xx it may give a rule reference but doesn't tell you what it means. So you have to look up the rule to see it if you came to the initial in the first place. Some refer you to the initialism but when you get there, there is no additional information. I guess I'm ready for the eASLRB!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't want to open a can of worms, but in 1st ed ASL the hex of a vehicle or gun was not part of its covered arc (like in SL, COI, COD and GI). When this was changed in 2nd edition a lot of rules, footnotes and illustrations became ambiguous. It also goes against many thematic perspectives. Anyone interested in a deeper analysis of this is welcome to PM me for two full articles describing these problems with rules and article references to all sources I have found.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
For the record, it wasn't changed (or clarified depending on one's point of view ) in the 2nd Edition.

There was a Q&A on the matter in ASL Journal 1 - which was for the 1st Edition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
I don't want to open a can of worms


Don't worry, because there is no can to open. As has already been discussed elsewhere at extreme length and ad nauseum, there was no "change" in 2nd edition, and your comments are simply wrong. Let it go, for goodness' sake. You're doing absolutely no-one any good -- especially yourself! -- to try and resurrect your goofy beliefs here.

I strongly urge no-one to contact Mattias about this issue. He will only confuse you, as confused as he is on the topic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rynerson
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
Ma Hongkui
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BruceP wrote:
EDIT: No, C5.5 does not refer to D8.5 at all. Nor, for that matter, do the Index entries for Same-Hex Fire and Firing Within Hex. Nor any other Index entry that seemed relevant. So far as I can tell, D8.5 is one of those rules whose existence you simply have to remember, because there are no other rules that will remind you of it.


Another data point for my position that MMP should run a Kickstarter to hire a professional technical writer to review/polish the third edition. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
klasmalmstrom wrote:
For the record, it wasn't changed (or clarified depending on one's point of view ) in the 2nd Edition.

There was a Q&A on the matter in ASL Journal 1 - which was for the 1st Edition.

Ok, I'll rephrase my statement to say that the RAW of SL, CoI, CoD, GI and 1st ed ASL didn't include a gun's own hex in its CA until the Q&A of Journal 1 changed that in 1999. The vast majority of illustrations in 2nd edition ASL still exclude it.

I have received very clear answers from MMP that the _intention_ of the 2nd edition ASL rules is for the gun's own hex to be included in the CA.

In my articles I have listed all instances throughout the official publications where this particular rule is covered or referenced. Anyone interested in looking it over and deciding for themselves if it was a change or not is welcome to read them.'

All is presented in the spirit of improving the great game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BruceP wrote:
Mattias wrote:
I don't want to open a can of worms


Don't worry, because there is no can to open. As has already been discussed elsewhere at extreme length and ad nauseum, there was no "change" in 2nd edition, and your comments are simply wrong. Let it go, for goodness' sake. You're doing absolutely no-one any good -- especially yourself! -- to try and resurrect your goofy beliefs here.

I strongly urge no-one to contact Mattias about this issue. He will only confuse you, as confused as he is on the topic.

I like you too!

Nothing in my article is based on "beliefs" - everything is based on the official published word of AH and MMP and clearly referenced.

It would be interesting to hear how you think anyone would be confused by reading about the evolution of the CA rules...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
New Smyrna Beach
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
BruceP wrote:
Mattias wrote:
I don't want to open a can of worms


Don't worry, because there is no can to open. As has already been discussed elsewhere at extreme length and ad nauseum, there was no "change" in 2nd edition, and your comments are simply wrong. Let it go, for goodness' sake. You're doing absolutely no-one any good -- especially yourself! -- to try and resurrect your goofy beliefs here.

I strongly urge no-one to contact Mattias about this issue. He will only confuse you, as confused as he is on the topic.

I like you too!

Nothing in my article is based on "beliefs" - everything is based on the official published word of AH and MMP and clearly referenced.

It would be interesting to hear how you think anyone would be confused by reading about the evolution of the CA rules...


Are you really starting up on this again?? It's probably not that they would be confused, but there is no reason to care, and it's a waste of time for them to read about it. Hence the suggestion. cheers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Honosbinda wrote:
Mattias wrote:
BruceP wrote:
Mattias wrote:
I don't want to open a can of worms


Don't worry, because there is no can to open. As has already been discussed elsewhere at extreme length and ad nauseum, there was no "change" in 2nd edition, and your comments are simply wrong. Let it go, for goodness' sake. You're doing absolutely no-one any good -- especially yourself! -- to try and resurrect your goofy beliefs here.

I strongly urge no-one to contact Mattias about this issue. He will only confuse you, as confused as he is on the topic.

I like you too!

Nothing in my article is based on "beliefs" - everything is based on the official published word of AH and MMP and clearly referenced.

It would be interesting to hear how you think anyone would be confused by reading about the evolution of the CA rules...


Are you really starting up on this again?? It's probably not that they would be confused, but there is no reason to care, and it's a waste of time for them to read about it. Hence the suggestion. cheers.


I'll provide an example of why someone might care:

Let's say you are playing a scenario using a T30 HMC and you have enemy units in your hex. Are you interested in knowing if you can fire at them using your AAMG?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
New Smyrna Beach
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
[

Let's say you are playing a scenario using a T30 HMC and you have enemy units in your hex. Are you interested in knowing if you can fire at them using your AAMG?



Your insinuation is that the rules are not clear on this and the answer can only be found reading by your article. Seems like you do want to open an empty can of worms.

This argument is without merit; further, the answer is unrelated to any deep analysis you've put together. People don't need to waste their time looking to your ponderous rules-historical analysis for an answer to the poorly-crafted sample question you have posed.





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Honosbinda wrote:
Your insinuation is that the rules are not clear on this and the answer can only be found reading by your article. Seems like you do want to open an empty can of worms.

This argument is without merit; further, the answer is unrelated to any deep analysis you've put together. People don't need to waste their time looking to your ponderous rules-historical analysis for an answer to the poorly-crafted sample question you have posed.


I have actually taken the time to base my allegation that the rules regarding this are unclear on facts. They consist of actual references to ASL rules, official ASL articles and thematic and historical facts. They are all listed in the articles.

No one needs to read my articles. Anyone interested may.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You lost the argument in public debate, so you invite people to read your articles, no doubt carefully written to present exactly the point of view that you want them to present, away from those annoying and distracting facts that disprove everything you are trying to push on people who might not know better.

Look, we can't stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, but don't ride your "I'm just helping the ASL community" horse when the rest of the ASL community has no interest in your mistakes.

You presented an argument, you were proven to be wrong, you're still wrong, let it go!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BruceP wrote:
You lost the argument in public debate, so you invite people to read your articles, no doubt carefully written to present exactly the point of view that you want them to present, away from those annoying and distracting facts that disprove everything you are trying to push on people who might not know better.

Look, we can't stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, but don't ride your "I'm just helping the ASL community" horse when the rest of the ASL community has no interest in your mistakes.

You presented an argument, you were proven to be wrong, you're still wrong, let it go!

I really enjoy this debate!

You seem very certain about what's in the articles without having read them. You also seem very certain that you know what the rest of the ASL community is interested in and not. Perhaps you'd care to present some facts in support of this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Sadler
United States
Olney
Maryland
flag msg tools
From the Halls of Montezuma...
badge
...to the Shores of Tripoli...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is your contention that the rulebook could be clearer on this point? I think everyone agrees with that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Hanna
United States
New Smyrna Beach
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mattias wrote:
BruceP wrote:
You lost the argument in public debate, so you invite people to read your articles, no doubt carefully written to present exactly the point of view that you want them to present, away from those annoying and distracting facts that disprove everything you are trying to push on people who might not know better.

Look, we can't stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, but don't ride your "I'm just helping the ASL community" horse when the rest of the ASL community has no interest in your mistakes.

You presented an argument, you were proven to be wrong, you're still wrong, let it go!

I really enjoy this debate!

You seem very certain about what's in the articles without having read them. You also seem very certain that you know what the rest of the ASL community is interested in and not. Perhaps you'd care to present some facts in support of this?


You forget we don't need to read the articles, when all we have to do is read the ASLRB.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.