Sparafucil3

It won't be this year. I am having open heart surgery this Friday to have some bypasses placed. I will be a little out of it for 12 weeks and not allowed on a plane for a while. Perhaps next year.

Just a quick update. I know most don't want to come but you can't blame a guy for trying to incentivize you to come. Gary and I are putting the finishing touches on the remain scenarios. We have five scenarios completed, three are nearly finished, and two more are close. We have reached an agreement with MMP to publish the pack and we (Gary, MMP, and I) are all hopeful we will have it printed in time for the tournament. There is still time to book your place to come. We are close to publishing a list of all nationalities, boards, overlays, and other materials a player will need for the tournament. Unlike Albany (and much like the tournaments in Sweden) everyone will play the same scenario in every round. We would love to see you there Melvin. Pleva, Paul Sidhu, and a couple of others are scheduled to be there. Bring Svante with you. I would love to see the surprise on some of the better American player's faces when playing him. He would be my dark horse pick to win it all.

We can't control everything. I still tell stories about that. It took a double 1, followed by a 1, followed by direction 4, followed by 4 or more on the distance (1/32 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/2, or 1/2592) for that to happen. Guess I should have planned for it. :( -- jim

If you fly all the way to DC and participate, how angry would you be to have your tournament ruined by a 12 that you can't do anything about? Gary and I have spent weeks/months balancing our scenarios to give you the best experience we possibly can. How happy do you think he and I are to see your experience ruined by a little bad luck you can't do anything about? We can't take away all randomness, but the stuff that ruins games we will do our best to "fix" what we can. We want you to win or lose all by yourself. There are plenty of other things to hate the dice for :) -- jim When he shows up, I will value his opinion ;) -- jim

We are waiting for J16 before finalizing tournament rules. We will publish boards, nationalities, and overlays in advance. Thanks for the advice.

Gary Fortenberry and I will be hosting this ASL tournament next May: https://humanwaveconscripts.com/human-wave-2023/ The tournament will feature boards and scenarios not seen by any of the attendees. All scenarios will be "official" MMP scenarios. We are not sure if the pack will be available at the tournament end or afterwards. We hope to have it available at the tournament but that is out of Gary and my hands. All scenarios will be designed and play tested by not only Gary and I, but also an outside source of well qualified players. Scenarios at the tournament will either be played as submitted to MMP (or printed on the cards if available). All scenarios are designed for bidding for sides so players can decide for themselves if they think the scenario needs different balance. All scenarios will give you Gary and my suggested bid but as a player, you are free to disagree and bid for more or less depending on how you feel. The tournament is "self-balancing". It is designed such that players with similar records will be grouped as the tournament progresses. The re-grouping remains in effect through the first three rounds. A loss in the third round effectively removes you from the tournament. You can continue to play open games, to include playing the unseen tournament scenarios. More details of the tournament will be forthcoming. Playtesting and design is past the 50% mark. We will begin "out-sourcing" to our external group in November. I would love to see some or all of you there. I understand if the current situation in my country makes you decide not to come. Thanks! -- jim

Thanks for understanding Melvin. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I do care what people think about me. And having them think I would rip you off and claim it for my own would really bother me. -- jim

I wouldn't be bad to put it there too, but I wanted to make sure people who know it is your rule do not think I am being a jerk for claiming your work as mine. There are plenty of other reasons to think I am a jerk, but that isn't one of them. I also think it important that people know I tried before it comes out so I don't look like I am trying to back pedal from backlash after it comes out. -- jim

I have spoken with Melvin privately about this, but I wanted to also put it out here. In the upcoming J16, MMP is going to call Melvin's Leaflet House Rule OBA "The Bishop System". I have fought against this but I am not going to win the battle. There will be a note in the Journal that they are naming it against my strongest objections. That's the best I could get from them on the topic. I want the people here who know better to know I don't claim it as my own. It is Melvin's system. I did modify it slightly, but that's not enough for me to claim it as my own in my opinion. When I refer to it, I will call it the Leaflet House rules because that's what it is. To Melvin, I am sorry. I tried, but I don't control the content of articles that aren't mine and I cannot stop them. I wish they would just acknowledge it is yours. To the admins: sorry if I put this in the wrong place. I don't know where public confessions should go. Move it as you see fit. -- jim

In matters of taste there can be no dispute. However, if you look at the inside cover of your ASL binder, there is no counter depiction that covers the FlakWagens. The vehicle is still an armored vehicle and RFP still "comes from everywhere". If you bypass a hex with RFP in it, you still gain the benefit of the the in-hex TEM/SMOKE. The crew is physically occupying an armored crew compartment so it isn't unreasonable to say they should still benefit from some form of protection from the AFV. I can see this being a 4 +0 zero shot which Stuns the crew rather than a 4 +0 on the * Vehicle line of the IFT. WRT Greenwood's clarity, all I can say is A26.11. The index says we should treat a virgule (/) as "and/or". English punctuation rules says we should threat a virgule as "and/or". If you read it as written and defined in English and the index, you would gain control of a Location and/or hex and/or Building without the presence of enemy ground units in the same Location and/or hex and/or Building. Strictly parsing that according to the rules of English, you can control a Building by gaining control of a Location OR a hex OR Building (which is nonsensical to begin with). So strictly speaking, an AFV gains control of a hex when it enters it and maintains control as long as it's there. As such, when it gains control of a hex, it gains control of a Location and/or hex and/or Building. But we know that isn't correct. It can't gain control of a Building. That's when you realize the virgule (/) isn't used according to either English rule or the Index. It is used to indicate that when you pick one of the items in the list (Location - hex - Building) you should maintain that choice throughout the rest of the paragraph in order for that paragraph to make sense. Greenwood was good, he wasn't infallible. Lastly, I have spoken with a couple of friends about this issue. We agree yours is a reasonable answer but there is room for more than one reasonable answer. When there are more than one reasonable answer among reasonable people, those are the sorts of questions I like to get clarified. Just my .02 € -- jim

I tend to think you're right, but sadly you or I do not have the final answer when the rules aren't clear. We can argue about how clear the rules are, and many will. In that case, there is a need for a final arbiter of what is and is not official. Like I said, there is no real rule covering these types of vehicles properly. I submitted the Q&A to Perry. We'll see if he responds. -- jim

Maybe. I am not entirely sure but I can see your point. There really isn't a rule which says how to deal with this. That's one of the reasons this was so hard to cover. If you have a look at D1.22 you'll note when the rules were created, they only had things like the Marder in mind. Vehicles like this FlakWagen are not specifically covered in the rules. The idea that only the front was armored and the whole rest of the vehicle isn't doesn't have a rules reference in either the main rules or the HASLs in which they first appeared. Where it really breaks down is in the case you're highlighting: how do you handle RFP. I think your answer is perfectly reasonable. I understand the argument. I even think you're probably correct. I am just not entirely sure that is the intent. I will see if Perry agrees and if so, I will update the article. Thanks again. -- jim EDIT to add: To further my argument, D5.31 refers you to C3.9 which discusses how to determine the Location of Vehicular hits. RFP doesn't "hit". It basically comes from everywhere. I am not sure how to handle this.

@CTABKA Thanks for your input. I have made the changes as you are quite correct. I do my best to get these things correct and I have more than one person reviewing but as you know, no one can get everything right all the time. At the time I was writing these, I was coming to grips with the rules, the Q&A, and convincing people there is a difference between Target Facing and Target Aspect. Your rule cite is fine here too, but it doesn't negate what I said: there is no directionality to "normal" residual fire power there for it cannot attack an unarmored Aspect. The broader point being made is that running a partially armored AFV up and down a fire lane is potentially more dangerous than some think. The second broader point is that even though the AFV has an armored Facing towards the MG, the AFV is consider an UNARMORED vehicle against the fire lane since there is an unarmored Aspect facing the MG. I appreciate you taking the time to read. I hope you find something useful in them. I would appreciate your feedback on the articles since the entire point of doing them this way is I can correct what is wrong so everyone can benefit. I hope you have a good rest of your week. -- jim (never perfect but always striving)

Have fun guys! Sorry I won't make this.

They were pretty good but they also got a few bounces along the way. -- jim

The game was much closer than the score would have indicated. The good news is we get to do this all over again next year. Well played to your men. -- jim

I know Jens follows hockey. I am not sure who else does. Good luck in the finals tomorrow (but not too good). I wish I knew the tournament was in Gothenberg. I would have come and we could have hung out. Hope everyone is doing well. -- jim

I wish we Americans were less unfriendly at the border. I also wish the Swedish contingent were coming over in 2023. I need to know when you do come. I will do my best to get there so we can catch up. -- jim

I try to keep my articles up to date as errata and Q&A are posted. Sadly, I am not infallible in this task either. I am glad this issue was resolved.

By rule, 5/8" Dummies are removed as if Infantry. I don't think VTT is even a valid Target Type for them. Would be an interesting question for @Klas Malmström. I am not sure how I would handle it if an MG could fire TH/TK against a Dummy stack pretending to be an AFV. That is one of the positive aspects of the Q&A. It side-steps this issue. Doesn't mean I like it though

I agree, and between friends, I would consider playing without it. But if we showed up to play a tournament, I would expect we would use the Q&A unless it was outlined in the tournament rules. JMO though.

For what it is worth Melvin, this is a perfect example of a Q&A I happen to disagree with. I do believe an MG firing a TH/TK vs a concealed target is covered with the +2 Case K TH DRM and SHOULD be allowed to affect a concealed AFV. But I don't play it according to my beliefs because the Q&A exists. I am not trying to change your mind, this just provided me a chance to point out I don't always agree with the Q&A.

This is the natural order of things. People play it how they think it should be played and then they get exposed to the "right way" and begin again. As I said, I played it this way because I am aware of the Q&A. I was made aware playing a game with Steve Pleva at ASLOk. He showed it to me. I have played it this way ever since. I don't believe Q&A or Errata are infallible. Far from it. But I do agree to be bound by them because it is the only way we have a reasonable chance to be playing the same game. I travel far and wide to play ASL with folks. Seems only fair to be trying to play the same game.

I played it this way (2/4) in the past because I was aware of the Perry Sez.

I think the Q&A is wrong. But we live with it