Sparafucil3

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

A .50 is not a unit but I bet you would properly point out a unit manning an HMG can interdict out to 16 hexes.

I submitted a Perry Sez on this. There is no Interdiction. You can find it in Klas' collection.

Congratulations Christoffer!

I hope you all have fun. It was hard to choose between Supporting Fire and Bounding Fire, but I have never been to Bounding Fire and that means new people to meet. Perhaps next year. -- jim

Thanks!

My blog doesn't pretend to be able to teach good players how to play the game. I might occasionally surprise you with something but I don't expect that to happen very often, if ever. I am trying to help new players and middle-level players. Thanks for reading though. You are welcome to create and an article and I will post it for you.

I don't think I would add too much traffic (not that many people are reading my blog) but I don't want to create problems for you. -- jim

@CTABKA Do you have a link where your Leaflet House Rules are available outside of this forum? I don't want to flood the forum with people coming to look for the rules. If you do not have a link, do you mind if I post a copy of the most current on my blog? I am writing an article on OBA systems and I will be speaking about yours and I want to direct people to the rules if they would like to try them. I don't think it would be fair to expect them to sign up here, nor would it be fair to the forum members here to have to wade through a bunch of new people. Please let me know. Thanks! -- jim

FWIW, you need to change the wording of your rule too IMO: Red AND Black permanently removed and second red chit is drawn is a dead deck per this. Black OR Red and second red chit is also a dead deck per this. The same logic would hold for RED and/or RED. It is only your example which makes your intent clear. The rule should probably read something like: This is more in line with your example. Just my .02. -- jim