[ASLML] Re: The disappearing DRM caper

[Jim McLeod]

Listerz;

I wrote;

> >Bruce, A7.351&2 tell us how a squad/HS's IFP is forfeit through SW
> >useage until the CCPh.  A7.353 gives the exception.  Fine.  I've always
> >taken this as the exception, with it's various DF options, may only be
> >used versus adjacent units.

Bruce replied;
 
> Well, since the rule never said that, what made you think it was true?

How about the part in A7.351-2 that says S's/HS's lose (ie: forfeit, a
quick glance at the OED will give the definitive definition of the word)
their IFP until attacked in CC of the next PT.

> Hardly a problem with the rule, is it?

The problem is in the wording of the rule section.  Why even have A7.35
if a S/HS can SFF at non-adjacent units, FF or FPF with halved IFP
regardless of SW useage?  Again, obviously a unit's IFP is never forfeit
through SW useage, therefore, why have a rule section saying it is when
in fact it isn't.

> But it *is* forfeit -- *for that attack*.

How so?

XOP using the Q&A:  A HS w/MMG fires as DFF at an enemy unit and loses
ROF.  The HS is marked as First Fired and its IFP is supposedly forfeit
through SW use.  During that same enemy MPh, a moving enemy unit is 3
hexes away and the HS can fire at the enemy unit with half it's IFP,
provided all the requirements of SFF are being met.  

That is per your interpretation and the Q&A on the matter.  Now, where
in all that was the HS's IFP forfeit?
 
> Applying your own interpretation of what you think a rule *should* say
> rather than what a rule *is* saying is certainly a common mistake -- heaven
> knows I've done it plenty of times in the past -- but it remains a "user
> error", not a "rules error" <g>.

Fair enough Bruce, here is my take on it.

1- We have A7.35 and all it says.  What that rules tells me is that a
unit's IFP can be lost (forfeit) through SW useage until the CCPh or the
next PT.  The exception is telling me that a unit whose IFP was lost
(forfeit) through SW useage can SFF, FF and FPF against adjacent units
in all three cases.  But does it?  SFF attacks can be made at
non-adjacent units cna it not?

So I read on to A8

2- A8 tells us much, (BTW, the term "Small Arms" should never have been
used in the rules.  IFP, Inherent Fire Power, would be far better)
noteably that FF and FPF can only be used versus adjacent enemy units
but SFF can be used versus non-adjacent units.  So I read the SFF part
and then wonder why my IFP should be forfeit per A7.35.  Ah, but the
A7.353 EXC: says it isn't!  But then I ask, if this is true, why even
have A7.35?  Maybe because a unit whose IFP is forfeit through SW useage
can only SFF versus adjacent units.  Why else include A7.35?

I'm not the designer of this game mechanic Bruce so it is pointless for
me to speculate what the designer's intent was.  From a RA and rule
extrapolation perspective, my take on things makes sense to me. 
However, the Q&A begs to differ.  Fine.  Then again, why even have
A7.35?  You do not need that rule section if the Q&A is correct.

Feel free to respond if you wish Bruce.  No need to get the fur up over
this matter as I believe we've already chewed the topic over some time
back.


			=Jim=