[ASLML] Re: The disappearing DRM caper

[Tate Rogers]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:18:22 -0700
  Sean <midnightcougar at telus.net> wrote:
>
>Uhhhh Bruce,
>
>Your interpretation now says FPF might be possible against non-adjacent 
>units. 

Why? Nothing in the sentence or Bruce's interpretation changes the rules for 
FPF.

>After all, we know that all First Fired units may only FPF or Final 
>Fire at Adjacent units. Now, I think you have the right intent of the rule 
>(HS that fires SW and is now marked First Fired may SFF, FPF or Final Fire 
>it's IFP per normal restrictions) but, I'm not so sure that's what the rule 
>says. 

It is exactly what the rule says if one pays very close attention to the 
punctuation. The problem is that most people (i.e., like myself) don't pay 
very close attention to the punctuation. The part about "adjacent units" is 
totally unneeded since the rules for SFF, FPF, and FF are all very clear. All 
the "adjacent units" part does is create confusion even though the sentence is 
in fact grammatically correct in what it says.

>I'm NRBH at the momen so, relying on your quote of the rule for this, 
>will check it later.

The quote is righteous. What we have is a case of the writer being 
unnecessarily verbose in his description.

Later-

Tater (One Mean Spud!)