[ASLML] Re: The disappearing DRM caper

[Sean]

OK, I can see how you're reading it and it makes sense that way. I 
think it could have been worded better as, to me (and Tate I think,) 
on first reading, it was only intended to be applied to First Fired 
units. As I said, the three of us all came up with the same final 
effect of the rule, just took different routes.

Sean

At 1:11 PM +1100 12/4/03, Bruce Probst wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:18:22 -0700, Sean <midnightcougar at telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Your interpretation now says FPF might be possible against
>>non-adjacent units.
>
>Of course not.  That is specifically disallowed by the FPF rules.
>
>Final Fire, however, *is* possible vs. non-adjacent units, which is why the
>"adjacent units" phrase is added.  (Remember, "Final Fire" is *all* fire
>that takes place in the Defensive Fire Phase.)
>
>>After all, we know that all First Fired units may
>>only FPF or Final Fire at Adjacent units.
>
>Yes, but that's not the issue here.  See above.