[ASLML] Re: The disappearing DRM caper

[Jim McLeod]

Listerz;

I wrote;

> >Did you read my example Bruce?  Is that example correct by your
> >interpretation?  Please give me a brief example of when a units IFP is
> >forfeit throught SW useage.  I don't believe you can.

Bruce replied;
 
> Oh, for crying out loud Jim.  Did you read what I wrote?  I can use *your*
> example, I don't need to supply one of my own.
> 
> A HS fires a SW.  For that attack, it's IFP is not available.  Therefore, it
> is forfeit *for that attack* (gee, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?).
> Furthermore, it *remains* forfeit *EXCEPT FOR THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN
> A7.353*.  To put it another way: if those conditions are not met, it remains
> forfeit.  To put it in yet another way: it remains forfeit until those
> conditions are met.

What conditions?  It, the HS in this case, is pretty much free to fire
as it wants and the existing rules are clear on that without a confusing
EXC.  All you really need to explain the SW useage is A7.35-352 and
leave the EXC: bit out along with any references to it in 7.351-52.  If
that is that is how the designer intended the rule to work.

OK, the HS and its MG are marked with a First Fire counter, lets see
what they can do without any EXC: and assuming that A7.351-52 only
explain SW useage, ie: a HS may use either it's IFP or it's MG but not
both in the same fire attack.

1- the HS can Sustain fire the MG using SFF, FPF or FF.  All explained
in A8.3-312, 8.4 and 9.3.

2- the HS can use it's IFP as SFF, FPF or FF per A8.3-312 and 8.4.

In other words, the A7.353 EXC: is useless and only causes confusion.  

I happen to believe that Greenwood and MacNamara were smart enough to
not include whole sections of rules that were not totally redundant. 
The waters are muddy enough, why make it worse.

> I can't do better than plain English, Jim.  If you need it in another
> language, I won't be able to help you.

Bruce dah-ling, you are simply rationalizing the Q&A, which is fine, but
you're above argument is so weak it hurts.  

We are not going to convince each other otherwise in our views on this
and there is official Q&A to support your view, so please feel free to
not reply in you do not wish to.  Actually, this latest discussion has
made me believe even more that the Q&A is incorrect.

No offence Perry ...

:)

I will always be of the opinion that this good rule and its game effect
were made poor by the Q&A issued on this rule.

I believe that the intent of the EXC: was to give our plucky HS at least
one kick at the cat, especially if it had been firing a Lt. Mortar,
before being overwhelmed by attackers in CC.  Per the Q&A, the HS with
the Lt. Mortar can fire the mortar, SFF at an enemy unit 3 hexes away
and then FPF him when he gets adjacent.  

That is a tad luxurious as far as potential fire attacks go for a
harried HS firing a mortar.

> There are poorly-worded rules to be certain, but this isn't one of them --
> except to people who refuse to pay attention to explanations.

:)

Have a good day Bruce.


			=Jim=