[ASLML] CX FG and reality.

[Bruce Bakken]

Hello, Pete.

>
>Sorry, no offense was intended. I did not mean to imply that your reasoning
>was invalid. It makes a lot of sense on a certain level. However, the other
>argument makes good sense on another. We ASLer's, like many folks, tend to
>favor one side of the brain over the other.  Meeting in the middle is never
>easy.
>

Okay, no real offense taken.  I just wanted to point out that such language 
("if you think it through") sometimes communicates more than is intended.  I 
figured you were just speaking conversationally, as opposed to specifically 
referring to any individual argument.

There's a middle?  ;-)  :-)

>From a reality perspective, I agree with Tate (*gasp!*).  A multi-location
>FG should suffer from 'diminishing returns' due to command and control
>issues. The fire tables do not account for this, so adding more hurtful 
>DRMs
>picks the simulation up nicely.
>

Here's my problem with Tate's "reality".  When a unit is assessed a +1 DRM, 
the effect of that DRM is the same no matter how it was incurred.  Thus, the 
CX penalty is exactly the same as a +1 Hindrance, which is exactly the same 
as being Encircled, which is exactly the same as +1 TEM.  The net effect is 
the same, the dice don't know the difference, the IFT doesn't know the 
difference.  +1 is +1.

Now assume a FG composed of three units, each in a different hex and 
adjacent to one other member.

If all members are CX, then each individually is penalized +1.  To use 
Tate's "reality", the FG attack would suffer +1 because all units have the 
same penalty (CX).

Now, same members, but one is CX, one is Encircled, and one has Hindrance.  
Again, the penalty for each individually is +1.  The +1 for Encircled is 
identical to the +1 for CX, if they were to fire individually.  But now, 
according to Tate's "reality", this FG would be +3 because the individuals 
have different penalties.  So in this case, you are adding each +1 DRM.

That's my problem.  Why add them up in the second case, and not add them up 
in the first case?  Like I said, +1 is +1.  Why should it matter if the +1 
is because of CX, or is because of Hindrance, or Wire, or Encircled?  To add 
them in one instance and not in the other instance, is illogical and 
inconsistent in my opinion.  It is only supported if one interprets certain 
sentences in the ASLRB in a certain (incorrect, in my view) manner.  [I hope 
I have been presenting Tate's case correctly here, I don't want to speak for 
him, especially if inaccurately.]

>It's a lot easier when I think about it that way, even if I have to 'train'
>my brain to come over to it's non-preferred side. Not saying it would (or
>even should) work for anybody else, but that's just the way *I* do it.
>

If the rules were written clearly, there would be no "interpretation" 
involved, and your whole brain could get in on the action!  :-)


Regards,
Bruce Bakken

>Pete 'Sometimes I forget which side of my brain is which' Shelling
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Set yourself up for fun at home!  Get tips on home entertainment equipment, 
video game reviews, and more here.   
http://special.msn.com/home/homeent.armx