R: [ASLML] Fw: A7.52

Tue Nov 25 15:37:39 PST 2003

For one time I agree with Bruce Bakken. Me too always played as if the
"worst possible case" was equivalent to "the worst possible DRM". So, if all
members of a FG had each a +1 DRM (but for different reasons such as
Hindrance, CX, etc...) the DRM applied to the FG was only +1 (because this
is the "worst DRM applying to each member of the FG individually).
But english is not my language so I may have missed the real meaning of the
sentence "worst possible case".
However, I think that the ambiguity lies in the use of the word "case". Some
seem to interpret this word as "rule case" and therefore Hindrances, CX,
Wire, etc. all refere to different rule cases. Others seem to interpret this
word (like me) in a broader sense and so "case" is assimilated to
"occurrence", i.e. the worst condition applying to each member of the FG.
Because each such "condition" is translated in ASL into a DRM, it becomes
the worst possible DRM....
I do not say that this is interpretation is correct... I am only pointing
out which is the ambiguity that (IMHO) leads to such an interpretation...

Andrea Fantozzi from Italy

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net
> [mailto:Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net]Per conto di Bruce Bakken
> Inviato: lunedì 24 novembre 2003 15.53
> A: mountainview at westelcom.com; aslml at asl-forums.net
> Oggetto: Re: [ASLML] Fw: A7.52
>
>
> Hello, Campers.
>
> It is quite obvious that I will have to readjust my thinking
> about DRM.
>
> I have a clear conscience that my misunderstanding was an
> "honest" one.
> Indeed, I was not alone.
>
> >
> >And despite an earlier poster's
> >point, I think there is a BIG
> >division on this issue within
> >the community (not just me).
> >
>
> If memory serves (I haven't gone back to check), it was
> something like 6 to
> 4 of actual respondents on this issue (not including the one
> that counts!).
> I believe that split is statistically signifant, at least as
> far as the
> ASLML is concerned.  On most issues, one side or the other is
> in a clear
> minority (as in 1 or 2 against everyone else).
>
> Clearly, (<g>) we cannot infer from this that the entire ASL
> community is
> split along the same lines.  But... we also cannot assume otherwise.
>
> >
> >congratulations...I will play any
> >of you, any time, any place.
> >
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> >Respectfully, despite the rant,
> >and the misdirected insults,
> >
>
> My concern at this point is the implementation.  I believe
> that future and
> current players will continue to have misunderstandings until the
> relationship between DRM and FG is more firmly established.
>
> My lament is that the source does not seem to acknowledge that such a
> misunderstanding is even possible, and does not need to be addressed.
>
> And I still want to know how Cowering qualifies as a modifier to LOS.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Bakken
>
> >Christopher Fleury
> >Sgt. Meikle's Bunker
> >Mountain View Cottage
> >Lewis, NY
> >USS Iowa; BB-61
> >Camp Dudley #12557
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "PerryCocke" <perrycocke at comcast.net>
> >To: "Mountain View Cottage" <mountainview at westelcom.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 5:05 PM
> >Subject: Re: A7.52
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > This one is REALLY LONG, for which I apologize.
> > > >
> > > > Please reference A7.52.
> > > >
> > > > Please also reference the current ASLML conversational
> > > > thread with the subject heading: "[ASLML] CX". This
> > > > thread is actually about A7.52.
> > > >
> > > > You have already answered an earlier question about this
> > > > rule, which I found on the Perry Sez Website, edited,
> > > > (my cut/paste from the website screws up my E-Mail font,
> > > > and I'm too stupid to figure out how to fix it), it is
> as follows:
> > > >
> > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > What is the FG's DRM in a two unit FG where one unit
> > > > has a +2 Hindrance, and one unit has +1 CX [neither
> > > > unit unit is subject to the other's separate DRM(s)].
> > > >
> > > > +3
> > > > ___________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I believe this is an incorrect answer,
> > > >
> > > > I think it should be +2.
> > >
> > > But it is +3.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also on the Perry Sez Site, there is a "discussion" entry for
> > > > the rule that ineffectively (IMO) asks for a definition of what
> > > > exactly "worst possible case" refers to...but no reply is given.
> > > >
> > > > An *exact*/definitive definition of "worst possible case" is
> > > > really what is needed.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, in A.5, "detrimental" could use some explaining.
> > > > Is one FG unit's separate/unique +1 DRM "detrimental" to
> > > > another FG unit's separate/unique +1 DRM?
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking it will probably best for you to make a blanket
> > > > statement on the subject, as I cannot figure a good way
> > > > to get all this into one good Q, or even a few good Qs,
> > > > so, for the sake of simplicity, I figured I'd lay it all on the
> > > > table, and let you deal with it as you see fit:
> > > >
> > > > There are two "camps" on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, both camps agree that the
> > > > "(/Cowering/CX)" part of the rule is ultimately
> > > > a non-issue, and serves no real purpose, as there
> > > > can be no "worst possible case" of Cowering
> > > > and Cowering has nothing to do with DRM
> > > > truncation/cumulativity, and the "worst possible
> > > > case" of CX will always be +1.
> > > >
> > > > Camp +1  believes all of a FG's applicable DRMs
> > > > are cumulative (within the confines of A.5, A.17, and
> > > > A7.52), with the exception of  TEM and Hindrance,
> > > > with *all*  Hindrance types counting as, simply,
> > > > Hindrance. Different types/sources of TEM/Hindrance
> > > > are irrelevant. For TEM and Hindrance, the FG is
> > > > subject to the highest TEM DRM and the highest
> > > > Hindrance DRM suffered by any *one* unit in the FG.
> > > >
> > > > Camp #2 believes that "worst possible case" refers
> > > > to the highest combination of  DRMs (of any kind)
> > > > suffered by any *one* unit in the FG. This inherently
> > > > includes any/all DRM, regardless of the "types"
> > > > mentioned in A7.52 as currently written.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Camp #1 is correct.
> > >
> > > > Examples:
> > > >
> > > > Individual units suffer *only* the DRM(s) listed for them,
> > > > and no listed DRM applies to more then one FG member,
> > > > excpet for the last Example, for which I have attached a
> > > > VASL4 save file. I am copying this request to the ASLML,
> > > > so I also listed the dispositions for the last Example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A = +1 CX
> > > > B = +0
> > > > C = +0
> > > > D = +0
> > > >
> > > > Camp #1 = +1
> > > > Camp #2 = +1
> > > >
> > > > No brainer! (Good warm-up.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A = +1 CX
> > > > B = +1 Encircled
> > > > C = +0
> > > > D = +0
> > > >
> > > > Camp #1 = +2
> > > > Camp #2 = +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A = +1 CX
> > > > B = +1 Encircled
> > > > C = +1 Smoke
> > > > D = +0
> > > >
> > > > Camp #1 = +3
> > > > Camp #2 = +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A = +1 CX
> > > > B = +1 Encircled
> > > > C = +1 Smoke
> > > > D = +1 Stun
> > > >
> > > > Camp #1 = +4
> > > > Camp #2 = +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A = +1 CX
> > > > B = +1 Encircled
> > > > C = +1 Smoke
> > > > D = +1 Orchard
> > > >
> > > > Camp #1 = +3 (Eliminate one of the Hindrances.)
> > > > Camp #2 = +1 (Eliminate any three redundant +1s)
> > >
> > > Camp #1 is correct in all of the above.
> > > Sorry, no board 6 or VASL handy.
> > >
> > > ....Perry
> > > MMP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter,
> you’ll find a
> range of helpful holiday info here.
> http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx
>
>