[ASLML] FG's are just plain wrong...

[Bruce Bakken]

>
> >Fer cryin' out loud, using this
> >interpretation would require a unique spreadsheet be created for every
> >Firegroup. It's just not playable.
>
>That would be a tremendous surprise to the (apparent) majority of players
>who play it this way each and every game.
>

  :-) ...  I'm so glad you included that "(apparent)" reference...

The total is not even a majority of total respondents, according to my 
count: 9 using the method you describe, 7 using the method that Chris and 
others have described, and 3 undeclared or uncertain.

That's 9 out of 19 directly in favor of your approach -- which may win you 
an election in the United States, but certainly cannot be described as 
definitively representing a majority view.  :-)

>It is in fact practically second-nature to anyone with some experience with
>the game.

I have a *lot* of experience with the game, and the way I figured DRM had 
become pretty second-nature to me.  It's all in what you've learned...

>"Let's see, the FG has a +2 hindrance along this LOS, that guy is
>CX so there's another +1, this guy is on wire so that's another +1, and the
>target is in woods for +1 TEM; a total of +5."
>
>In what possible manner is this "unplayable", let alone requiring a
>spreadsheet?  (I would argue that it's *easier* than trying to decide which
>modifiers are non-cumulative in any particular FG!)
>

I believe that either method is easy enough, particularly if that's the way 
you *learned* it when starting out.

I have also come to believe that two different meanings can be construed by 
the (unarbitrated) rule as currently written, and that both interpretations 
lead to some non-intuitive outcomes at times.

> >Try this instead: Find the TOTAL modifier for each individual unit. The
> >single highest modifier is added to the DR. Wow! Simple, and it abides
> >by the rule as written.
>
>That is indeed simple, but it most certainly does *not* abide by any rule
>written in the ASLRB,

... according to one interpretation, and (so far) supported by Perry.

>and I don't think that even the most die-hard member
>of "camp two" would claim otherwise.
>

This leads me to believe that you are sincere when saying that you cannot 
understand the other view point, because this statement demonstrates that 
you've missed it entirely.  <g>

The Single Member group would *absolutely* have claimed that the highest 
total DRM for any single member is applied to the FG, and that it *does* 
abide by the rule as written.  This conclusion according to one 
interpretation, not (so far) supported by Perry.

With such a clear and obvious division of interpretation, neither side can 
adequately claim to possess the only correct and unassailable understanding 
of the rule's intent.  How can either side claim without ridicule that they 
are the only ones that "get it", when an almost equal number from the 
opposing side can claim that "you don't get it".

Perry's opinion may affirm one side or the other.  Players may use Perry's 
opinion to conclude the way that it is "supposed to be played" if they 
choose to, barring an Official publication.

Any other declarations of absolutism declared by any player on this issue 
can be dismissed as mere rhetoric.  "Because this is the way it is written" 
is not argument, it is propaganda.  I should know, because I've been guilty 
of using propaganda in the past myself!  <g>

Regards,
Bruce Bakken


>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
>Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
>"A planet where apes evolved from men?"
>ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Say “goodbye” to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet 
connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)