[ASLML] A.5/A.17/A7.52

[Mountain View Cottage]

I think A.5 has been left out of the 
picture too long (too late, really, since 
we already have an official response)
on this issue too.

Last year, I really hit the "detrimental"
thing hard, but laid off it this time through.

The first sentence of A.5 shows individual targets
getting their own respective, individual, 
"target-based" DRMs - one unit in a foxhole 
gets +2, another unit out of the hole, in same 
Hex,  gets +0. Same Attack DR, different 
applied DRMs, based on individual status.
Makes sense, too.

The second sentence has always "read funny" to me.

Who's to determine what is/isn't "detrimental"?

And what's the point if A7.52 really means

Really.

Think about it. Think about it with respect to Encirclement.

"All fire by an Encircled *unit* is subject to a +1 DRM...". 
It doesnt say units. Each and *every* *unit* is supposed 
to suffer +1. So, if  3 out of 3 FG units are Encircled, 
the FG should be +3, right? A.17 says everything is 
cumulative. A.5 is not in play (it doesn't apply to
some, but not all, of the FG's members), and neither 
is A7.52 as a "case" (it's not specifically listed, as is CX).

So, why do we truncate Encircled to +1 only if 3
out of 3 FG units are Encircled? 

Hmmm, nothing in the rules that says we "should" do that,
*unless* you play A7.52 by camp #2 rules. 

Wire: same as Encircled; specifically says unit. 3 units on-Wire
*must* be +3.

Stun: same deal, "it", the vehicle, is +1; Two Stunned Vehicles
are +2.

Overstacked: says "units" are affected, so we can't really make
a same-Location Stack of 4 Squads fire @ +4, or should we?
We've got 4 separate units, all supposed to be firing @ +1,
if they all fire together, should it be +4 (A.17). How about
two Stacks of 4 Squads each, firing together? +2? +8?
Or still only +1? And even so, if all four fire, they're *each* 
(and *all*, @ +1. It could (must?) easily be interpreted that 
way, ergo, since A.5 and A7.52 are N/A, A.17 says it's +4. 
 I'll concede Overstacked is a weak deal here, but I'm trying 
to cover all the bases, and I include this *because* of the plural 
notation, and the fact *that alone* can obviuosly be subject to 
interpretation.

A lot of people claim that FGs with multiple units, but not all,
suffering the same Encirclement/Stun/ETC are supposedly 
truncated by A.5 becuase they think these multiple, same-type,
individual DRMs are not "detrimental" to each other.

So, if 2 out 3 units are Encircled, they reason the FG , via A.5,
to be +1 only.

IMPORTANT PART:

The conundrum occurs when *every* unit is Encircled, A.5
doesn't apply. Neither does A7.52 (officially) - there's only 
three things that get the worst possible case: TEM/Hindrance/CX.
Everything else is subject to A.5 and A.17. If 3 out of 3 Encircled, 
by rule, it's supposed to be +3. 

I don't think *anyone* in camp #1 actually does this, and 
*know* no one in camp #2 does. *No* one plays it that 
way. We all play it +1.

Why? 

Camp #2 = no-brainer.

Camp #1: because they actually use A7.52 camp #2's way
under these conditions..

*This* is what I've been looking for, and *this* is what I think
blows camp #1 off the map. Camp #1, in reality, does a LOT
of camping at site #2.

Consistently, if A7.52, in concert with A.5, really does mean what
camp #2 thinks it does, then (+1 CX) & (+1 Stun) & (+1 Smoke)
 = +1. Consistently, I see no cognitive reason to otherwise
"conditionally" apply the rule (to TEM/Hindrance/CX). 

Same Location, same "not listed in A7.52" DRM type, suffered
by *every* FG member, example!

I forgot all about it!

I think I used this last year. 

Probably won't do any good.

If Bruce Bakken "gets" it (he will); I'm sure he can more eloquently 
express what I'm trying to say.