[ASLML] DC residual

[Bruce Bakken]

>
> >Assume that there are no Vulnerable PRC.  Are you claiming that any 
>attack
> >pre-designated versus an AFV may not leave Residual FP?
>
>That would be my understanding of D.8, yes.
>

Okay.  ... not sure how you got that from D.8 ...

> >If this is your claim, it is so clearly at odds with A8.2 that you will 
>have
> >to show me something other than D.8 to back it up.
>
>I have already pointed out that it seems to me that A8.2 and D.8 are
>contradictory.  I don't have an answer for that.
>

Fair enough.  (Interestingly, in the 1st Ed ASLRB, D.8 used to be A.8... 
which changes the ramifications for Rules Order Precedence.)

> >The attack versus the AFV is the "original attack" I am talking about!
>
>But how does it leave Residual FP when it is exerting no original IFT FP?
>It's a TK DR.  TK DR only have "FP equivalency" for the sake of attacks vs.
>Personnel and Collateral Attacks (C8.31).  This isn't an attack vs. 
>Personnel,
>and we all seem to be in agreement that Collateral Attacks don't leave
>Residual.  So where is the FP that you would base your Residual on?
>

This is your most compelling argument.  A8.2 only says "the highest IFT 
column used for that attack."  Since A8.2 also says that for a To Kill DR, 
"Residual FP is created in the same manner",  I would take that to mean to 
use whatever FP column would have been used had the target been Personnel.  
As far as I'm concerned, that might be the only uncertain issue.

I also found this in A8.22: "A Collateral Attack never leaves Residual FP 
but the attack that causes it may."  Except as found in A8.2, which excludes 
AP, APDS, APCR, et al.

And in A8.25: "An ordnance weapon must secure a hit in order to exert 
Residual FP... Neither Intensive Fire (C5.6), AP-type ammo (see 8.2), nor 
PF/PFk (C13.31) leaves Residual FP."  By default, that means that any other 
Vehicle Target hit using non-AP-type ammo would also leave Residual FP.

>I have sent a Q to Perry.  I understand your argument, it's just at this 
>point
>I don't agree with it (because I don't think D.8 says what you think it 
>says).
>I may well be in error, but at this time I don't see what I'm supposedly
>missing.
>

Understood.  Interesting though about D.8, because I would have never looked 
there to establish the possibility of Residual FP.  Frankly, I view D.8 as 
irrelevant to the discussion of Residual FP caused by an attack versus an 
AFV that uses a TK DR.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE 
download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/