[ASLML] More Mopping-Up

[Bruce Bakken]

Hi, Robert.

I'll take a stab at this.  These answers are my opinion after brief 
consideration.

>
>Can an armed unpinned GO squad use Mopping-Up if:
>
>1a.  An unconcealed enemy AFV is in bypass of the same hex?
>

There appears to be no restriction on Mopping Up based upon A7.212.

So perhaps it depends upon whether an AFV in Bypass of a building is 
considered to be in the building.  A12.153 gives us no further clarification 
than that.

It is in the Building Location, but it is not in the Building obstacle.  
Which of these are meant by "in a multi-hex/multi-level building"?

I note that a Building in Bypass cannot Control the Location.  In that case 
it could be argued that such a unit is not "in" the building.

>1b.  A concealed enemy AFV is in bypass of the same hex?  (Board 12,
>Night with a NVR of 0 and the 2nd level had been rubbled.)
>

"Yes".  (No restrictions based upon AFV in the same hex, plus AFV is 
concealed.)

>2a.  The AFV is under Recall?
>
>2b.  The AFV is under a Shock/UK counter?
>
>2c.  The AFV is Stunned?
>
>2d.  The AFV has no functioning MA/SA/MG?
>
>2e.  An enemy AFV is in bypass of the building but in another hex?
>

Per my answer to 1a, it depends upon whether it is it considered to be in 
the building.  In my opinion it is not, so it comes down to whether it is 
concealed or unconcealed.

>2f.  An unconcealed unarmed enemy MMC is in the building?
>

Oddly, it would appear the answer is "No."  The enemy MMC is not 
"unconcealed unbroken".

>Is the DEFENDER allowed a Search Casualty dr (A12.154) if the DEFENDER
>only has:
>
>3a.  A GO AFV in bypass?
>

"Yes."  It is armed and Good Order.

>3b.  A GO AFV in bypass but is under Recall?
>

"Yes."  It is in Good Order.

>3c.  A GO AFV in bypass but which has no functioning MA/SA/MG?
>

"Yes".  It is considered armed by being unabandoned and containing an 
Inherent Crew.

>3d.  A concealed unarmed MMC with a GO LMG?
>

[Wasn't there a recent Perry Sez that says that an unarmed MMC with a LMG is 
considered armed?  I'm not certain...]

>4.  If the ATTACKER is using Mopping-Up in a building and the ATTACKER
>placed mines in one of the building hexes but the mines are *not* Known
>to the DEFENDER, _must_ the ATTACKER inform the DEFENDER that mines are
>present (but not the type, strength, Location)?
>

My view is that minefields in a Building Location should not be sufficient 
to cause a Search Casualty dr in any case.  According to A12.154, the 
ATTACKER *should* be required to notify the DEFENDER of this information, 
but apparently is not required to.  Since the Search Casualty dr is a 
DEFENDER option, this penalizes the DEFENDER by denying his option, IMO.  We 
never got anywhere discussing this on the ASLML.

I tried to present my case, but was told by one esteemed member that it was 
"not worth the effort", and opined a ridiculously low probability of 
occurrence.  Notwithstanding that "improbable" is *not* the same as 
"impossible", and that I don't let one person dissuade me from presenting my 
opinion, nobody else seemed interested,  so I let it drop.  (If you are 
interested in my arguments, I can send a copy to you off-list.)

You would probably be best served by asking Perry this question.

The above are just my opinion.  (Of course, if it involved my own forces 
engaged in bitter struggle, I would think about them in greater depth!)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken


>Thanks for you time!  Take care,
>Robert
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up 
Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/