[ASLML] More Mopping-Up

[Bruce Bakken]

Greetings, Seth.

>
>I just sent back my thoughts on this, and had the opposite interpretation 
>of the Bypass AFV.  I read it as being in the Location since it is actually 
>in a specific hex...it would get attacked by mines in that hex, and would 
>impose TPBF limits on units in that hex.
>

I do not have a strong opinion either way, I just threw my first impression 
out there.  But you know how ASL is...  The rule in question says only "in 
the building".  Personally, I wish there had been developed a standard for 
differentiating between units in the obstacle as opposed to being in bypass 
(since both are considered in the same Location).  E.g., similar to 
Depressions... "IN" the building, or "in" the building.

But it doesn't, so I am just spouting off.

Mark it down... somebody could argue that being in Bypass of a building is 
not the same as being in the building.  Okay, I would easily accept the 
position that "Bypass" is the same as being "in".  One can't make a 
different case based on the ASLRB.  COWTRA, I suppose.  No problem.

[Wanna talk about Bounding First Fire instead?...]

>But I guess my overriding question is that aren't the answers below to 
>questions 1 and 3 in conflict?  The AFV in bypass won't prevent Mopping Up, 
>but it can cause Search Casualties?  Since the requirement for Search 
>Casualties is that an enemy unit be in a Location that is searched, I don't 
>see how an AFV can not be in a Building Location to allow Mopping Up, but 
>be in a building Location to cause Search Casualties.
>

Yes, they seem to be in opposition.  ... not like that's never happened in 
the ASLRB before... :-)

You present a good point, though.

[... how 'bout MP mechanics?...]

>Regarding the mines, I now that I said I thought this was a remote 
>possibility...sorry of that somewhat deflated things....

It warn't you dat I was referrin' to...

>Robert actually replied to me later that there were some KGP scenarios 
>where the attacker can apparently place some mines in the defender's set up 
>area.

Well, *that's* certainly interesting.  Hmm, I guess the statement "This will 
occur in approximately 0.0000000000000001% of scenarios played" was absurd 
after all.  Which is what I felt at the time it was stated to me...

>I think in these cases I would be inclined to agree before hand how to 
>treat it.  Personally, I agree with you and I would tell my opponent that 
>he had the option to roll for Search Casualties...seems the sporting thing 
>to do.

Yeah, especially since the OB informs the DEFENDER of the possibility of 
mines.  I wonder how the ATTACKER would respond in that situation if the 
DEFENDER asked, "Were there any hidden minefields in that building you just 
Mopped Up, so that I may make a Search Casualty dr?"  What is the ATTACKER's 
obligation then?

(I know, I know... here they come.  "The ATTACKER is not obligated to notify 
the DEFENDER of anything, since Mopping Up does not reveal the presence of 
minefields."  Which is correct.  Which is why we'll never get anywhere 
discussing this issue on the ASLML.)

If the ATTACKER is not the "sporting sort", then the DEFENDER is screwed, 
and there ain't nothing he can do about it.

[... are you *sure* you wouldn't rather discuss Gun Duels?...]

>It is after all, a game.  Albeit, The Greatest Game in The History of the 
>World...Bar None!
>
>OK, I've had too much coffee:-)  Have a good one!
>

One can *never* have too much coffee...

Catch you later,
Bruce Bakken

>Seth
>

_________________________________________________________________
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/