[ASLML] J74 - Priests On The Line

[Bruce Bakken]

Ah, yes.  Tater wrote:

>
>I asked the question because the German force is mixed SS and None-SS. The
>vehicles are SS but the infantry is not. I was pretty sure that the
>vehicles got the +1 depletion but just wanted another opinion. That _IS_
>what the ASLML is for Bruce.
>
>Thanks Sam...
>

By the way, I sent a reply to your question very shortly after you 
originally sent it.  It never reached you or the ASLML, for some reason.

Let's see, I have a choice in how I might have answered your question.  
First, I could have used a Q&A from *over a decade ago*.  Or, I could see 
what the ASLRB *actually says now*.  Hmm, here it is, C8.2: "An 
armed-vehicle/weapon in a printed scenario is Elite for this purpose ... if 
the historical formation to which it belongs is either SS or Russian 
Guards."  From the 2nd Ed ASLRB, page C16.

That sounds familiar.  The Q&A is an almost verbatim quote of what 2nd Ed 
ASLRB now says.  Huh, imagine that.  Seems they updated the ASLRB.  If you 
read it now -- or quote it now -- the Q&A is <gasp> not even necessary.  
Unbelievable.

Your question was valid, perhaps, for the reason you stated (mixed force).  
(Well, not really valid if you own and read a 2nd Ed ASLRB, because the 
answer is given to you there.)

If you only had the Original ASLRB available at the time, you might have 
mentioned that.  If no ASLRB was available to you at the time, your question 
should have included "NRBH".  Faithful list denizens know you have a 2nd Ed 
ASLRB.  If you in fact did have 2nd Ed ASLRB handy... had read it... and 
still wanted an opinion... then the provided Q&A shouldn't have shed any 
more light on the subject because -- *it says the same thing the ASLRB says 
now*.

On the other hand, if you accept the Q&A as answering your question, you 
certainly *should* have been able to reach the same conclusion by reading 
the -- did I mention, *almost verbatim* -- rule source from 2nd Ed ASLRB.  
(You're no dummy, so I am led to wonder why you wanted another opinion on 
this: were you asking what the actual rule was, or were you looking for a 
corroborating interpretation of the rule?)

My point still stands.  It has been shown -- on the ASLML -- that 2nd Ed 
ASLRB *sometimes* invalidates an older Q&A.  So again I ask: why refer to a 
Q&A that is over a decade old and possibly obsolete, when the more recent -- 
and more correct -- 2nd Ed ASLRB may be quoted instead?  You can sometimes 
get a wrong answer quoting an old Q&A.  It is less likely to happen quoting 
2nd Ed ASLRB.

Oh, and my original reply to your question?  It was: "Yep.  Per C8.2."

'Nuff said.

Patriots by 12.

Bruce Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 
   http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1