[ASLML] Carrier C Mortar hit ?

[Bruce Probst]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:50:40 -0500, "Mountain View Cottage"
<mountainview at westelcom.com> wrote:

>> I'm not the one talking about "Collateral Attacks", and it has
>> *nothing* to do with the argument.
>
>Actually it does

Actually, *it doesn't*.

Is the CE DRM reduced because of Air-Burst/Elevation Advantage?  Yes?  Then
the Carrier (like any other OT AFV) is treated as an unarmoured target.

That's all there is to it.  Please pay attention, and stop trying to use
cheap insults to divert people from the weakness of your argument, which is
entirely based on what you want the rules to say, as opposed to what they
*actually do say*.

>Hmm, looks like the above quoted Perry Sez sets non-
>Airburst Indirect-Fire (that's our MTR in this one, Bruce)
>as a non-factor for reducing CE DRM.

Hmm, that Q&A doesn't exist in my copy of Scott's compilation (I have
version 21, which as far as I'm aware is the most recent) ....  You haven't
indicated where it dates from, either, which doesn't help in looking it up.
Ah, found it, as a Perry Sez posted to the ASLML dating from Feb 2003.

What the Q&A *actually says* (as opposed to what you seem to think it says)
is that Indirect Fire *in itself* does not make a BU crew Vulnerable.
Funnily enough, that's exactly what D5.2 and D5.311 *already tell us*.

What the Q&A *doesn't* say is that the provisions of D5.311 relating to the
reduction of CE DRM are *not applicable*.  Indeed, the Q&A says nothing
about the CE DRM *at all*.  So the Q&A is irrelevant to the argument, isn't
it?

OK, so where are the rules about reducing CE DRM (ignoring Air Bursts)?  Oh,
that's right, I quoted them earlier: they're in D6.61.  They refer only to
the "firer" having Elevation Advantage.  D6.61 does not specify what type of
fire may or may not qualify.  D5.31 does not specify it, either.  D5.311
doesn't specify it, and finally, this Q&A doesn't specify it (doesn't even
refer to it, in fact).  What does that tell you?  It tells *me* that *any*
type of fire -- no exceptions noted -- coming from a firer who qualifies for
Elevation Advantage will reduce the CE DRM.

Let's just emphasise that again: ANY TYPE OF FIRE, NO EXCEPTIONS NOTED.

For your argument to hold any weight, you need to specifically disprove the
above.  (Using arguments from the *rules*, not reality arguments.)

>And, yes, ONE MORE TIME, if ya can't reduce a
>potential CE DRM, ya can't treat the Vehicle itself as Unarmored.

Well, at last, something I agree with (and indeed have never said otherwise,
so I don't see what you're trying to emphasise).  You seem to understand
this much at least.

>The only way a Carrier will be treated as Unarmored for the attack
>(vs. it) is if it's subject to Airbursts, and Airbursts alone. Height
>Advantage doesn't do it.

Incorrect, as demonstrated above.

>I will admit that this is the "hard way" to come around on this,
>but it's all I could find.

Look, it's really not that hard: the rules say "fire" -- ANY TYPE OF FIRE,
NO EXCEPTIONS NOTED -- with Elevation Advantage will reduce the CE DRM.

If you can find an EXC specifically from the rules I'll gladly retract; I
can't find any.

>Back to the "reality" and "sense" of it all:

Sorry, fell asleep around about here.  Fortunately, you weren't saying
anything relevant so it didn't matter.

I'm not going to respond further.  If straight-forward quoting of relevant
rules doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.  If you remain
unconvinced, ask Perry.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"It's like a Warhol movie, only kind of weird."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ