[ASLML] CC Infiltration

[Bruce Bakken]

> >
> > Well, not exactly.  The 4-3-6 may stay only if it attacks.  It may go 
>only
> > if it Withdraws (and does not attack).  It *is* forced to do one or the
> > other, but may not do both.
>
>Huh?!?!
>
>The 436 has already attack which is why it rolled the snakes. This is not 
>"Ambush" it >is "Infiltration". They already rolled for ambush and there 
>was none. The 436 has rolled snakes and >eliminated the enemy.

No, actually.  All the 4-3-6 has done so far is make an Original 2 CC DR.  
That is the "result".  The attack has not yet been "resolved", that is to 
say, made into a Final CC DR.

>He does the leader creation then decides whether to stay or go. In fact, he 
>can split up the 436 >and leader...with one staying, one going, and/or both 
>leaving for different destinations.
>

I'm not sure where you're getting this conclusion.  How do you conclude that 
one may stay and one may go?  By which rules do you reach this conclusion?

I have been looking at it, and it still troubles me.  The EX is the real 
kicker, because it is stated clearly.  I would only argue that A11.22 is not 
so clear as you make it out to be.

>There is no decide to attack or not...the enemy is dead. I mean why would 
>there be any >question...the snakes wipes the enemy (usually) and (if your 
>still alive) you can leave even if the >snakes doesn't kill all the enemy. 
>Not sure where you are getting this decide to "attack or not" >stuff.
>

Again, all that has happened so far is that the unit has made an Original CC 
DR.  At that point, the "result" is a "2".  The "resolution" has not 
occurred yet because we have not yet determined the Final CC DR.  Surely you 
can agree that an "Original DR" is not the same and does not yield the same 
result as a "Final DR"?

I based my original argument on this statement: "any Infantry/Cavalry unit 
which rolls an Original 2 CC DR may withdraw from CC/Melee immediately 
thereafter".  Exactly what does "immediately thereafter" refer to when used 
in reference to an Original DR of any kind?

Consider the argument you are using for Shellhole placement.

You have stated: 'The terrain change occurs before the DR "result" is 
"resolved".'  You based that on the strength of two words: "immediately 
after".

Likewise, the act of Withdrawal occurs before the CC DR "result" is 
"resolved".  Again, this is based on the strength of two words: "immediately 
thereafter".

Again, to use your argument for Shellhole placement: ' ... the rule is 
fairly clear and uses the
word "immediatly" ...'

Which is also what I am saying here.  What exactly does "immediately 
thereafter" mean?  It most certainly can be taken to mean "immediately after 
making the Original 2 CC DR", and thus *before* the "resolution", even as 
you have argued previously.

I find it interesting that you adamently argue about the timing of an event 
in relation to an "Original KIA" result, and yet argue against the timing of 
an event in relation to an "Original 2 CC DR" result.  In both cases, the 
Original DR is simply the mechanism for activating the event.

Is there a difference in application between the phrase "immediately after" 
and the phrase "immediatley thereafter"?  They both mean the same thing to 
me.

So why in one case would you apply the event (shellhole) "immediately after" 
the "result" but before the "resolution", and in the other case you do not 
apply the event (withdrawal) "immediately thereafter" the "result", but 
instead wait to apply it until after the "resolution"?  That strikes me as 
inconsistent.

I believe it is not as clear as you behave, and that the EX can be seen as 
contradicting a possible interpretation of the rule.

If the reasoning is sound for Shellhole placement, certainly the same 
reasoning is sound for Infiltration Withdrawal.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and 
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp