headers
Bruce Probst | 1 Jan 2004 01:08
Picon

Re: CE tank question

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:55:46 -0400, David Olie <daveolie@...> wrote:

>Let's take the case of a tank with RST or 1MT.  The only armament of this
>tank is MA and CMG.  The tank is currently CE, which means, according to
>D1.321 and .322 that the armament "cannot be used" or "cannot be fired".
>
>According to A11.51, an AFV "without manned inherent functioning MG
>armament" is subject to a -1 DRM on any CC attacks made against it.  In this
>case, would being CE be enough to consider the AFV to be "without manned
>inherent functioning MG armament"?

Of course.  No MG can be fired by the AFV in its current configuration.  If
that's not "not functioning" and/or "not manned", what is?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@...
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"This movie can be used to induce vomiting."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bruce Probst | 1 Jan 2004 01:07
Picon

Re: Armies of Oblivion Release Date

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:24:52 -0800, "Keith Todd" <ket74@...> wrote:

>Erratas : 
>Scenario E "Hill 621" the Russian reinforcements shown as entering on
>Turn 3 should instead enter of Turn 5. 

Yes; why this errata was *only* published on the website and not printed in
the Journal is a bit of a mystery.  It makes you wonder if there are other
website-only errata floating around?  Damned hard to keep up with it if it's
never advertised.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@...
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"This movie can be used to induce vomiting."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jim McLeod | 1 Jan 2004 05:13
Picon

Re: Test, Please ignore

Listerz;

Aslfile@... wrote:
> 
> Test, Test 1, 2, 3. Dean is a wack-job.

Is Dean aware of his wack-jobbedness?

Happy New Year everyone!

			=Jim=
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bruce Probst | 1 Jan 2004 01:26
Picon

Re: Crocodile Trailer

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:45:49 -0500, PZchala@... wrote:

>1)  Croc is targeted from the side, if TH# needed is 8, then a Final TKDR of 9 is a trailer hit on a subsequent dr
of 1.

You mean TH DR.  Yes.

>2)  Croc is targeted from the rear, if the TH# needed is a 8, then a Final TKDR of 9 is a trailer hit on a
subsequent dr of 1, provided the Final TKDR is a hull hit.

You mean TH DR.  No, it doesn't have to be a hull hit.  C10.41, second
sentence, says that any *hit* on the Rear Target Facing that is *also* a
Hull Hit will hit the trailer.  The subsequent dr is only in effect when the
TH DR indicate a *miss* (by 1), and therefore the requirement for a hull hit
is no longer in effect.

There are only 3 ways to hit the trailer:

1) You can target it specifically with a side facing shot.

2) You can hit it with a rear facing hull hit on the Croc.

3) You can hit it by missing the Croc by "1" (and subsequent dr of "1") from
either side or rear.

>3) Croc is targeted from the front, the trailer cannot be hit.

Right.  Nor can it be hit from any angle if the vehicle is HD to the firer.

>Anyone on the list ever defeat the FT part of a Croc by taking out it's trailer?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert M Hammond | 1 Jan 2004 04:16
Picon
Favicon

Amphibious help (part 2)

Listers,

I have a GPA (Amphibious Jeep) in a river (Water Obstacle) hex. 
According to rule D16.23, a Bog Check would have to be conducted when
attempting to exit the river and enter land.  The GPA failed the Bog
Check DR with an 11.  

First, a portion of Chapter G (rules G13.401 & G13.4221) _appears_ to
apply to this situation.  Rule G13.401 states, "A Watercraft is defined
as any LC, boat, or *amphibian*."  Rule G13.4221 states amphibians are
always Waterproofed.  This same rule (G13.4221), third sentence after the
exception states, ". . . and is sometimes less prone to Bog when exiting
a deep stream (D8.2)".  The only modifier is "+1 DRM to a Bog Check DR
for someone leaving a Deep Stream Location which is neither amphibious
nor water-proofed".  This DRM is making a distinction between amphibious
AND Waterproofed.  (Yes, this was written long before Chapter G.)  But,
this DRM is saying an amphibian is not Waterproofed.
So, why is it easier to leave a stream but nor a river?
Should "neither amphibious nor" be changed to "not"?

Second, rule D8.2, last sentence states, a vehicle which fails a Bog
Check is Immobile.  Rule D16.2, second to last sentence states, an
amphibian is always in Motion while in a Water Obstacle unless
stunned/shocked.  I'm neither stunned nor Shocked.  So, is rule D16.2
trying to state/mean I do NOT have to spend a Start MP (because I am
considered drifting in the Water Obstacle hex) **or** the GPA is Immobile
and bogged?

Third, if the GPA becomes Immobilized/Bogged ... where does this happen? 
In the Water Obstacle Location *or* Beached across the water/land hexside
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
PZchala | 1 Jan 2004 17:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Amphibious help (part 1)

In a message dated 12/31/2003 2:41:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
robertthepastor@... writes:

> Rule D16.2, first sentence states an amphibian spends "*land* movement
> rate [MP] when moving from a Water Obstacle to a land hex and _vice
> versa_ (moving from a land hex to a Water Obstacle)".
> Rule D16.21, first sentence states " . . . movement into a Water Obstacle
> . . . is one *amphibious* MP".
> 
> Which rule is correct?
> 
> Should "and vice versa" be deleted from the end of the first sentence of
> rule D16.2?
> OR
> Should "while crossing a Water Obstacle hexside" be added 
> to the end of
> the first sentence of rule D16.21?

I think you should ask Perry for a clarification.  I think "while crossing a Water Obstacle hexside" is the
intent of D16.21.  The second sentence seems to support that, IMHO.

Break out board 8.  Amphib moves from L4-M5 at land-movement rate (D16.2), M5-N5 at 1 amphib MP (D16.21),
M5-L4 at land-movement rate (D16.2).  On board 41, N4-N3, 1 amphib MP plus the normal non-amphib cost of the
hex entered. (D16.21 & B21.13).

Mike "39G1-H1 is an interesting hexside" Pierzchala
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Manger | 1 Jan 2004 06:48
Picon

VASL Game right now!

Hi All,

Keen on a game!  Bored this new year's day!  Email ASAP but you must
have the latest VASSAL and VASL  - updated as at 23rd Dec 2003.

Something small is best.

Well okey, not necessarily right now - but sometime over the next
week.  Email play is fine, live is Australian Eastern Daylight Savings
Time.

Later,
Pete (Peetie in the VASL server)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
PZchala | 1 Jan 2004 19:16
Picon
Favicon

(no subject)

In a message dated 12/31/2003 10:16:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
robertthepastor@... writes:

> I have a GPA (Amphibious Jeep) in a river (Water Obstacle) hex. 
> According to rule D16.23, a Bog Check would have to be conducted when
> attempting to exit the river and enter land.  The GPA failed the Bog
> Check DR with an 11.  

  Yes, an DR 11 with a +1 mod for "Vehicle is not fully-tracked". 

> First, a portion of Chapter G (rules G13.401 & G13.4221) _appears_ to
> apply to this situation.  Rule G13.401 states, "A Watercraft is defined
> as any LC, boat, or *amphibian*."  Rule G13.4221 states amphibians are
> always Waterproofed.  This same rule (G13.4221), third sentence after the
> exception states, ". . . and is sometimes less prone to Bog when exiting
> a deep stream (D8.2)".  The only modifier is "+1 DRM to a Bog Check DR
> for someone leaving a Deep Stream Location which is neither amphibious
> nor water-proofed".  This DRM is making a distinction between amphibious
> AND Waterproofed.  (Yes, this was written long before Chapter G.)  But,
> this DRM is saying an amphibian is not Waterproofed.

  I don't see how you come to this conclusion.  G13.4221 clearly indicates that a vehicle can be Waterproofed
and _not_ amphibian. This modifier does not apply if your GPA is exiting a "river".  

> So, why is it easier to leave a stream but nor a river?
> Should "neither amphibious nor" be changed to "not"?

> Second, rule D8.2, last sentence states, a vehicle which fails a Bog
> Check is Immobile.  Rule D16.2, second to last sentence states, an
> amphibian is always in Motion while in a Water Obstacle unless
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sean | 1 Jan 2004 20:36

Re: just curious...

One here

At 2:28 PM -0600 12/31/03, John Barkoviak wrote:
>how many VASLers out there are using a Mac with OS 9.x.x?
>
>with the upgrade of VASSAL to 1.3 and VASL to 4.1, it will not run on OS 9.x.x
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alain Borel | 1 Jan 2004 20:54
Picon
Favicon

Happy New Year

Best wishes for 2004 to every member of the list! May the ASLML live 
long and prosper,
now that the dark and silent days of last year are behind us...

Alain Borel
Chavannes (Switzerland)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane