Bruce Probst | 1 Feb 01:35 2004
Picon

Re: Rowhouse Bypass Concealment Loss

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:28:47 -0000, "Peter Vicca" <Vicca@...> wrote:

>Is it not " a rose by any other name would smell assweet"?

Ass-sweet?  I don't think that's what Shakespeare was trying to convey ....

>Its a brain exercise.

Yes!  And (usually) a fun one.  Sure, there's rules referencing and anal
arguments and all that ... but heck, for some of us that's part of the fun.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@...
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"What do you want from me?  I'm evil!"
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Bruce Probst | 1 Feb 01:41 2004
Picon

Re: CC vs AFV in bypass

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:27:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00), swfancher@...
wrote:

>A Pz IV is in bypass of woods in hex 22J10, and the counter straddles the J10:K10 hexside.
>Russian IN advance into K10.
>
>I believe that since the PzIV is actually in hex J10 that:
>a) no PAATC is needed for the IN to enter K10;
>b) no CC will occur because the AFV and the IN are in different hexes; and 
>c) that no target selection limits apply.
>
>Do I have that correct?

Yes on all counts.

D2.36: "Even though a Bypass vehicle straddles a hexside it is never
considered in both hexes; it actually occupies the hex containing the
obstacle it is Bypassing and its CAFP (C.5B)."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@...
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"What do you want from me?  I'm evil!"
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Bruce Probst | 1 Feb 01:59 2004
Picon

Re: Concealment question

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:52:06 -0500, Paul Hart <paulh@...> wrote:

>Defender sets up on boards.  Attacker enters from off board.  Defender
>given a number of initial concealment counters.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) In a situation where a real AFV and one or more real Infantry units
>under the AFV (not riding) do you (a) grow one 5/8 ? on the stack or (b)
>grow a 5/8 on the AFV and a 1/2 on the Infantry units? 

Well, I always do (b), because the AFV can usually lose concealment much
more easily than the infantry can, and there's no reason to "expose" the
infantry simply because the AFV becomes Known.  I don't believe that the
rules specify one method over the other.  Method (b) merely anticipates that
the vehicle will lose concealment before the infantry does.

>2) If (a) as I assume, then when part of the stack loses concealment 
>(i.e. AFV moves),
> I assume it is treated as a split and 1/2 ? is placed on the infantry
>(assuming the infantry is doing anything to lose concealment at the moment)

"Anything"?  I assume you mean "nothing".  But, yes, that would be the
logical way of handling it if you use method (a).

>3)  If the infantry are dummy (from initial OB) and the AFV is real, I 
>assume
>you have to burn a OB given ? to conceal the AFV? (can't depend on
>growing concealment?)

(Continue reading)

Steve Blickens | 1 Feb 02:13 2004
Picon

Thanks...

I just want to publicly thank Sam Belcher and Michael(?) for hooking me up
with a v.1 rulebook. I am proselytizing ASL with the Northeastern PA locals
in the sincere hope I can get some new blood into ASL and (not incidentally)
getting some FtF opponents.

When MMP finally reprints v.2, I will be giving away my own v.1 to someone.
We have to keep this thing going...

Thanks guys.

Steve Blickens

"My kharma ran over my dogma"

Bruce Probst | 1 Feb 02:27 2004
Picon

Re: Factory Debris in RB, Inherent Terrain, and Gutted Factories

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:40:49 -0700, morrisgj@... wrote:

>Take a Factory like T21 that is Gutted. If we play it via VASL 4 we will Gut the Factories and Debris will show
up (per the VASL designers/programmers). However if we play it ftf we note that the hexes contain Debris
(Gutted counter in one of the hexes). What is the extent of the Factory Debris in these hexes then? We would
play it as though the Factory Debris covers the whole hex (building part only of course), right?

I don't understand what you're asking.  VASL correctly depicts the "new"
debris as existing completely within the building depiction in a gutted
factory.  This is consistent with O5.41.

Factory debris does *not* "cover the whole hex", it exists only within the
building depiction.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@...
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"What do you want from me?  I'm evil!"
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Tate Rogers | 1 Feb 03:13 2004
Picon

RE: Concealment question

On Saturday, January 31, 2004 4:52 PM, Paul Hart
[SMTP:paulh@...] wrote:
> Situation:
> 
> Defender sets up on boards.  Attacker enters from off board.  Defender
> given a number of initial concealment counters.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1) In a situation where a real AFV and one or more real Infantry units
> under the AFV (not riding) do you (a) grow one 5/8 ? on the stack or (b)
> grow a 5/8 on the AFV and a 1/2 on the Infantry units? 

I assume the AFV is in concealment terrain cause otherwise it has very little chance of gaining concealment.

I wouldn't have a problem playing it either way.  I don't think it matters really.

> 2) If (a) as I assume, then when part of the stack loses concealment 
> (i.e. AFV moves),
>  I assume it is treated as a split and 1/2 ? is placed on the infantry
> (assuming the infantry is doing anything to lose concealment at the moment)

Sounds OK to me...

> 3)  If the infantry are dummy (from initial OB) and the AFV is real, I 
> assume
> you have to burn a OB given ? to conceal the AFV? (can't depend on
> growing concealment?)

Yep...FYI, OB given '?' can only be set-up in '?' terrain at start.
(Continue reading)

Brian W | 1 Feb 04:09 2004
Picon
Picon

RE: Concealment question

>Well, I always do (b), because the AFV can usually lose 
>concealment much more easily than the infantry can, and 
>there's no reason to "expose" the infantry simply because the 
>AFV becomes Known.  I don't believe that the rules specify 
>one method over the other.  Method (b) merely anticipates 
>that the vehicle will lose concealment before the infantry does.

The rules do not distinguish between 1/2" and 3/4" '?' counters. Since
guns are usually HIP, this probably would not be an issue if agreed to
before hand, but if guns set up non-HIP, adding an extra '?' counter
underneath a 3/4" concealment counter possibly gives away information
(i.e. the guns are the ones with only one 1/2" counter beneath them). I
think the simplest way is to have one concealment counter per stack, and
any '?' underneath that concealment counter is a dummy. In fact, I find
it hard to believe that the rules do not say exactly that, but they do
not. They do, however say that when two concealed stacks combine, only
the top '?' counter of one of the stacks is retained (i.e. (a) is
correct).

I have not seen it played (b), although I suppose it could confuse '?'
counters.

>No.  A12.11 prohibits the placement of a *single* dummy 
>counter beneath an unconcealed unit, but it says nothing 
>about such placement of a stack of them.

Here is old Q&A. I believe this prevents a dummy from setting up beneath
a vehicle. A12.12 also states that '?' counters are placed after
'regular' units--i.e. they are placed on top of real units. Otherwise, a
player could place three ob granted '?' counters and on top a 237, which
(Continue reading)

Sam Belcher | 1 Feb 04:12 2004

RE: Thanks...

Well, not to pass on the opportunity, let me make another appeal. 

If you are a veteran ASL player and you have more than one copy of the rule
book - then I want you. I want you to send me a note indicating that you are
willing to part with your old v1 rule book so a new player can get started. 

The terms are pretty much up to you, but I'm not looking to help you make
money - I'm trying to make sure that new players can get their hands on a
rule book. 

I've got leads on 6 or 7 rule books, and at least two of them have already
been snapped up by new players. 

Lets keep this going. Lets make sure that everyone who wants to play ASL can
get a rule book and get started. 

Sam

> -----Original Message-----
> I just want to publicly thank Sam Belcher and Michael(?) for hooking me up
> with a v.1 rulebook. I am proselytizing ASL with the Northeastern PA
> locals
> in the sincere hope I can get some new blood into ASL and (not
> incidentally)
> getting some FtF opponents.
> 
> When MMP finally reprints v.2, I will be giving away my own v.1 to
> someone.
> We have to keep this thing going...
> 
(Continue reading)

Sam Belcher | 1 Feb 04:20 2004

RE: J74 - Priests On The Line

Tater wrote: 

> The OB description refers to the German vehicles as "2nd SS Panzer Div".
> Does that mean the German AFV's depletion numbers are +1? I think it does.

There is a Q&A from 1992 that states: 

How is C8.2 "elite" status determined for the purpose of higher ordnance
Depletion Numbers?

A. An armed-vehicle/weapon in a printed scenario is considered "elite" for
this purpose only if the historical formation to which it belongs is either
SS or Russian Guards; otherwise it must be specified as "elite" by SSR. For
a DYO scenario it is considered "elite" only if the Majority Squad Type of
its side's total OB is Elite. Note that such an armed-vehicle/weapon would
have all of its Depletion Numbers - not just those for APCR/APDS - raised by
one. Note too that such "elite" status would apply to any applicable
armed-vehicle/weapon with one Depletable ammo type (i.e., not just to AFVs).

Bruce Bakken | 1 Feb 05:12 2004
Picon

RE: J74 - Priests On The Line

>
>Tater wrote:
>
> > The OB description refers to the German vehicles as "2nd SS Panzer Div".
> > Does that mean the German AFV's depletion numbers are +1? I think it 
>does.
>
>There is a Q&A from 1992 that states:
>

Why use a Q&A that is 14 years old, when C8.2 clearly states that SS have 
their Depletion Numbers increased by one?

Regards,
Bruce "whose posts haven't been reaching the ASLML all day" Bakken

>How is C8.2 "elite" status determined for the purpose of higher ordnance
>Depletion Numbers?
>
>A. An armed-vehicle/weapon in a printed scenario is considered "elite" for
>this purpose only if the historical formation to which it belongs is either
>SS or Russian Guards; otherwise it must be specified as "elite" by SSR. For
>a DYO scenario it is considered "elite" only if the Majority Squad Type of
>its side's total OB is Elite. Note that such an armed-vehicle/weapon would
>have all of its Depletion Numbers - not just those for APCR/APDS - raised 
>by
>one. Note too that such "elite" status would apply to any applicable
>armed-vehicle/weapon with one Depletable ammo type (i.e., not just to 
>AFVs).
>
(Continue reading)


Gmane