Clarifying Column Modifiers.....

[cjsiam]

My esteemable opponent and I have come to an impasse in Direct Fire Column Modifier computation ....

Our situation involves the following Modifiers:

a) adjacent +2 columns.....he is next to me shooting
b) Woods -2 columns....I am in the woods
c) Nighttime -1 column.....he is disturbing our sleep at 0500hours...

(emphasis added below....)
Based on combat chart text:
"All are cumulative, subject to maximum final modifications of -2 and +3 (10.3)."

and the text of 10.3:
10.3 Maximum Column ModificationsColumn modifiers may not increase the column used for direct fire by more than three or decrease it by more than two. The maximum/minimum only applies AFTER all the positive and negative column modifiers have been calculated. Direct Fire is the only type of fire to which these maximums apply.
Example: An Italian infantry platoon with a fire strength of 4 attacks an adjacent British-occupied hex containing three artillery units. The attack is resolved on the 16 column of the Direct Fire Table (an increase of three columns), even though the modifiers listed on the table would increase the column by five (two for point-blank range, one for three units in target hex, two for artillery in the target hex)

It is thus my interpretation that the original 16 Becomes ---> 11
Through the following analysis:
16->30(a above)
->16(b above)
-> 11(c above)
for a NET or FINAL modification of -1.... well within the -2:+3 window specified.

My opponent interprets the column modifications to result in 16--- his perspective is the net -3 modifiers ( -2 woods -1 night) can only be -2 ...

We reached a polite impasse, and based on some experience with others likewise reading it in the same fashion,
decided that we would have others interpret the English presented as well.

My contention is that the rule is clearly stated---the NET/FINAL/AFTER all modifiers in our case is -1.....and the fact it is +2 then -3 is non-sequitur, it is
only the FINAL/AFTER all (from initial to final) distance that is restricted (distance in terms of columns to be shifted)...

May we have some opinions ? (with justification in case you disagree with my {ever so rational} perspective)
Thanks!!!

[joe_oppenheimer]

You're right. The key word is "final". So do all the column shifts and then ignore anything beyond -2 or +3.

[Tambu]

For what it's worth, this is an interesting dilemma and good one to try to understand. I'm not much of  a rules lawyer, but this rule's author's use of the word "final' seems to me to be open to competing interpretation.

My reading of this -- admittedly poorly written -- rule 10.3, has always been that the maximum increase of +3 and the decrease of -2 was written in stone as is indicated in the direct fire example provided with the rule. In other words, the excess in either direction caused by other factors should just be dropped if these numbers exceed the compulsory +3 and -2 guideline.

IMHO, the Direct Fire Chart wording about column modifiers underlines this interpretation. Here's what that says: "Column Modifiers All are cumulative, subject to maximum final modifications of -2 and +3 (10.3)." To me, it is the +3 and -2 brackets that are the FINAL result that governs this question. The -3 modifier in your example would just be decreased to a -2 to fit with the bracket and be the final modification.

[Schoenwulf]

May we have some opinions ? (with justification in case you disagree with my {ever so rational} perspective)

Your analysis is the way that I've always played it, as -1 would be the final number in the case cited. The range of -2 to +3 is simply that, a range in which the final number must fall.

[triangular_cube]

Final means final. End result. Netted out. Otherwise why would there be terrain that itself gives a -3 on the direct fire chart such as entrenchments in a town? Or original caves?

[cjsiam]

For what it's worth, this is an interesting dilemma and good one to try to understand. I'm not much of  a rules lawyer, but this rule's author's use of the word "final' seems to me to be open to competing interpretation.

My reading of this -- admittedly poorly written -- rule 10.3, has always been that the maximum increase of +3 and the decrease of -2 was written in stone as is indicated in the direct fire example provided with the rule. In other words, the excess in either direction caused by other factors should just be dropped if these numbers exceed the compulsory +3 and -2 guideline.

IMHO, the Direct Fire Chart wording about column modifiers underlines this interpretation. Here's what that says: "Column Modifiers All are cumulative, subject to maximum final modifications of -2 and +3 (10.3)." To me, it is the +3 and -2 brackets that are the FINAL result that governs this question. The -3 modifier in your example would just be decreased to a -2 to fit with the bracket and be the final modification.

If I may---I fear your interpretation is inconsistent.....
The sentence reads  "Column Modifiers All are cumulative, subject to maximum final modifications of -2 and +3 (10.3)".....
There is only one way to read this....{me thinks}

"All are cumulative" -- signifies you add them all up....all the modifiers are put together to get a FINAL CUMULATIVE RESULT.....
"subject to maximum final modifications of -2 and +3".... That FINAL CUMULATIVE RESULT can only move the final column to a maximum of +3, or to a minimum of -2 from it's
   original starting point ( from 16 that would range it from 7 (11 {16 start} 22 30 45+ ) to 45+  (down up to two, up-up to 3).

when it says cumulative---that means you add them all together -- you don't apply that "FINAL" bound until you've determined the Cumulative Total....
what seems to be happening is you are applying the FINAL bounds constraint DURING the cumulative addition---not to the FINAL result, but to steps in the process....

The example in the rules under 10.3 shows a result that CUMULATIVELY would have been +5---but, as indicated, it is limited to a +3.....
That is the appropriate application of BOUND on the FINAL CUMULATIVE result....

me thinks....

[Reconquista]

WOW, the rules lawyers rule, yet this is not the Supreme Court! This forum is supposed to be about a board game and not about splitting hairs and posting insulting commentary.
The ungenerous implications about other people in the Forum who differ from your opinion does not reflect well on the sender. I know that Tambu and others on this thread can read and comprehend the language perfectly well. Their comments should not be held up for even gentle derision as Cjsiam and other are doing.

[cjsiam]

WOW, the rules lawyers rule, yet this is not the Supreme Court! This forum is supposed to be about a board game and not about splitting hairs and posting insulting commentary.
The ungenerous implications about other people in the Forum who differ from your opinion does not reflect well on the sender. I know that Tambu and others on this thread can read and comprehend the language perfectly well. Their comments should not be held up for even gentle derision as Cjsiam and other are doing.

Dude---you're out of line.
Telling someone they are mistaken can be done gently or with a hammer...but, if they are wrong, they are wrong.
I was trying to be both polite, and gentle--and clarifying why and for what reason.
The English is plain, and unequivocal.  Correctly reading the rules results in only one process---that is why writing
rules can be hard and is appreciated when it is done well--as it actually has been done here.
Correctly reading, and interpreting the rules should be of interest to all off us....
I thought that is what this forum was for, and why we discuss the rules.

There was no "Derision"...there was clarification...
Perhaps in this modern age of wokeness it is not possible to "correct" someone, or point out their error...
But I don't live in that time....and I prefer to play by the rules correctly, at least until we reach a point when
we agree (both agree) that we will interpret the rules differently then as intended by the author--for whatever reason that may be.

Having a position about rules being read and played correctly is not "Rules Lawyering" by any stretch...
Helping clarify where people are missing something, mis-read or misinterpret is not being Derisive...
Get a grip.

[Dougal1951]

Condescending commentary aimed at others who express their opinions in the Forum is what's out of line, here!

[goosebrown]

Did I mention that I am really thankful for a bunch of people who can come together to have fun and clarify the best practices of games they love. I think that we would all be served by taking it down a notch and enjoying each other in all our different, cranky ways. 

Everyone here would probably be a great person to play at some point. Maybe we should build bridges.