03-03-2023, 12:00 PM,
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2023, 12:02 PM by triangular_cube.)
|
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
(03-03-2023, 11:19 AM)cjsiam Wrote: The world is shifting under my feet.....
that which was stable and known turns to mud and is unclear.....Aiya....."May you live in interesting times"...
And in my games as well....sigh......
DO WE AGREE?:
1) Activation is either "To Move" or "To Fire"? This is clearly stated in multiple places....there is no "only just activated" state for any types of units....
if they are activated they are activated "To Move" or "To Fire".
2) The actions available to units activated to MOVE do not involve a DIRECT FIRE attack....that also is clearly stated...
The actions available to units activated to FIRE do not involve a MOVE (except in the case of moving into Assault).... These are called out
3) Once a unit moves (units being all types of units) it is marked with a Moved/Fired marker---it then is limited to what it can do ---These actions
have been called out as well....it does not include contributing it's Fire Factor to another attack--it can contribute it's MF to a unit near for MC ...but
that IS explicitly called out---adding its CF to a DF attack IS NOT CALLED OUT....thus interpreting that as "somehow allowed because it is not explicitly disallowed"
seems a reach to me....instead the rules writers has explicitly TOLD YOU what you can do---thus, if it's not in their list--you can't do it....
Maybe that is the crux of our perspective difference.....??
With those considerations....a Leader who activates to MOVE, does not get to contribute his Fire factor and participate in a DF, or combining Fire...
Do we not agree on that?
1) Well we are talking about leaders, not units. While that may sound patronizing, they are distinct entities in the rules... sometimes... and are spoken of together others. We all know this a sloppy point in the PZG ruleset. As to the leaders, and rereading 4th tonight, I'd actually say its quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaders move/fire or rather just "activate".
2) For units, yes. Which is not in dispute. Again, with leaders, the rules read entirely ambiguously. Noted specifically that the section breaking down move vs fire is under the heading of "Unit Actions", and "Leaders and Activation" under another.
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)". While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
That being said, playing the "calls out game" you are here, as Shad pointed out, the rules explicitly say that a leader can't use his modifier to assist in morale recovery, and then do anything else. Why is this called out specifically if in your thinking, it wouldnt have been allowed anyway? Where is said exclusion for combat modifiers?
Does a leader "fire" when directing a unit to fire w/modifier? Does a leader actually activate to fire/to move or just activate? At this point I'd have to say the rules don't actually say.
I've certainly always played the way you have without a second thought, and while I'm not sure I entirely agree with the counter proposal here, I am left pondering.
Shad and goosebrown like this post
|
|
|
|
03-03-2023, 03:17 PM,
|
|
|
cjsiam
Corporal
|
Posts: 673
Threads: 77
Joined: Jun 2018
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
(03-03-2023, 12:00 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-03-2023, 11:19 AM)cjsiam Wrote: The world is shifting under my feet.....
that which was stable and known turns to mud and is unclear.....Aiya....."May you live in interesting times"...
And in my games as well....sigh......
DO WE AGREE?:
1) Activation is either "To Move" or "To Fire"? This is clearly stated in multiple places....there is no "only just activated" state for any types of units....
if they are activated they are activated "To Move" or "To Fire".
2) The actions available to units activated to MOVE do not involve a DIRECT FIRE attack....that also is clearly stated...
The actions available to units activated to FIRE do not involve a MOVE (except in the case of moving into Assault).... These are called out
3) Once a unit moves (units being all types of units) it is marked with a Moved/Fired marker---it then is limited to what it can do ---These actions
have been called out as well....it does not include contributing it's Fire Factor to another attack--it can contribute it's MF to a unit near for MC ...but
that IS explicitly called out---adding its CF to a DF attack IS NOT CALLED OUT....thus interpreting that as "somehow allowed because it is not explicitly disallowed"
seems a reach to me....instead the rules writers has explicitly TOLD YOU what you can do---thus, if it's not in their list--you can't do it....
Maybe that is the crux of our perspective difference.....??
With those considerations....a Leader who activates to MOVE, does not get to contribute his Fire factor and participate in a DF, or combining Fire...
Do we not agree on that?
1) Well we are talking about leaders, not units. While that may sound patronizing, they are distinct entities in the rules... sometimes... and are spoken of together others. We all know this a sloppy point in the PZG ruleset. As to the leaders, and rereading 4th tonight, I'd actually say its quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaders move/fire or rather just "activate".
2) For units, yes. Which is not in dispute. Again, with leaders, the rules read entirely ambiguously. Noted specifically that the section breaking down move vs fire is under the heading of "Unit Actions", and "Leaders and Activation" under another.
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)". While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
That being said, playing the "calls out game" you are here, as Shad pointed out, the rules explicitly say that a leader can't use his modifier to assist in morale recovery, and then do anything else. Why is this called out specifically if in your thinking, it wouldnt have been allowed anyway? Where is said exclusion for combat modifiers?
Does a leader "fire" when directing a unit to fire w/modifier? Does a leader actually activate to fire/to move or just activate? At this point I'd have to say the rules don't actually say.
I've certainly always played the way you have without a second thought, and while I'm not sure I entirely agree with the counter proposal here, I am left pondering.
#A---I never take anything as patronizing---this is actually important stuff...clarity of understanding of fundamentals (like this) in the rules is actually
critical to being able to play remote with other players(I'm in thailand..about as remote as it gets...)
As I have discovered, a difference in understanding can circumvent being able to play with some who have a different interpretation....
And that is my loss
....but, my only approach is to try and demonstrate, what I understand to be, the correct way to read the rules and play the game--while
Looking to see if I have screwed things up and am incorrect....as we all should, me thinks...so continuing to engage and find resolution is my preference
So as long as we're gentle with each other---let the arguments, the chains of Logic spew forth!....let the Truth/correct interpretation be known....so that we ALL might
play the same game...Some may call it "rules Lawyering"--but, it matters...we have to be playing the same game--by the same rules (an agreed set...) else we
will have problems--reducing our options to enjoy engagement with each other--everyone loses...
you stated:
1) Well we are talking about leaders, not units. While that may sound patronizing, they are distinct entities in the rules... sometimes... and are spoken of together others. We all know this a sloppy point in the PZG ruleset. As to the leaders, and rereading 4th tonight, I'd actually say its quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaders move/fire or rather just "activate".
If I may counter:
3.1 Action Segments An action segment consists of any one of the following:- A single unit or leader self-activating;
- Some or all units stacked together in the same hex activating at once, with or without leaders. If any regular leaders or tank leaders are in the stack, they may activate and direct the units in the stack for movement and combat purposes, plus units and subordinate leaders in adjacent hexes;
- A single leader activating and directing all units in his hex plus the six hexes adjacent to him;
- A single leader activating and directing a chain of units and lower-ranking leaders in several hexes through Subordinate Activation (3.2).
So in all cases---a leader will ACTIVATE....the leader does not get to "not activate" and still impact any units...
Thus---if a leader is to ACTIVATE--he will then ACTIVATE "to Move" or "to Fire" (continuing...see below)
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
"Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
So---here in 3.13--it clearly, and unequivocally states that ALL UNITS, LEADERS or groups either activate to MOVE or to FIRE.
It may be that some interpret "units" in this context, in this paragraph to exclude or not apply to Leaders---
I contend this is not in the spirit of the subject identified in the initial clause "The activated unit, leader or group"....the units (plural--signifying the grouping of unit, leader or group)
Is this where you see a lack of clarity?....
2) For units, yes. Which is not in dispute. Again, with leaders, the rules read entirely ambiguously. Noted specifically that the section breaking down move vs fire is under the heading of "Unit Actions", and "Leaders and Activation" under another.
But---Leaders are SPECIFICALLY called out in the grouping of "unit, leaders or group" in 3.13---so it unambiguously stipulates that it applies to Leaders---
That cannot be called into question (I think)--it is explicitly called out.
Notice in
3.12 Leaders and ActivationA good-order leader may (but is not required to) activate units and lower-ranking leaders
So a Leader Activates a lower ranking leader---in 3.12---then in 3.13 it clearly says "to Move or to Fire".....
So---if a leader is activated by a superior leader, he must activate to MOVE or to FIRE---
Are you proposing that the Superior Leader, who did the activation of the junior leader---has a Third "only activated" state?
...that somehow That leader does not follow the requirement placed on leaders he might activate Junior to him?
I can find no other reference or back up for such a state......I think the strictures of 3.13 apply to leaders--as written---- I think 3.1(above) specifically excludes this...
he has to ACTIVATE---and all ACTIVATED units do ACTIONS which are "To Move" or "To Fire"....
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)".
I think the last sentence of this often referred to rule is explicit here:
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
So here--in the above RAW---with my understanding that this section is talking about "unit, leader or group" as the "units" it discusses in the section---it is the first clause, the subject of the first sentence. It is titled "Unit Actions" but the subject in first sentence INCLUDES leaders in the context of what follows.
AND the Last Sentence proscribes players to Mark the units discussed (unit, leader or group) with Moved/Fired markers at the conclusion of their action.
Further:
6.2 Leader Activation A leader may only be activated if it is not currently marked with a Moved/Fired marker. A leader with a Moved/Fired marker may assist friendly units undergoing morale checks (14.1) or defending against an assault (12.4), but may not activate friendly units (3.1), assist recovering units (14.4), or initiate an assault (12.11).
This indicates (I think) that all actions under 3.1 (3.11, 3.12, 3.13...) cannot be undertaking by units which would require this leader to activate them if that leader already
has a M/F marker upon him...
7.1 Types
Each unit which elects to "Fire" during its activation segment
So in order to Fire, they must be activated "to FIRE" in their activation --- then, and only then--in their turn, can they use any of the Fire types...
7.33 Combining Fire
Units (including strongpoints) may... ... Units in adjacent hexes may combine fire only if activated by a leader who has a combat modifier. A leader can combine the fire of his hex plus a number of adjacent hexes equal to his combat modifier (6.41).
We saw above in 3.x that in order to impact units "direct them" a leader must activate---and, thus he activates "To Fire" or "To Move".
6.42 Firepower Enhancement
An activated, undemoralized leader may add his combat modifier to the direct fire value of one unit in his own hex.
While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
I understood the situation differently...
A) the INF unit and Leader were adjacent at start of Action Segment....
B) the INF unit activated to Fire
C) the Leader would have had to activate to Move--in order to be in same hex (a requirement to apply the CF to DF)....
My interpretation of this means that:
1. the leader has to move to enter hex---with a move order he can---BUT he is then marked with a Moved/Fired marker (see 3.13 above)
2. the INF unit cannot use the leaders CF in his DF as the leader was not activated to Fire, is now done for the turn--with Moved/Fired marker on him...
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
I refer to the following---BEFORE any action takes place---all units/leaders involved must activate---
and they activate "Perform a Movement Action" or "Perform a Fire Action" (shorthand "To Move" or "To Fire")
That is ASSIGNED before any action is resolved....(we've been here before...)
SO----if the leader is going to MOVE---he cannot participate in DF--- as he would have a MOVEMENT action/activation...
and with a TO MOVE activation he can only : moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
See below:
3.13 Unit ActionsThe activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
So if you activated to FIRE---you could not move, but could fire....(assault movement excluded...)
if you activated to MOVE---you could move, but not fire....
That being said, playing the "calls out game" you are here, as Shad pointed out, the rules explicitly say that a leader can't use his modifier to assist in morale recovery, and then do anything else. Why is this called out specifically if in your thinking, it wouldnt have been allowed anyway? Where is said exclusion for combat modifiers?
We refer to this:
14.4 RecoveryOnly a successful recovery attempt can repair the degraded morale status of a unit or leader. When players attempt to improve the morale status of their demoralized and disrupted units it is called "recovery." Units may recover with the assistance of an activated leader, or on their own. Units attempting recovery and leaders assisting them must be activated and may conduct no other action that turn. Place a Moved/Fired marker on any unit that attempts recovery (whether it is successful or not), and any leader who assists a recovery attempt.
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
So in order to assist in recovery---a Leader MUST activate to Move--The Stricture is further placed on that unit that it may not move away or conduct any other action that turn...
So--all FIRE actions are explicitly illegal as it was a MOVE activation---but in this case all other MOVEMENT actions are illegal as well moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63).
Assisting OTHER units in inflicted morale checks--where an adjacent unit becomes subject to a morale check due to enemy DF/Bombardment, in a later action segment IS NOT prohibited--as it is not an "action" undertaken by the leader....
So the issue here is further restriction of MOVEMENT actions due to the leader assisting a unit to recover morale--he can't do any of the other usually legal
actions.
Does a leader "fire" when directing a unit to fire w/modifier? Does a leader actually activate to fire/to move or just activate? At this point I'd have to say the rules don't actually say.
I would disagree---with the examples above as evidence of various cases...
a) I think clearly a leader has to ACTIVATE (3.1)
b) ACTIVATION requires the assignment of what type of Action(3.13)
c) Having had a "To Move" or "To Fire" activation---there are constraints as to what a unit can do (see full 3.13)
I've certainly always played the way you have without a second thought, and while I'm not sure I entirely agree with the counter proposal here, I am left pondering.
Key question I think comes down to --- When a leader Activates---Must he choose to activate "To Move" or "To Fire"....
and I think the above shows that this is the case.
Here I Stand...
Here's one for you....
If I had a leader in a hex with multiple units---and there were neighboring hexes with friendly units---and we were adjacent to an enemy occupied Town hex....
CAN that leader when activated TO FIRE.....say he has a +2 CF....can he:
a) combine DF for 3hexes (his own and two others)...say one unit from each into a DF attack, and add his own DF+2
and Then
b) Assault (a Fire activation) with one unit from each hex (3 total then going in, along with leader) and add his CF to the Assault (and leader present...)
I THINK it would be NO...that at the completion of a) he's marked with a Moved/Fired and thus doesn't get to participate in
the Assault Party....
And Here's another---the one that really gets my goat about what's been suggested:
I have a line of Inf units facing some enemy unit across field hexes...say enemy is at 3hexes.
Behind my units I have a column of other units coming up behind the front line of units, stacked with leaders....
I happen to have a leader with a +2 CF modifier at 4hexes from the front line of units....
So I "Chain activate" ---the front line guys are activated to Fire(by a near leader)....and the +2 leader is activated to Move....
So I move the leader 4 hexes, landing on top of one of my front line stacks....
and I then (according to proposed interpretation) Combine 3 hexes of units, and add my +2 to the resulting
DF attack...
I moved full ---but because I am not required to have declared "To Fire"--being "Activated still somehow" I
get to do this (just basically extending the example Shad presented to an extreme...)
I think that is very flawed....and in violation of the 3.13---when if you move, your done and since you activated
to move you can't fire with that unit anyway....
THIS WAS LONG....but....I think we need to settle this to everyone's liking and agreement....
this is kinda fundamental (there are a couple others like this we'll get to next...)
|
|
|
|
03-03-2023, 11:31 PM,
|
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
(03-03-2023, 03:17 PM)cjsiam Wrote: (03-03-2023, 12:00 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-03-2023, 11:19 AM)cjsiam Wrote: The world is shifting under my feet.....
that which was stable and known turns to mud and is unclear.....Aiya....."May you live in interesting times"...
And in my games as well....sigh......
DO WE AGREE?:
1) Activation is either "To Move" or "To Fire"? This is clearly stated in multiple places....there is no "only just activated" state for any types of units....
if they are activated they are activated "To Move" or "To Fire".
2) The actions available to units activated to MOVE do not involve a DIRECT FIRE attack....that also is clearly stated...
The actions available to units activated to FIRE do not involve a MOVE (except in the case of moving into Assault).... These are called out
3) Once a unit moves (units being all types of units) it is marked with a Moved/Fired marker---it then is limited to what it can do ---These actions
have been called out as well....it does not include contributing it's Fire Factor to another attack--it can contribute it's MF to a unit near for MC ...but
that IS explicitly called out---adding its CF to a DF attack IS NOT CALLED OUT....thus interpreting that as "somehow allowed because it is not explicitly disallowed"
seems a reach to me....instead the rules writers has explicitly TOLD YOU what you can do---thus, if it's not in their list--you can't do it....
Maybe that is the crux of our perspective difference.....??
With those considerations....a Leader who activates to MOVE, does not get to contribute his Fire factor and participate in a DF, or combining Fire...
Do we not agree on that?
1) Well we are talking about leaders, not units. While that may sound patronizing, they are distinct entities in the rules... sometimes... and are spoken of together others. We all know this a sloppy point in the PZG ruleset. As to the leaders, and rereading 4th tonight, I'd actually say its quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaders move/fire or rather just "activate".
2) For units, yes. Which is not in dispute. Again, with leaders, the rules read entirely ambiguously. Noted specifically that the section breaking down move vs fire is under the heading of "Unit Actions", and "Leaders and Activation" under another.
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)". While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
That being said, playing the "calls out game" you are here, as Shad pointed out, the rules explicitly say that a leader can't use his modifier to assist in morale recovery, and then do anything else. Why is this called out specifically if in your thinking, it wouldnt have been allowed anyway? Where is said exclusion for combat modifiers?
Does a leader "fire" when directing a unit to fire w/modifier? Does a leader actually activate to fire/to move or just activate? At this point I'd have to say the rules don't actually say.
I've certainly always played the way you have without a second thought, and while I'm not sure I entirely agree with the counter proposal here, I am left pondering.
#A---I never take anything as patronizing---this is actually important stuff...clarity of understanding of fundamentals (like this) in the rules is actually
critical to being able to play remote with other players(I'm in thailand..about as remote as it gets...)
As I have discovered, a difference in understanding can circumvent being able to play with some who have a different interpretation....
And that is my loss
....but, my only approach is to try and demonstrate, what I understand to be, the correct way to read the rules and play the game--while
Looking to see if I have screwed things up and am incorrect....as we all should, me thinks...so continuing to engage and find resolution is my preference
So as long as we're gentle with each other---let the arguments, the chains of Logic spew forth!....let the Truth/correct interpretation be known....so that we ALL might
play the same game...Some may call it "rules Lawyering"--but, it matters...we have to be playing the same game--by the same rules (an agreed set...) else we
will have problems--reducing our options to enjoy engagement with each other--everyone loses...
you stated:
1) Well we are talking about leaders, not units. While that may sound patronizing, they are distinct entities in the rules... sometimes... and are spoken of together others. We all know this a sloppy point in the PZG ruleset. As to the leaders, and rereading 4th tonight, I'd actually say its quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaders move/fire or rather just "activate".
If I may counter:
3.1 Action Segments An action segment consists of any one of the following:- A single unit or leader self-activating;
- Some or all units stacked together in the same hex activating at once, with or without leaders. If any regular leaders or tank leaders are in the stack, they may activate and direct the units in the stack for movement and combat purposes, plus units and subordinate leaders in adjacent hexes;
- A single leader activating and directing all units in his hex plus the six hexes adjacent to him;
- A single leader activating and directing a chain of units and lower-ranking leaders in several hexes through Subordinate Activation (3.2).
So in all cases---a leader will ACTIVATE....the leader does not get to "not activate" and still impact any units...
Thus---if a leader is to ACTIVATE--he will then ACTIVATE "to Move" or "to Fire" (continuing...see below)
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
"Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
So---here in 3.13--it clearly, and unequivocally states that ALL UNITS, LEADERS or groups either activate to MOVE or to FIRE.
It may be that some interpret "units" in this context, in this paragraph to exclude or not apply to Leaders---
I contend this is not in the spirit of the subject identified in the initial clause "The activated unit, leader or group"....the units (plural--signifying the grouping of unit, leader or group)
Is this where you see a lack of clarity?....
2) For units, yes. Which is not in dispute. Again, with leaders, the rules read entirely ambiguously. Noted specifically that the section breaking down move vs fire is under the heading of "Unit Actions", and "Leaders and Activation" under another.
But---Leaders are SPECIFICALLY called out in the grouping of "unit, leaders or group" in 3.13---so it unambiguously stipulates that it applies to Leaders---
That cannot be called into question (I think)--it is explicitly called out.
Notice in
3.12 Leaders and ActivationA good-order leader may (but is not required to) activate units and lower-ranking leaders
So a Leader Activates a lower ranking leader---in 3.12---then in 3.13 it clearly says "to Move or to Fire".....
So---if a leader is activated by a superior leader, he must activate to MOVE or to FIRE---
Are you proposing that the Superior Leader, who did the activation of the junior leader---has a Third "only activated" state?
...that somehow That leader does not follow the requirement placed on leaders he might activate Junior to him?
I can find no other reference or back up for such a state......I think the strictures of 3.13 apply to leaders--as written---- I think 3.1(above) specifically excludes this...
he has to ACTIVATE---and all ACTIVATED units do ACTIONS which are "To Move" or "To Fire"....
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)".
I think the last sentence of this often referred to rule is explicit here:
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
So here--in the above RAW---with my understanding that this section is talking about "unit, leader or group" as the "units" it discusses in the section---it is the first clause, the subject of the first sentence. It is titled "Unit Actions" but the subject in first sentence INCLUDES leaders in the context of what follows.
AND the Last Sentence proscribes players to Mark the units discussed (unit, leader or group) with Moved/Fired markers at the conclusion of their action.
Further:
6.2 Leader Activation A leader may only be activated if it is not currently marked with a Moved/Fired marker. A leader with a Moved/Fired marker may assist friendly units undergoing morale checks (14.1) or defending against an assault (12.4), but may not activate friendly units (3.1), assist recovering units (14.4), or initiate an assault (12.11).
This indicates (I think) that all actions under 3.1 (3.11, 3.12, 3.13...) cannot be undertaking by units which would require this leader to activate them if that leader already
has a M/F marker upon him...
7.1 Types
Each unit which elects to "Fire" during its activation segment
So in order to Fire, they must be activated "to FIRE" in their activation --- then, and only then--in their turn, can they use any of the Fire types...
7.33 Combining Fire
Units (including strongpoints) may... ... Units in adjacent hexes may combine fire only if activated by a leader who has a combat modifier. A leader can combine the fire of his hex plus a number of adjacent hexes equal to his combat modifier (6.41).
We saw above in 3.x that in order to impact units "direct them" a leader must activate---and, thus he activates "To Fire" or "To Move".
6.42 Firepower Enhancement
An activated, undemoralized leader may add his combat modifier to the direct fire value of one unit in his own hex.
While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
I understood the situation differently...
A) the INF unit and Leader were adjacent at start of Action Segment....
B) the INF unit activated to Fire
C) the Leader would have had to activate to Move--in order to be in same hex (a requirement to apply the CF to DF)....
My interpretation of this means that:
1. the leader has to move to enter hex---with a move order he can---BUT he is then marked with a Moved/Fired marker (see 3.13 above)
2. the INF unit cannot use the leaders CF in his DF as the leader was not activated to Fire, is now done for the turn--with Moved/Fired marker on him...
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
I refer to the following---BEFORE any action takes place---all units/leaders involved must activate---
and they activate "Perform a Movement Action" or "Perform a Fire Action" (shorthand "To Move" or "To Fire")
That is ASSIGNED before any action is resolved....(we've been here before...)
SO----if the leader is going to MOVE---he cannot participate in DF--- as he would have a MOVEMENT action/activation...
and with a TO MOVE activation he can only : moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
See below:
3.13 Unit ActionsThe activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
So if you activated to FIRE---you could not move, but could fire....(assault movement excluded...)
if you activated to MOVE---you could move, but not fire....
That being said, playing the "calls out game" you are here, as Shad pointed out, the rules explicitly say that a leader can't use his modifier to assist in morale recovery, and then do anything else. Why is this called out specifically if in your thinking, it wouldnt have been allowed anyway? Where is said exclusion for combat modifiers?
We refer to this:
14.4 RecoveryOnly a successful recovery attempt can repair the degraded morale status of a unit or leader. When players attempt to improve the morale status of their demoralized and disrupted units it is called "recovery." Units may recover with the assistance of an activated leader, or on their own. Units attempting recovery and leaders assisting them must be activated and may conduct no other action that turn. Place a Moved/Fired marker on any unit that attempts recovery (whether it is successful or not), and any leader who assists a recovery attempt.
3.13 Unit Actions The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
So in order to assist in recovery---a Leader MUST activate to Move--The Stricture is further placed on that unit that it may not move away or conduct any other action that turn...
So--all FIRE actions are explicitly illegal as it was a MOVE activation---but in this case all other MOVEMENT actions are illegal as well moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63).
Assisting OTHER units in inflicted morale checks--where an adjacent unit becomes subject to a morale check due to enemy DF/Bombardment, in a later action segment IS NOT prohibited--as it is not an "action" undertaken by the leader....
So the issue here is further restriction of MOVEMENT actions due to the leader assisting a unit to recover morale--he can't do any of the other usually legal
actions.
Does a leader "fire" when directing a unit to fire w/modifier? Does a leader actually activate to fire/to move or just activate? At this point I'd have to say the rules don't actually say.
I would disagree---with the examples above as evidence of various cases...
a) I think clearly a leader has to ACTIVATE (3.1)
b) ACTIVATION requires the assignment of what type of Action(3.13)
c) Having had a "To Move" or "To Fire" activation---there are constraints as to what a unit can do (see full 3.13)
I've certainly always played the way you have without a second thought, and while I'm not sure I entirely agree with the counter proposal here, I am left pondering.
Key question I think comes down to --- When a leader Activates---Must he choose to activate "To Move" or "To Fire"....
and I think the above shows that this is the case.
Here I Stand...
Here's one for you....
If I had a leader in a hex with multiple units---and there were neighboring hexes with friendly units---and we were adjacent to an enemy occupied Town hex....
CAN that leader when activated TO FIRE.....say he has a +2 CF....can he:
a) combine DF for 3hexes (his own and two others)...say one unit from each into a DF attack, and add his own DF+2
and Then
b) Assault (a Fire activation) with one unit from each hex (3 total then going in, along with leader) and add his CF to the Assault (and leader present...)
I THINK it would be NO...that at the completion of a) he's marked with a Moved/Fired and thus doesn't get to participate in
the Assault Party....
And Here's another---the one that really gets my goat about what's been suggested:
I have a line of Inf units facing some enemy unit across field hexes...say enemy is at 3hexes.
Behind my units I have a column of other units coming up behind the front line of units, stacked with leaders....
I happen to have a leader with a +2 CF modifier at 4hexes from the front line of units....
So I "Chain activate" ---the front line guys are activated to Fire(by a near leader)....and the +2 leader is activated to Move....
So I move the leader 4 hexes, landing on top of one of my front line stacks....
and I then (according to proposed interpretation) Combine 3 hexes of units, and add my +2 to the resulting
DF attack...
I moved full ---but because I am not required to have declared "To Fire"--being "Activated still somehow" I
get to do this (just basically extending the example Shad presented to an extreme...)
I think that is very flawed....and in violation of the 3.13---when if you move, your done and since you activated
to move you can't fire with that unit anyway....
THIS WAS LONG....but....I think we need to settle this to everyone's liking and agreement....
this is kinda fundamental (there are a couple others like this we'll get to next...)
Your logic chain still hinges on your underlying assumption that a leader has to activate "to move/to fire" like a unit, and that adding a combat modifier is a "to fire" action. Thats the whole counter point to the traditional way of thinking. Even your examples here, which are basically the same as your last post do not include a definitive answer to those key questions. Thats kind of the whole point.
1) You keep bringing up 3.1, but thats exactly the type of problem we are pointing out. "The LEADER activates to direct UNITS", "Single LEADER activating to direct UNITS", "Single LEADER activating to direct a chain of UNITS". Here we don't have the ambiguous grouping of leaders and units that the text often does.
"So in all cases---a leader will ACTIVATE....the leader does not get to "not activate" and still impact any units..."
None of the discussed examples involve and unactivated leader using his combat modifier.
"Thus---if a leader is to ACTIVATE--he will then ACTIVATE "to Move" or "to Fire""
This is one of the key questions, that isnt actually in the text.
You then go into UNIT actions, with the breakdown. The only mention of LEADERS, who are mentioned separately from UNITS, is that they can do their actions in any order as long as they are declared ahead of time. Note even within the heading of UNITS, "They just state which UNITS will move and which will fire".
"So---here in 3.13--it clearly, and unequivocally states that ALL UNITS, LEADERS or groups either activate to MOVE or to FIRE."
No, it actually doesn't do that.
Similar issues with the side issue. You keep assuming that that the adding of a moved/fire marker means the leader is no longer activated within that action segment. I showed you where the rules make a distinction between the beginning of an activation and the stage of activation post movement. The rules dont deal with this level of granularity any more than that. Even more important is we can sidestep this secondary issue as mentioned in my counter example where the unit and leader begin activation in the same hex.
"We saw above in 3.x that in order to impact units "direct them" a leader must activate---and, thus he activates "To Fire" or "To Move"."
We saw that the LEADER must activate, yes. This is not in question. The UNIT must activate "to fire" yes this is not in question. No, the LEADER activating "to fire" has not yet been established via rules text, only via interpretation of rules text. No, the act of directing UNITS to fire has not been established via rules text to be a "to fire" action, only via interpretation of rules text.
"I refer to the following---BEFORE any action takes place---all units/leaders involved must activate---
and they activate "Perform a Movement Action" or "Perform a Fire Action" (shorthand "To Move" or "To Fire")
That is ASSIGNED before any action is resolved....(we've been here before...)"
For UNITS this is established, not for LEADERS, which is not established. You see how we keep going round and round?
Everything else is just dependent on those two core questions, and no, I don't think posting the same rules over and over gets us closer. It simply doesn't explicitly say one way or the other how LEADERS act on this level. It does so for UNITS.
|
|
|
|
03-04-2023, 12:30 AM,
|
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
And to be clear to everyone. I think the "traditional" way of thinking on this is far more in the spirit of the rules. I am entertaining what I believe to be the "new" interpretation of the rules, without necessarily endorsing them. 
|
|
|
|
03-04-2023, 02:30 PM,
|
|
|
cjsiam
Corporal
|
Posts: 673
Threads: 77
Joined: Jun 2018
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
This has caused me to go deeper than I thought it would into why I think the way I do--and to find a weakness in your perspective. It's harder than I thought, given constraints,---but, I think I may have some new ideas on how this is resolved.
First though---we might review some of this process a bit....
We all have copies of the full rules---there is only one RAW 4th edition we all have. What we have discovered is that there is some imprecision, some wiggle-room, or some confusion in the reading/interpretation of the RAW.
Going through this I’ve thought about how divergent opinions develop:
a) Incorrect reading of the rules—
That is either not recognizing how the sentence is constructed, or the reader not appreciating the full context of what the words mean---that happens. I've seen it happen--couple of these are not yet resolved....
This I think can be "set right" with explanation and examples of what the correct reading means, and how/why it should be interpreted one way vs. another.
b) Imprecision in the language, sentence structure in RAW—
Resulting in multiple interpretations of what the rules say. The obvious one for all of us is "Units"...used is so many different ways and contexts in the rules....This is much harder to "set right" or even know what "right" means.
(The FINAL authority should probably be the Rules Author (Authors?? and there lies a rub...) and having some input from them to just resolve things would be ideal...but it dont' seem to
come so much---at least no within PG-HQ...maybe CSW PG forum gets more attention....
So dealing with this issue (which is where I think this particular debate is) can be addressed in a few ways:
1) Citing the specific rules which bolster an interpretation--examples from RAW, discuss how the particular siting applies and how it supports one interpretation or the other..
2) Showing how the variant interpretation would be in violation of other established, not questioned, portions of the RAW. If numerous logical inconsistencies can be shown resulting from the variant interpretation--impacting stable and agreed mechanics then the new interpretation might be declared invalid.
I would also like you to clarify the difference you seem to see in “reading the rules” and “interpreting the rules”. Extending what the rules might say---into what they don’t mean—that is to be avoided, certainly…but, clarifying what the implications are of what they DO say—that is valid and necessary (I think)
Also in terms of my responses---they may seem long winded, I apologize. I include rule references in context to where I'm talking about them--because I may talk about them multiple times, they may show up multiple times--I want the reader to focus on the issues--not scrolling to find things...
I wish I wrote better---but doing this, doing it clearly, takes care.
I like to avoid being obviously stupid in my "lives forever" writings.... 
So---cutting to the chase of the "arguments" (in legal sense of the term):
A) Must a leader declare an ACTION upon activation?
- No, the LEADER activating "to fire" has not yet been established via rules text, only via interpretation of rules text.
B) Can a leader who is Activated (possibly with an ACTION) contribute his CF or MF to support units—when? during or after actions?
b)No, the act of directing UNITS to fire has not been established via rules text to be a "to fire" action, only via interpretation of rules text.
C) When is a leader no longer Activated?
D) See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)". While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
----------------------
A) Must a leader declare an ACTION upon activation?
- No, the LEADER activating "to fire" has not yet been established via rules text, only via interpretation of rules text.
I think we can cut this back to maybe some definitions we may be overlooking or assuming.
Consider the following from RAW:
1.1 Summary of Concepts
Action Segments: In an action segment, a player can activate one unit, or a stack of units, or a leader and all units of his type (regular or tank) in his hex and all adjacent hexes,or a string of adjacent leaders in descending rank order (plus all units with or adjacent to those leaders). Activated units may either move or fire in their action segment.
So this says that units that are activated may MOVE or FIRE in their Action Segment.
à There are TWO (not three or N) options, MOVE or FIRE
à Things happen in an “Action Segment”
1.2 Definitions
Action Segment: The activation of a unit, leader, or stack of units, or a group of units and subordinate leaders under the direction of a single senior leader. Activated units may perform either fire or movement (morale recovery is a move action and assault is a fire action) (3.13).
Active Player and Units: The player conducting the current action segment is the Active Player, and any units he takes actions with in the current action segment are Active Units.
àAgain—there are only TWO States for Activated Units TO FIRE or TO MOVE
àHere Leaders are explicitly called out with units---(contention is that the subject includes leaders, thus remaining portion of paragraph infers that leaders are included in the reference to units)
àMorale recovery is a MOVE ACTION…Assault is a FIRE Action—THUS, if you do not have such an action assigned you may not undertake these actions.
àActive units “take actions”….Actions have been defined as TO MOVE TO FIRE. Thus—Units without Actions do not (can not) take actions.
What this means (I think) is that if a unit/Leader does not have an Action assigned, they do not participate in the ACTION Segment. Perhaps you can “activate” them---but not assign an ACTION….(I say perhaps because I see it nowhere else in the rules, and don’t see it excluded explicitly---so, guess we have to allow it)
But then, they cannot undertake any MOVE action or any FIRE action in the ACTION segment.
So a leader which is activated, but no Action assigned—can sit there….until the player
ends the Action Segment….in this case—because the leader did not “complete move or fire” they are not marked with a M/F marker….but, they still don’t get to perform actions later, or in following Action Segments.
I assume you have some reference to when M/F are placed onto these leaders—the only one I see is in 3.13—that last sentence. Or 14.4 when upon attempting assistance All the Action Segment is exhausted. Clearly at the end of an Action Segment they NEED to have M/F placed—but where is that called if not 3.13?
3.13 Unit Actions
The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
Here in 3.13 above the sentence subject in the 1[sup]st[/sup] paragraph “activated unit, leader or group” is allowed to perform actions—all of which are designated—they are only TO MOVE or TO FIRE.
The ALLOWED activities for TO MOVE and TO FIRE are called out---and this is without saying only to units. I think this must then refer also to leader (as in activated unit, leader or group)—otherwise – why does it even apply to units (not leaders) either—if units are not specifically called out? The sentences have two subjects “Movement” and “Fire”, and delineate what activities each such Action allows. It nowhere says “Units” or “Leaders” but we know it’s in context of Unit Actions—(and I content the initial phrase “activated unit, leader or group” is held as “units” through the section).
Units completing movement/firing are indicated to then have M/F placed upon them. Here is where your “New View” interpretation says this doesn’t apply to leaders. I think the context says that it does—but, for argument—say it does not. The leader finished his MOVE or FIRE—but no marker is applied…..he is “unmarked” until the end of the Action Segment in your “NV”.
Perhaps the interpretation is:
The first thing you do in any Action Segment is Activation.
This is where you can assign Actions (actions are ONLY "Move" or "Fire")
After Action Assignment you immediately perform the Action portion, this is where those units which have assigned Actions---can execute those actions.
Thus---if you have a leader you have not assigned an Action(M/F)--he may not participate
in the Action Segment---maybe that is the interpretation which cuts the Gordian knot... this would then infer that in the context of these paragraphs "units" means
both "combat/other units" and Leaders (who did things laid out in this paragraph--specifically activated with an Action).
ACTION segments support the exercise of ACTIONS---there are only two ACTIONS (movement and fire)---so if you are going to participate in an ACTION SEGMENT, you have to have an ACTION assigned
....thus Leaders, when activated must be assigned a To Move or To Fire Action, if they wish to participate in an Action Segment.
(over to you on A) this one)
B) Can a leader who is Activated (possibly with an ACTION) contribute his CF or MF to support units—when? during or after actions?
b)No, the act of directing UNITS to fire has not been established via rules text to be a "to fire" action, only via interpretation of rules text.
Above we established (I contend) that Units/Leaders who do NOT have an Action assigned cannot participate in the ACTION SEGMENT.
Direct Fire happens in the ACTION SEGMENT for units with a TO FIRE Action….numerous references….
6.42 Firepower Enhancement
An activated, undemoralized leader may add his combat modifier to the direct fire value of one unit in his own hex.
So if a Leader is Activated---it’s got to be TO FIRE or TO MOVE---being only valid way to participate in the ACTION segment.….
IF the Leader is activated to MOVE---it is not allowed to DF….thus “adding it’s factor” and then having that resulting value from a Leader which MOVED is Participating—then rolling and referencing the DF table is participating…..Leaders/Units with TO MOVE may not DF---
This is subject to (admittedly) the reading of the 3.13 to include leaders (from sentence 1, paragraph 1) when discussing what TO MOVE and TO FIRE mean in paragraph 2---where neither UNITS or LEADERS are referenced---meaning if units are inferred (as sent 1, para 1 says) then Leaders or Groups are as well.
IF, on the other hand the Leader is activated TO FIRE, they can do all the CF things, DF enhancement and Combined Fire---because they can EXPLICITLY participate in DF.
7.33 Combining Fire
… Units in adjacent hexes may combine fire only if activated by a leader who has a combat modifier. A leader can combine the fire of his hex plus a number of adjacent hexes equal to his combat modifier (6.41).
Combining Fire supports that the activation of the unit must be TO FIRE as well—the leader is “combining”, during his turn/action segment, the coordination of fire….an ACTIVE operation, not like supporting adjacent units with a MF during opponents turn (when not Active player)….
Later in rules
14.4 Recovery
... Units may recover with the assistance of an activated leader, or on their own. Units attempting recovery and leaders assisting them must be activated and may conduct no other action that turn. Place a Moved/Fired marker on any unit that attempts recovery (whether it is successful or not), and any leader who assists a recovery attempt.
A leader may not move in the same action segment in which he assists a recovery attempt, except to accompany a fleeing demoralized unit that fails to recover (6.53).
Recall:
1.2 Definitions
Action Segment: The activation of a unit, leader, or stack of units, or a group of units and subordinate leaders under the direction of a single senior leader. Activated units may perform either fire or movement (morale recovery is a move action and assault is a fire action) (3.13).
So clearly using MF to support recovery requires a leader to be marked with a “TO MOVE”…otherwise:
a)if they are not activated---they may not help 14.4
b)if they are activated – but with a TO FIRE – they are explicitly excluded
c)if they are activated – but in the proposed “no Action” state—they may not help as TO MOVE action is required---and if you have NO ACTION, you cannot participate in the Action Segment anyway…
d)if they are activated with a TO Move—they may assist, but do no other TO MOVE actions.
So this is clear. They have laid out what is required, what states the leader have to be in.
The application of an MF during an opponents Action Segment as result of a MC required is allowed regardless---again, that is called out explicitly---and it happens in the opponents turn, not during the Players activation.
C) When is a leader no longer Activated?
I think the only consistent interpretation is as soon as it completes it’s TO MOVE and TO FIRE Actions. Again, 3.13 “units” reference shows up in question. Based on context—I think it must apply to Leaders as well.
IF we don't place M/F markers on completion of a Fire activation on a leader (for example) --or at completion of his move---then how many times does he get to add his CF as either DF or use it to combine bombardments?--is there no limit? there is no
M/F placed when the actions TO FIRE (DF, BF) are done---so--2,3,4 times he can apply his factors? (....there lies madness.....)
Even in your example/Shad's example the Leader was activated to Move--- he did move---into the hex with the Inf (now I say he gets a moved/fired..but for this point i'll ignore that)...say he stays with his TO MOVE Action completed in the hex, with no M/F placed......the INF wants to fire---DF....but, the Leader cannot participate in DF--he's still marked with TO MOVE Action....it says DF required a TO FIRE action....
One of the things you seem to be inferring is AFTER the Leader performed his TO MOVE action---you contend that he does NOT get a M/F marker (only units do...) thus he remains activated---BUT---NOW his ACTION (TO MOVE) disappears? fades? evaporates--and he can now do TO FIRE kinds of things....(and reverse might be true...doing a TO FIRE action, not being marked, and then allowing TO MOVE actions?...) I don't think this holds up.
So the new interpretive wrinkle on this is:
If a Leader wishes to participate in an ACTION SEGMENT---he must have an ACTION.
ACTIONS are only TO MOVE or TO FIRE....
You may well activate your leader---but unless he has an ACTION assigned at his activation he has no ability to participate in the ACTION SEGMENT...
so no moving, no morale recovery, no Direct Fire, no combining Fire, nada....
I Guess you could have senior officers who activate Other units/officers and then don't do anything...no move/no fire....
we typically call those "TO MOVE" actions....but, perhaps we should have a "only activated" State--in which a leader (or unit??) may be activated--but can do nothing?
6.2 Leader Activation
A leader may only be activated if it is not currently marked with a Moved/Fired marker. A leader with a Moved/Fired marker may assist friendly units undergoing morale checks (14.1) or defending against an assault (12.4), but may not activate friendly units (3.1), assist recovering units (14.4), or initiate an assault (12.11).
Here the rules are explicit about dealing with Leaders who have M/F markers on them.
The only case you see that happening (I think, New View) is Morale recovery
because a) the completion of move/fire in 3.13 does not say leaders, and the "units" doesn't refer to them (necessarily) and b) the only case it is specific on placement of M/F other than that is in 14.4.....
So by your interpretation the only circumstances in which a leader would be marked with M/F would be after assisting recovery.??
Again---I don’t think that holds up in the Game either---lots of units, but leaders activated (even without TO MOVE/TO FIRE requirement) and just hanging??
7.46 Moved/Fired Markers
Once a unit has performed any type of fire, place a Moved/Fired marker on it to show that it may perform no further action this turn (exception: a "Free Shot" when all enemy units exit an assault hex, 12.12). …
This is another case where the RAW uses "unit" to place M/F....here I think it should be Unit or Leader involved. Again--not placing a M/F on a leader allows players to potentially use a DF enhancement or combine fire with a leader multiple times in one Action segment with the same leader.
Does that seem to hold up?
I don't think so--but--again---I could be wrong....
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is “A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)”. While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is stil” in some state ctivetion after the move, if they have a distinction between “beginning of his activation” and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation.
I’ve demonstrated my Thesis about 3.13 referring to leaders when it requires placement of M/F. 14.4 is explicit—but with circumstances constraining Move Actions—that’s why. I don’t agree with the idea that the leader is in “some state”---he activated to move, he moved—he should be marked with an M/F. He is done for the turn. Because he was Activated “TO MOVE” he cannot apply his CF to the DF attack…as he cannot participate in a DF combat with a TO MOVE Action.
So---your idea that M/F are not applied works only if you reject the 3.13 as including Leaders in selected parts of the section (para 1 definitely leaders included, para 2 neither units or leaders specified—but we all must assume it refers to them (my contention), para 3 only units mentioned but I assert in context of subject of para1—Leaders is inferred) does the “New View” hold up.
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving.
My Orthodox Thesis is that this is invalid….
a) if the Leader wanted to participate (add their DF) to the DF Combat—they would be required to ACTIVATE TO FIRE (as per 3.13).
b)if the Leader wanted TO MOVE, they need to so activate---meaning the could NOT participate in the Direct Fire (as per 3.13).
SO---are we at an impasse?
Can you provide some clarification about how using a CF (DF or combine hex) in a Direct Fire Combat is NOT doing Direct Fire? I think this is kinda of hard to justify as a valid perspective.
Can you provide rationale to counter my counter examples in previous entry (the extrapolated +2 moving 4 hexes before jumping into a DF enhanced Multi-hex combat is my favorite)…
Have we been playing this wrong?
|
|
|
|
03-04-2023, 03:23 PM,
|
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
I certainly don't have the energy to respond to all that at midnight, and maybe not in the morning either. Maybe someone else wants a go at it  . I'm not ignoring it, but this isnt even my fight to begin with and I still stand by my posts and the points of ambiguity and how it supports the alternate concept within the rules.
But to touch on one thing, because it IS core to the difference in theory. RAW vs RAI. As here...
The rules say UNITS must do x y z, (RAW), therefore LEADERS must also do x y z (RAI).
The rules say UNITS firing is a fire activation (RAW), therefore LEADERS using their combat modifier is a fire activation (RAI).
After moving a M/F marker is placed on a unit (RAW), therefore at this exact instant it ceases to be activated (RAI). (Note, nowhere did either Shad nor I say the moving leader never gets a M/F marker).
Your RAI are valid RAI, and most likely the most common ones (well except maybe that last one which I doubt any have considered before this conversation whether it was actually ceasing to be activated at the end of the action segment, the placement of the marker, or some other minute moment that was never relevant to any other interaction). However, the alternate theory RAI are also valid. Its all about the ambiguity over what is ACTUALLY there in the text RAW.
Seeing that both are valid within the ambiguity of the rules, one can't simply discard the other without some form of clarification. Even though we all know that the RAI treating leaders similarly to units is the most likely one.
|
|
|
|
03-04-2023, 07:58 PM,
|
|
|
cjsiam
Corporal
|
Posts: 673
Threads: 77
Joined: Jun 2018
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
I guess I would only disagree about your RAW/RAI assessments--and I think this is the nexus of the confusion.
It comes down to how does the reader read/understand/interpret the sentence/paragraph structure used and what it says
But I contend this is NOT interpreting--it is the way it is written correctly--that understanding it to mean what I say it means
is a valid (perhaps the only valid) way to know what it says....
Specifically it comes down to how do you interpret 3.13: (I added underlines, italics and emphasis)
3.13 Unit Actions
(Para 1)The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed.
Actions are either Movement or Fire.
Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units* will move and which will fire this action segment.
(Para 2)"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4).
"Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
(Para 3)Once units** are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units** marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
*units in this context is in the same paragraph where the subject "unit, leader or group" precedes it in the paragraph.
The verbs(actions) taken by the items (subject) are identified...There are two kinds of Actions...
The author used "units" to mean the "unit, leader or group" previously defined as subject of the sentence instead of writing it out each time.
This also holds up in that leaders are called out in the subject group so why would they be part of the subject group in the first sentence, but not be considered as part of the reference to the "units" (not A UNIT, but units--meaning the subject group (I contend)) later in the paragraph, and in the Section.
Clearly the author was aware of Leaders. They are mentioned in the "subject group" in the first part of the first sentence.
I find it hard to interpret the use of "units" later in the sentence to not mean to include them---and then to NOT discuss all these necessary mechanics WITHOUT
any reference to Leaders IF they were not included in the "units" as used. Groups would be chain activations, groups of units and leaders---and it is thus all consistent.
**units used here I contend again refers to the "unit, leader and group" subject which were activated and had actions assigned,
introduced in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this Rules Section---Again, given that Leaders are not mentioned--I contend that the Author intends that
"units" here refers to them collectively in the subject group.
Your assertion that RAW and RAI differ is based on how you read that section, that set of paragraphs.
I do not read it the same way---I contend that the writing clearly is interpreted as I assess...your assertion that it's different
does not sustain examination (is my contention)...Thus there really is no variation --- the RAW and RAI are aligned...
I would contend that saying leaders, even though called out specifically in the text as part of the subject group to NOT be
part of that same subject group later in the same paragraph, and in the remainder of the Rules section 3.13 is the variant
interpretation.
The reader has to mis-read the intention of the writing to make the case that leaders are treated differently.
Additionally, since there is no leader specific different treatment offered--the NEW VIEW interpretation creates, out of whole new cloth,
that leaders can do things, have a different mechanic, in the game--maintaining activation status, Marker placement, contributing factors
though action definition disallows it...
Thus, I contend that section 3.13--by specifically including leaders in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this section intends
to include leaders in the discussion of Unit actions offered.
This also strongly supports this conclusion:
Recall:
1.2 Definitions
Action Segment: The activation of a unit, leader, or stack of units, or a group of units and subordinate leaders under the direction of a single senior leader. Activated units may perform either fire or movement (morale recovery is a move action and assault is a fire action) (3.13).
|
|
|
|
03-04-2023, 11:55 PM,
|
|
|
|
RE: 6.42 Firepower Enhancement
"It comes down to how does the reader read/understand/interpret the sentence/paragraph structure used and what it says
But I contend this is NOT interpreting"
The reader interpreting the rules is not interpreting? That's a new one. Everything springs forth from this and why there is the disconnect. You keep reading more into the rules than are actually present, and your posting of the rules demonstrates this.
"units used here I contend again refers to the "unit, leader and group" subject which were activated and had actions assigned"
stuff like this. This is textbook examples of RAI instead of RAW.
"I do not read it the same way---I contend that the writing clearly is interpreted as I assess...your assertion that it's different
does not sustain examination (is my contention)...Thus there really is no variation --- the RAW and RAI are aligned..."
Like, clearly you are RAI'ing, while disregarding what is ACTUALLY in the rules text and what is not. Shad could say the same thing about his proposal and it would be equally applicable.
"the NEW VIEW interpretation creates, out of whole new cloth,
that leaders can do things, have a different mechanic, in the game--maintaining activation status, Marker placement, contributing factors
though action definition disallows it..."
Every one of your RAI is pulling something out of whole cloth. As its not actually in the text. They are just interpretations of the text. The text is silent about which minute moment the activation ends, but no one is saying they maintain activation status. Its entirely a conversation about WHEN the status is lost.
This post is closer to bridging the gap though, because it demonstrates what you are doing. And that is RAI. And RAI cannot overrule opposing RAI. RAW can, if you could point to a specific rule that says LEADERS must activate to move/to fire, and that a LEADER using its combat modifier is a to fire action. As you have posted essentially the entire applicable rule book now, and have not pointed out this line of text, nor have I found it, we are left to assume it does not exist. As there is no RAW to overule either RAI, both are valid until clarified by a rules arbiter.
|
|
|
|
