Forced unloading casualty query

[Shad]

Just think, if APL did have good service, this site would never exist.

That is completely accurate. I started this site out of frustration with the fact that AP's own site often fucked up the list of prerequisites for new modules. I suspect willfully but have no proof.

[Poor Yorek]

Just think, if APL did have good service, this site would never exist.

I don't think that's true. Maybe we wouldn't have a large "Rules" board, but the Site would still be here, I suspect - but then, I don't know Shad as you do. I was happy with it long before the Message Boards arrived and liked simply having a depository for my plays & AARs and an opportunity to see and read others.

Ooops, well, so much for That!!! Should have looked at Shad's reply first. ack! ::facepalm::

[J6A]

Just think, if APL did have good service, this site would never exist.

That is completely accurate. I started this site out of frustration with the fact that AP's own site often fucked up the list of prerequisites for new modules. I suspect willfully but have no proof.

There's a difference between willful conduct and incompetence. I love AP's products, and they are just a terribly run organization.

[Shad]

Just think, if APL did have good service, this site would never exist.

That is completely accurate. I started this site out of frustration with the fact that AP's own site often fucked up the list of prerequisites for new modules. I suspect willfully but have no proof.

There's a difference between willful conduct and incompetence. I love AP's products, and they are just a terribly run organization.

I can see nothing but willful conduct in the AP page for Secret Weapons, as a simple example (there are others).

If it wasn't for us, how would you ever know that this module requires THIRTEEN additional games in order to play every scenario?

T-H-I-R-T-E-E-N-!

[enrique]

Quaeritur: when unloading causes a stacking overload, can the owning player freely determine what unit(s) to lose or must/should the unit that "caused" the stacking overload be eliminated?

Suppose there is a GREN being transported by a good order tank in a hex with: (1) a reduced HMG and (2) a DIS or DEM gun.

Now suppose that, for whatever reason, the foot unit riding the tank is forced to unload in that hex (the other units still present) bringing about a conflict with the stacking limits.

Does the formerly transported GREN *have* to be eliminated or may the owning player choose to eliminate either the reduced HMG or the DIS/DEM gun?

Sorry for the post duplication (I also asked this in the "Tank Rider" thread) but thought this question more general - as it applies to any forcible unloading from a transport leading to a stacking overload - and thus worthy of a separate posting.

This issue was already well settled in the 1st edition rules (5.3): "Stacking restrictions apply during and at the end of each action segment. Units in excess of stacking limits at that time are eliminated (owning player's choice) ".

In some ways, IMHO, the writing of the first edition was better, simpler and clearer.
Examples:
- Activation: according to the 3rd edition strictly speaking it is not possible activate some units stacked in a hex, you must activate "all units stacked together". However the writing of the 1st edition was clearer and elegant: "An activation segment is the activation of a single unit or leader, a number of units stacked together in the same hex, or a number of units directed by a single leader" (3.1).
- Transporting weapons (unlimbering): in the 3rd ed. it is not clear if the player can move a weapon on a transport, unload and unlimber in the same action segment. In the 1st edition is crystal clear: "Note that a weapon unit can unload from a truck that has not moved and then unlimber" (4.72).
- River crossings: It is simpler and the cumbersome rule about the engineer's contagious disruption or demoralization does no exist.
- More rational movement of demoralized units: "During the course of the turn, all of a player's demoralized units must move or attempt recovery .. . if recovery is unsuccessful, they must immediately move if required " (12.42 and 12.43) .

[Poor Yorek]

This issue was already well settled in the 1st edition rules (5.3): "Stacking restrictions apply during and at the end of each action segment. Units in excess of stacking limits at that time are eliminated (owning player's choice) ".

In some ways, IMHO, the writing of the first edition was better, simpler and clearer.

Unfortunately, not everyone has 1st edition rules, but 'thank you' for that background which, as you suggest, is certainly more explicit (sort of surprised, actually, by the "owning player's choice"). I suppose based on D&D experience, it never occurred to dig up an earlier set of rules (i.e. 3rd Ed. D&D rules were completely different from 1st Ed.).