[Rules] 6.42 Firepower Enhancement

[Blackcloud6]

Dr. B has spoken on Consimworld:

 The question asked:

>May the leader now add their combat modifier to the unit's firepower when the unit subsequently fires in that activation?
 
His answer: No. a) what Fred said, and b) his fire action had to be designated at the beginning of the activation.

"What Fred said" was my original reply here and on the CSW thread.

[triangular_cube]

Good, we can now put the battling RAI's to rest and go back to playing how we pretty much all were playing to begin with. 

[Sonora]

Whew, way too many rules lawyers in battle, because the rules are so badly written and illustrated to begin with.

[cjsiam]

Hmm...actually I don't agree that that is what "interpretation" means--I would assert I am using RAW, and you are interpreting.

What we're talking about is understanding writing and sentence structure and how the Author used them to convey information.
You (I contend) are not reading it correctly---you are mis-reading the writing---thus coming up with a meaning skew from what was intended
by the author.  Whereas I contend the way I am reading it is consistent and clear and does not break the game.

BUT---AS ALWAYS--- I could be wrong

So bottom line---
Read one way (which I think is defendable as to how one reads the paragraphs and what it says) we run games via the orthodox method...
  I contend that 1.2 Definitions/Action Segment and 3.13 Unit Actions, read correctly, in context intended by author, is clear.

Read as the "New View" way---
1) Leaders do not need to activate "to move" or "to fire"---they can obtain an yet undefined "activated but not with action" status --they are not subject to
      para(1) in 3.13 or the Definition in 1.2
2) Leaders are not subject to the Action restrictions in para(2) as they are not the subject of the Action assigned assertion, and are not required to declare Action
3) Leaders when adding their CF to a units DF does not constitute them participating in a DF action, and they don't need to be activated with such
4) Leaders when using their CF to allow units to Combine Fire does not constitute them participating in a DF, and they don't need to be activated with such
5) Leaders do not have M/F markers placed on them after completion of any actions --they are not subject to para(3) in 3.13--The only placement of M/F markers
  on leaders happens if they try to help a unit recover morale. (whether they are required to be marked with a TO MOVE action to do so is still not clear...)
6) Leaders can thus move full, and then contribute these CF factors/help combine fire to any and multiple opportunities they come upon in their final hex
    --thus both Moving and contributing CF, and able to do so in multiple individual fires as there is no requirement to be marked M/F after completion of Fire.

I go to my 2nd method for asserting incorrect interpretation of the rules due to mis-reading, where such an interpretation violates multiple other mechanics,
standing inconsistent with the remainder of the Rules Corpus, and thus must be an incorrect reading of the rules.

I do agree that a Authoritive Arbiter--- one of the Rules Authors--ideally responsible for 4th Edition could rule.
At the same time we could settle a couple other heresies which have come up---and maybe get all the Panzer Grenadier
"One rule book to rule them all" back onto the same pages.....and be able to play together. 

Thanks much for the Effort you clearly put in trying to make your argument....I contend everyone's understanding of the game
will be improved for it--as we resolve it.

[cjsiam]

Ok....
Nevermind....
(just saw Blackcloud's note on Dr. B)

[triangular_cube]

Hmm...actually I don't agree that that is what "interpretation" means--I would assert I am using RAW, and you are interpreting.

What we're talking about is understanding writing and sentence structure and how the Author used them to convey information.
You (I contend) are not reading it correctly---you are mis-reading the writing---thus coming up with a meaning skew from what was intended
by the author.  Whereas I contend the way I am reading it is consistent and clear and does not break the game.

BUT---AS ALWAYS--- I could be wrong

So bottom line---
Read one way (which I think is defendable as to how one reads the paragraphs and what it says) we run games via the orthodox method...
  I contend that 1.2 Definitions/Action Segment and 3.13 Unit Actions, read correctly, in context intended by author, is clear.

Read as the "New View" way---
1) Leaders do not need to activate "to move" or "to fire"---they can obtain an yet undefined "activated but not with action" status --they are not subject to
      para(1) in 3.13 or the Definition in 1.2
2) Leaders are not subject to the Action restrictions in para(2) as they are not the subject of the Action assigned assertion, and are not required to declare Action
3) Leaders when adding their CF to a units DF does not constitute them participating in a DF action, and they don't need to be activated with such
4) Leaders when using their CF to allow units to Combine Fire does not constitute them participating in a DF, and they don't need to be activated with such
5) Leaders do not have M/F markers placed on them after completion of any actions --they are not subject to para(3) in 3.13--The only placement of M/F markers
  on leaders happens if they try to help a unit recover morale. (whether they are required to be marked with a TO MOVE action to do so is still not clear...)
6) Leaders can thus move full, and then contribute these CF factors/help combine fire to any and multiple opportunities they come upon in their final hex
    --thus both Moving and contributing CF, and able to do so in multiple individual fires as there is no requirement to be marked M/F after completion of Fire.

I go to my 2nd method for asserting incorrect interpretation of the rules due to mis-reading, where such an interpretation violates multiple other mechanics,
standing inconsistent with the remainder of the Rules Corpus, and thus must be an incorrect reading of the rules.

I do agree that a Authoritive Arbiter--- one of the Rules Authors--ideally responsible for 4th Edition could rule.
At the same time we could settle a couple other heresies which have come up---and maybe get all the Panzer Grenadier
"One rule book to rule them all" back onto the same pages.....and be able to play together. 

Thanks much for the Effort you clearly put in trying to make your argument....I contend everyone's understanding of the game
will be improved for it--as we resolve it.

I dont even know why I am bothering because we already have the clarification, but as has been stated, you are the only one attributing #'s 5 & 6 to Shad's position. I have mentioned this  and you still keep lumping that in, so there must be some disconnect. In fact, that point was never addressed by the clarification as it wasn't relevant to Shad's question once we boiled it down. We still don't know at what point a unit or leader  ceases to be activated. Its just that the interaction is no longer relevant, so if it happens at the end of the Action Segment or when the M/F marker is placed is still an unknown.

You are now roping in Rules as Intended as well, to Rules as Interpreted and Rules as Written, and since you don't seem to see the conflict, we are simply not speaking the same language. These words mean very different things to us.

[Miguelibal]

Hmm...actually I don't agree that that is what "interpretation" means--I would assert I am using RAW, and you are interpreting.

What we're talking about is understanding writing and sentence structure and how the Author used them to convey information.
You (I contend) are not reading it correctly---you are mis-reading the writing---thus coming up with a meaning skew from what was intended
by the author.  Whereas I contend the way I am reading it is consistent and clear and does not break the game.

BUT---AS ALWAYS--- I could be wrong

So bottom line---
Read one way (which I think is defendable as to how one reads the paragraphs and what it says) we run games via the orthodox method...
  I contend that 1.2 Definitions/Action Segment and 3.13 Unit Actions, read correctly, in context intended by author, is clear.

Read as the "New View" way---
1) Leaders do not need to activate "to move" or "to fire"---they can obtain an yet undefined "activated but not with action" status --they are not subject to
      para(1) in 3.13 or the Definition in 1.2
2) Leaders are not subject to the Action restrictions in para(2) as they are not the subject of the Action assigned assertion, and are not required to declare Action
3) Leaders when adding their CF to a units DF does not constitute them participating in a DF action, and they don't need to be activated with such
4) Leaders when using their CF to allow units to Combine Fire does not constitute them participating in a DF, and they don't need to be activated with such
5) Leaders do not have M/F markers placed on them after completion of any actions --they are not subject to para(3) in 3.13--The only placement of M/F markers
  on leaders happens if they try to help a unit recover morale. (whether they are required to be marked with a TO MOVE action to do so is still not clear...)
6) Leaders can thus move full, and then contribute these CF factors/help combine fire to any and multiple opportunities they come upon in their final hex
    --thus both Moving and contributing CF, and able to do so in multiple individual fires as there is no requirement to be marked M/F after completion of Fire.

I go to my 2nd method for asserting incorrect interpretation of the rules due to mis-reading, where such an interpretation violates multiple other mechanics,
standing inconsistent with the remainder of the Rules Corpus, and thus must be an incorrect reading of the rules.

I do agree that a Authoritive Arbiter--- one of the Rules Authors--ideally responsible for 4th Edition could rule.
At the same time we could settle a couple other heresies which have come up---and maybe get all the Panzer Grenadier
"One rule book to rule them all" back onto the same pages.....and be able to play together. 

Thanks much for the Effort you clearly put in trying to make your argument....I contend everyone's understanding of the game
will be improved for it--as we resolve it.

I dont even know why I am bothering because we already have the clarification, but as has been stated, you are the only one attributing #'s 5 & 6 to Shad's position. I have mentioned this  and you still keep lumping that in, so there must be some disconnect. In fact, that point was never addressed by the clarification as it wasn't relevant to Shad's question once we boiled it down. We still don't know at what point a unit or leader  ceases to be activated. Its just that the interaction is no longer relevant, so if it happens at the end of the Action Segment or when the M/F marker is placed is still an unknown.

You are now roping in Rules as Intended as well, to Rules as Interpreted and Rules as Written, and since you don't seem to see the conflict, we are simply not speaking the same language. These words mean very different things to us.

Holy Cow! Isn't it time to give it a rest, boys?!

[Blackcloud6]

Holy Cow! Isn't it time to give it a rest, boys?!

No cow too dead to beat.

[Michael Murphy]

Holy Cow! Isn't it time to give it a rest, boys?!

No cow too dead to beat.

​​​​​​Beat that dead cow into a bloody pulp.

[plloyd1010]

​​​​​​Beat that dead cow into a bloody pulp.

I believe the word is "hamburger".