[Rules] Transported units and stacking

[Poor Yorek]

when units are loaded on transports they are transports units for all purposes.

This quotes Rule ? This statement is simply more assertion with no engagement of the issue or citation of authority.

You posted the rule and it appears clear to me - WB, myself, CS, and your first reply ("PY1") are in agreement on this.

Shad, well, firstly, as I gather, Alan agrees with PY2, not PY1.

Firstly, let me reiterate Rule 5.6: A single good-order transport unit may transport one weapon or personnel unit (except cavalry), PLUS up to three leaders. Once loaded, the transport unit and everything it carries count as one unit for stacking, movement and combat purposes. emphases mine.

My concern arises from the meaning of "unit." Unit has a defined, specific meaning in PG and, thus, the generic synonym of unit = composite or single entity become potentially ambiguous. Further, the rule seems to imply a change in status "once loaded ..." and groups together stacking, movement, and combat.

So PY1 took the position that a loaded transport ceases to stack like a transport and becomes a "unit" in the formal sense and subject to the no more than three combat "units" in a hex restriction, Rule 4.1. Put succinctly, PY1 argued that the language of 5.6 converts a loaded transport into a countable combat unit for the sake of stacking.

PY2 is Alan's (CS's) position, namely that a loaded transport "remains" a transport for stacking purposes (and one I have no problem with other than whether there is a definitive source of clarification - another Rule or APL clarification - outside of Alan's assertion to the fact): that the language of 5.6 was not intended to change a loaded transport's stacking status and, hence, loaded transports "count as transports" vis-a-vis Rule 4.1

Examples:

PY2 would allow in a hex:
3xINF + 3xM3(loaded)

PY1 would not.

PY1 and PY2 both would allow:
2xINF + 1xM3(loaded) + 3M3(unloaded) or

as the PY1 interpretation is that the loaded M3 now counts as a "unit" for stacking.

Again, please understand gentle readers, I am not asserting that PY1 is "right" and PY2 or Alan is "wrong" or even that PY1 is "better" than PY2. I'm simply saying that assertions based on "because I said so ..." are next to meaningless. One either makes a case for one interpretation being better than another based on other rules or definitions and consistency (by citation) or appeals to a definitive reply from APL. What I wanted to raise here was the fact that I believe there is an ambiguity in how 5.6 was written and, thus, hoped that someone might have had previous recourse to APL.

I would wish that APL, in writing its Rules, would use certain vocabulary that it has reserved for a technical, game sense only for that purpose and find alternative language for expressing more generic issues or concepts that are related (a similar issue has arisen with whether leaders are "units" if I'm not mistaken, although I can't specifically cite where/when or recall the specific context).

Hope this clarifies.

PY