OBA

[JayTownsend]

Hey, I thought it was a whole decade!

[campsawyer]

How come, no one ever believes me?

It's not that we don't believe you, its the rules that we don't believe.

BTW, you can run your tanks around at 1MP, you just need to cut their movement allowance in half

[Shad]

*chuckles*

[vince hughes]

How come, no one ever believes me?

Hey Jay,

Just been on holiday travelling through Belgium and Germany down to Bavaria. Had I been here, I would have had your back immediately

As an aside, during the journey there and back it was great travelling past so many scenario locations .... Wiltz, Losheim, Malmedy, Butgenbach and more will come to mind later when I drag out the scenario books.

[Poor Yorek]

I submit that the real "winner" here is the Site. The rules as written were ambiguous (by which I mean they could be read coherently to imply something other than they did), but discussion here lead to consultation with a former APL designer to obtain an effectively official clarification which the Site can incorporate and disseminate. The "loser," - if you will - is APL: who once again show that their lack of standing behind their product requires such means.

For Ruleset 4.0 ::cough, cough::, I would prefer 9.2 and 9.3 to read (changes/additions/deletions in italics) which I offer for comment (note that I have tried to tighten up the language by repeated use of "factor" and Action Segment):

9.2 Offboard Artillery

Offboard Artillery (OBA) is denoted by "factors" (e.g. 2x16) that represent bombardment fire units off the playing map with the indicated fire value. Unless scenario instructions say otherwise, each offboard artillery factor available in a scenario may fire once per turn at any hex on the board containing units spotted by a non-demoralized friendly regular leader (it has unlimited range). Up to three factors may be activated in a given Action Segment: these activated factors may be targeted individually or combined (9.3) as the owning player determines.

9.3 Combined Fire

Bombardment fire units stacked in the same hex may combine their fire values without assistance from a leader. Bombardment fire units in adjacent hexes may combine their fire values only if a good-order leader with a combat modifier is in one of those hexes (6.41, 7.33).

In the case of OBA bombardment, up to three factors may combine into one fire value, but may not combine with on-map units.

Example: The scenario instructions give the American player offboard artillery factors of "4 x 20." In a single Action Segment, three of these factors may be combined into one 60-value bombardment, one of 40 and one of 20, or three separate bombardments of 20. They may not be combined with any onboard units. The remaining 1x20 factor may be fired in a subsequent Action Segment (or been fired previously).

[campsawyer]

I submit that the real "winner" here is the Site. The rules as written were ambiguous (by which I mean they could be read coherently to imply something other than they did), but discussion here lead to consultation with a former APL designer to obtain an effectively official clarification which the Site can incorporate and disseminate. The "loser," - if you will - is APL: who once again show that their lack of standing behind their product requires such means.

For Ruleset 4.0 ::cough, cough::, I would prefer 9.2 and 9.3 to read (changes/additions/deletions in italics) which I offer for comment (note that I have tried to tighten up the language by repeated use of "factor" and Action Segment):

9.2 Offboard Artillery

Offboard Artillery (OBA) is denoted by "factors" (e.g. 2x16) that represent bombardment fire units off the playing map with the indicated fire value. Unless scenario instructions say otherwise, each offboard artillery factor available in a scenario may fire once per turn at any hex on the board containing units spotted by a non-demoralized friendly leader (it has unlimited range). Up to three factors may be activated in a given Action Segment: these activated factors may be targeted individually or combined (9.3) as the owning player determines.

9.3 Combined Fire

Bombardment fire units stacked in the same hex may combine their fire values without assistance from a leader. Bombardment fire units in adjacent hexes may combine their fire values only if a good-order leader with a combat modifier is in one of those hexes (6.41, 7.33).

In the case of OBA bombardment, up to three factors may combine into one fire value, but may not combine with on-map units.

Example: The scenario instructions give the American player offboard artillery factors of "4 x 20." In a single Action Segment, three of these factors may be combined into one 60-value bombardment, one of 40 and one of 20, or three separate bombardments of 20. They may not be combined with any onboard units. The remaining 1x20 factor may be fired in a subsequent Action Segment (or been fired previously).

Sounds like a volunteer to write the 4.0 has stepped in it, I mean forward. Your name can be forwarded for consideration.

[Poor Yorek]

Sounds like a volunteer to write the 4.0 has stepped in it, I mean forward. Your name can be forwarded for consideration.

Stultum est queri de adversis, ubi culpa est tua . => Guess I asked for it.

Actually, that would be a project I'd find interesting as I enjoy writing and precision. I doubt Mike Benninghof is likely to be well-inclined to consider my candidacy for the position, however.

[campsawyer]

Sounds like a volunteer to write the 4.0 has stepped in it, I mean forward. Your name can be forwarded for consideration.

Stultum est queri de adversis, ubi culpa est tua . => Guess I asked for it.

Actually, that would be a project I'd find interesting as I enjoy writing and precision. I doubt Mike Benninghof is likely to be well-inclined to consider my candidacy for the position, however.

With regard to the 4.0 rules, there was talk of it and all candidates are welcome, but although it will mollify all of use PG fans it does not bring in hard money. Best we have for now is the annotated rules in the website.

If you can make a business plan for it to make money, and not cost money, for APL, I am certain they are all ears.

[Poor Yorek]

With regard to the 4.0 rules, there was talk of it and all candidates are welcome, but although it will mollify all of use PG fans it does not bring in hard money. Best we have for now is the annotated rules in the website.

If you can make a business plan for it to make money, and not cost money, for APL, I am certain they are all ears.

I don't know much about business plans. In all seriousness, I might be interested were authorial attribution granted by APL in lieu of pay (subject of course to their editorial control), but this sort of thing needs to be written by one person or the text loses authorial "voice." Textbooks by committee always #$&! . So whilst clarifications and feedback are certainly required, in my opinion the actual construction of the content and expression should be by one author (whoever that is).

[campsawyer]

With regard to the 4.0 rules, there was talk of it and all candidates are welcome, but although it will mollify all of use PG fans it does not bring in hard money. Best we have for now is the annotated rules in the website.

If you can make a business plan for it to make money, and not cost money, for APL, I am certain they are all ears.

I don't know much about business plans. In all seriousness, I might be interested were authorial attribution granted by APL in lieu of pay (subject of course to their editorial control), but this sort of thing needs to be written by one person or the text loses authorial "voice." Textbooks by committee always #$&! . So whilst clarifications and feedback are certainly required, in my opinion the actual construction of the content and expression should be by one author (whoever that is).

More to the point, unless the rules can generate income for APL, they don't want to even listen.