[Rules] Bombardment Chart - Example

[PANISTA]

Thanks for the explanation and examples.

However, I still contend that an X result in any column equals a step loss AND a M2 morale check on those units remaining in the targeted hex. I think that most people know that an artillery or mortar shell concentration landing on, or in the immediate vicinity of combat units willl surely to exact a toll of some kind on all those present in a 200-meter area.

Realisticaly, there is indeed a penalty for an INF unit that is dug-in with an attractive bombardment target like a dug-in ATG platoon. Both targets are static, and fixed n-place, therefore subject to more accurate bombardment if spotted - even more so if the artillery or mortar units firing can also observe the target.

I know that this is a reality-based example, and that this is a only a game simulation . . .

As others have mentioned, whimsy enters into this picture because the muddled rule set allows it, as is proven be the variety of opinions as to how this CRT result should be handled. I say, decide how to play this kind of situation in advance with your opponent in shared play. Use the goosebrown method of a simple odd, or even, die roll to decide which way to go when there is a question of how to proceed, and be consistent in your play-through. You can mention this is the AAR, if you chose, and maybe have a better understanding of how to "game" the situation when it next arises. After all, this is JUST a game, and subject to the biases and whims of the players involved.

Good grief, have some fun with each other in shared play, and quit worrying about the number of angels that can stand on the head a pin.

[OldPueblo]

Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X. 

It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from.

Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.

In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.

That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?

Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.

Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more. 

When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.

How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
 7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.

I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)

That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.

If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.

But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative. 

When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...

Sorry, I don't understand how this adds up to Two separate attacks. It's one target hex, in one action segment, and two units with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of the combat result.

[triangular_cube]

Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.

In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.

That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?

Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.

Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more. 

When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.

How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
 7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.

I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)

That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.

If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.

But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative. 

When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...

Sorry, I don't understand how this amount to Two attacks. It's one target hex, in one action segment, with two units with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of the combat result.

Two separate, cumulative results = two attacks

[ACav]

Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.

Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more. 

When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.

How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
 7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.

I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)

That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.

If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.

But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative. 

When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...

Sorry, I don't understand how this amount to Two attacks. It's one target hex, in one action segment, with two units with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of the combat result.

Two separate, cumulative results = two attacks

Hmm, this is too complicated and there are too many conflicting opinions about ONE bombardment action that stimulated two affects on two SEPARATE units in the same instant.

Maybe it's time to consider the great American pastime?

A single home run hit can score up to 4 runs if the bases are loaded when that lucky batter hits that baseball. That is not considered 4 separate attacks, just like this discussion is not about 2 separate attacks. The guy hitting that homer, represents just ONE action that affects what is going on ALL 4 bases of that diamond, in that moment. Both units get the results of the hit, it just affected them differently, e.g., like running from 1st base to home plate is different for the runner on 3rd base running home.

[Grognard Gunny]

This is beginning to look like a situation where one just flips a coin and continues to play.

GG

[treadasaurusrex]

This is beginning to look like a situation where one just flips a coin and continues to play.

GG

Amen!

[garbare83686]

Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.

Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more. 

When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.

How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
 7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.

I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)

That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.

If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.

But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative. 

When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...

Sorry, I don't understand how this amount to Two attacks. It's one target hex, in one action segment, with two units with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of the combat result.

Two separate, cumulative results = two attacks

It is one attack with different results based on the type of targets in the hex. It just happens to be a disaster for the receiving end. In other cases a very strong attack does nothing, so it evens out over the course of a battle. You can always disregard the rule when playing, but it was clearly written to address this specific example and is clear about how to handle them. The rule clearly says "one attack" and to apply results on two different applicable columns. I was simply answering the initial question which seemed to ask how to apply the rules, you can house rule anything you want to.

[triangular_cube]

How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
 7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.

I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)

That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.

If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.

But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative. 

When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...

Sorry, I don't understand how this amount to Two attacks. It's one target hex, in one action segment, with two units with the misfortune of being on the receiving end of the combat result.

Two separate, cumulative results = two attacks

It is one attack with different results based on the type of targets in the hex. It just happens to be a disaster for the receiving end. In other cases a very strong attack does nothing, so it evens out over the course of a battle. You can always disregard the rule when playing, but it was clearly written to address this specific example and is clear about how to handle them. The rule clearly says "one attack" and to apply results on two different applicable columns. I was simply answering the initial question which seemed to ask how to apply the rules, you can house rule anything you want to.

The example in the text refutes your methodology. No house rules here.

[Miguelibal]

It's odd that those who play most often in shared play favor the ". . . ONE successful attack with two X results = two step losses PLUS the loss of that transport unit with the ATG unit." While, the majority of the solitaire players who have commented, so far, favor TC's interpretation.

I support the first interpretation and applaud ACav's baseball analogy. Can't wrap my head around TC's lawyerly TWO attacks, one column result interpretion.

It looks like, PG's muddy rule writing -- with insufficient examples for clarity's sake -- and the frequent game mechanic seams, are most visible and concerning in shared play. This unfortunate situation leads to the wide adoption of DIY house rules to make game play easier and more fun, e.g., 1/2 a movement point for all units on a road, instead of the weirdo 2/3 of a movement point per road hex for mechanized and foot units!

Solo players are free to interpret the rules as they choose. Dr. Mike appears to favor game design for solo players, who likely make up the vast majority of his customers. This factor pretty much forces ambiguous rule interpretation as the norm in shared play.

[Tambu]

This whole discussion points to the fact that the inconsistent, often unealistic, and flawed nature of the 4th edition PG rules shows up most glaringly in SHARED and not so much in SOLITAIRE play.

It's beyond time for the release of a new edition of the PG rules, that includes significant changes based on the suggestions and the many "workarounds" that are currently used in SHARED play, here on PG-HQ.

For example, Peter's set of DIY rules are at least CONSISTENT and much better organized! 

As the notorious, cjsiam would say: "If you can't be a good example, be a glaring warning." Time for the APL rule writers to set an example of the former, they've got the latter, licked.