[Rules] Bombardment Chart - Example

[cjsiam]

Notorious!

sigh.....

The example in 7.52 clearly says you don't take both columns, but the worst result and apply it...
So.....The X, and then M2....
It's clearly stated.....read the example first if you care to continue....

'nuff said.
NOTORIOUS!
(for being correct I guess....yea, appropriate )

[triangular_cube]

Notorious!

sigh.....

The example in 7.52 clearly says you don't take both columns, but the worst result and apply it...
So.....The X, and then M2....
It's clearly stated.....read the example first if you care to continue....

'nuff said.
NOTORIOUS!
(for being correct I guess....yea, appropriate )

Yeah, I mean there could have been an example of play showing it working with an X/X result, but then we are writing a 100 page document illustrating every possibility. The example of play illustrates the non cumulative nature, its very odd that so many insist on it being as such...

But not only that, the way they propose to play is cumulative for X results only, not for MX results. There isnt even a consistency in that approach.

The divide from shared and solo isn't as suprising as is being made out to be. The majority of shared players learned from the same chain of players, so that interpretation was passed along. The majority of solo players here were playing long before that that, and never were introduced to that interpretation, as we were playing/interacting/discussing with and alongside the developers of the game series when it had full support from APL...

Certain clarifying examples were added in 4th, to the things that we as a community found ambiguos. This wasn't one of the points of abiguity back then so more wasn't added in. It was generally understood how to apply a split modifier to a CRT....

Look, I've repeated myself about 8 million times and im bowing out rather than going to 9 million. As always Y'all can do what you want, but this whole X's hit every unit in the hex with a step loss/and or split column modifiers are cumulative but only when looking at X and not MX interpretations are just flat wrong. 


Enough grumbling from me.

[Tambu]

Notorious!

sigh.....

The example in 7.52 clearly says you don't take both columns, but the worst result and apply it...
So.....The X, and then M2....
It's clearly stated.....read the example first if you care to continue....

'nuff said.
NOTORIOUS!
(for being correct I guess....yea, appropriate )

That example does not show what happens when there are X results in both columns on a single attack that affects 2 different category units (INF and AT gun). Have sent the question on to Dr. Mike. Will advise response if I hear back.

[Tankodactyl]

Notorious!

sigh.....

The example in 7.52 clearly says you don't take both columns, but the worst result and apply it...
So.....The X, and then M2....
It's clearly stated.....read the example first if you care to continue....

'nuff said.
NOTORIOUS!
(for being correct I guess....yea, appropriate )

That example does not show what happens when there are X results in both columns on a single attack that affects 2 different category units (INF and AT gun). Have sent the question on to Dr. Mike. Will advise response if I hear back.

I think that Tambu, T-Rex and I have all sent notes about this matter to Dr. Mike at APL. No response to my query, so far. Anyone else heard back from him?

[cjsiam]

Hmmm....
X says the single attack caused 1 step loss.....that's the worst result....
so you apply the X to the higher column category, and everyone remaining gets to M2.
This might result in a X on Arty, a loss of a Transport....
But X (one X in the single attack) is what is assessed.

Check who is impacted by an X on the Bombardment chart

hmmm.....

[ACav]

Hmmm....
X says the single attack caused 1 step loss.....that's the worst result....
so you apply the X to the higher column category, and everyone remaining gets to M2.
This might result in a X on Arty, a loss of a Transport....
But X (one X in the single attack) is what is assessed.

Check who is impacted by an X on the Bombardment chart

hmmm.....

Forgive my confusion, but this does not make sense to me.

Both units would lose a step in the interpretation as presented here - but following your logical progression - are you saying that the owning player might decide that the INF takes the 1 step loss and the AT gun only gets an M2 check? That would mean that the lower 21 column (for the INF) and not the higher 30 column (for the AT gun & transport) actually achieves the step loss? This, even though the 12 die roll on the bombardment chart indicates an X result in both columns?

[cjsiam]

Where do you see "Both units would lose a step" in what I typed?
Read it again....

Turns out (from what I read thread herein) that the proscription to take the X on the AT gun (higher column) was lost from previous editions....
I agree that the most severe loss should be taken on the element which had the higher vulnerability....thus the AT...

BUT apparently that is a "House Rule" now in the current edition, and not RAW---But I agree it should be a rule.

Again--- One attack on two columns gets an X-X (21-30) results in ONE step loss in the hex....Again, I'd agree the most
vulnerable unit (30 column) would take the loss, and everyone else M2s....(ignoring transports details...) 
Better?

[triangular_cube]

Where do you see "Both units would lose a step" in what I typed?
Read it again....

Turns out (from what I read thread herein) that the proscription to take the X on the AT gun (higher column) was lost from previous editions....
I agree that the most severe loss should be taken on the element which had the higher vulnerability....thus the AT...

BUT apparently that is a "House Rule" now in the current edition, and not RAW---But I agree it should be a rule.

Again--- One attack on two columns gets an X-X (21-30) results in ONE step loss in the hex....Again, I'd agree the most
vulnerable unit (30 column) would take the loss, and everyone else M2s....(ignoring transports details...) 
Better?

I'm not jumping in with the same things hammered over and over again as I said....

But to this point, there never was a rule about the "more vulnerable" unit taking the X, unless it was the only unit that saw the X, then it was the only applicable unit to suffer the hex's X. In the case of X/X it's player's choice unlike, the example of M1/X where only the weapon see's the X.

What WAS in 2nd edition, was weapon units were grouped in with transports (read the charts), so it was either the weapon, or the transport taking that "extra" loss. 3rd edition simplified the rules under the "combat unit" banner and personnel and weapons became one unit type for "X" among other things. 

That's why I originally questioned if someone was looking at the 2nd edition chart to force the weapon and INF to take a step loss as it would be essentially the only rules supported way for that to happen.... but well... rabbit hole later and we still don't understand why they are trying to double casualties but...

[cjsiam]

thank you TC...that's useful...

[Reconquista]

Where do you see "Both units would lose a step" in what I typed?
Read it again....

Turns out (from what I read thread herein) that the proscription to take the X on the AT gun (higher column) was lost from previous editions....
I agree that the most severe loss should be taken on the element which had the higher vulnerability....thus the AT...

BUT apparently that is a "House Rule" now in the current edition, and not RAW---But I agree it should be a rule.

Again--- One attack on two columns gets an X-X (21-30) results in ONE step loss in the hex....Again, I'd agree the most
vulnerable unit (30 column) would take the loss, and everyone else M2s....(ignoring transports details...) 
Better?

Pardon me, but is it really necessary for rules lawyers to rub other player's noses in your condescending rightness?

"It ain't what you say, it's how you say it, Buck." - Jim Bowie