Admiral states
'As the rule is written the only way to read the rule which doesn't assume text which is absent leads to the ruling which Phil has made.'
This was my response. I had a bit of a revaluation, that will hopefully blow this wide open.
I really can't see how knowing what we know.
I could see this point of view if you simply plopped your aircraft down on the table. But you don't.
How do you 'know' where to place your aircraft? How do you 'know' which way to place your trailing aircraft?
...a direction of travel...The very thing everyone says isn't in the rule. Therefore "Far Side Of" implies a direction of travel for the simple fact I don't just plop my airplane on the table.
As I mentioned in my blog you might as well just let people put airplanes any where. Then I could see phils ruling making sense.
Now 'knowing' that, no where in that rule, in that entire rule book does it mention that the woods has to be between aircraft and the target...it simply says 'within 4"...get cover' end of story.
NOW THINK OF IT THIS WAY!
What if a unit is partial in the woods, and the aircraft comes from the front...well this situation the woods still isn't between the unit and the plane...so no cover. Even though the unit is 'IN' the woods.
According to the way you guys interpret the ruling and pull 'between' out of thin air, this is no cover either.
Why on earth would you not get cover from aircraft, but you would from other vehicles this way?
Its not consistent your way.
I could see this point of view if you simply plopped your aircraft down on the table. But you don't.
How do you 'know' where to place your aircraft? How do you 'know' which way to place your trailing aircraft?
...a direction of travel...The very thing everyone says isn't in the rule. Therefore "Far Side Of" implies a direction of travel for the simple fact I don't just plop my airplane on the table.
As I mentioned in my blog you might as well just let people put airplanes any where. Then I could see phils ruling making sense.
Now 'knowing' that, no where in that rule, in that entire rule book does it mention that the woods has to be between aircraft and the target...it simply says 'within 4"...get cover' end of story.
NOW THINK OF IT THIS WAY!
What if a unit is partial in the woods, and the aircraft comes from the front...well this situation the woods still isn't between the unit and the plane...so no cover. Even though the unit is 'IN' the woods.
According to the way you guys interpret the ruling and pull 'between' out of thin air, this is no cover either.
Why on earth would you not get cover from aircraft, but you would from other vehicles this way?
Its not consistent your way.
 |
| This is no cover either Camp A...can't have it both ways. |
Their way, if you are on the edge of a woods, you don't get cover from aircraft, even though you would from any other weapon in the game.
They will either argue this point...and now they are assuming.
Or...
They will agree making the rule inconsistent their way.
Its a win/win for Camp B...but was there really any doubt?
You are on a roll!!
ReplyDeleteNow I will have to really think about my answer to this rational question. But as I stated before, rational doesn't always equate to the actual rules in FoW.
I like the thought exercise!
lol, ya its fun isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI am definitely going to start a Rules Nazi Korner, to discuss rules.
Maybe we can get some more discussions like this going.
I am all for that!!
ReplyDelete