Skip to content
The Bishop Says

The Bishop Says

ASL rules, tips, and tactics

  • Privacy Policy
  • Request
  • Resources
  • F.A.Q.
  • Contact
  • Acknowledgements
  • About
  • Toggle search form

Sniper: Alternate Target Selection

Posted on February 2, 2024February 3, 2024 By Jim Bishop 5 Comments on Sniper: Alternate Target Selection

A recent discussion took place in the Advanced Squad Leader Group on Facebook. A user asked an interesting question which proves to be difficult to answer with clarity. What follows is my answer to this question and how I think the answer has muddied over time. 

The Problem

Refer to the image on the left. The Germans have just activated their SAN by rolling a dr of 1. Random Location DR brings the Sniper to N4. Since there is no eligible unit/Sniper Counter (A14.22) in N4, the Alternate Target Selection Rules (A14.21) are triggered. The unit in N6 has ZERO in-hex TEM while the unit in N2 also has zero in-hex TEM. Per A14.21, the Sniper player may choose which of those equidistant hexes to attack. 

The astute amongst you can probably already see what’s about to happen. Notice the last sentence of A14.21 uses the word “hex” rather than “Location”. This predilection to use “hex” and “Location” interchangeably will plague us throughout this article. 

Imagine now that N2 level 1 also has a 6-6-6 in the Location. Everything else is equal. Who gets attacked by the Sniper now? Again, the Sniper player may choose between the lowest in hex TEM and the ZERO TEM still applies to the unit on the roof. If the Sniper player attacks N2, can the Sniper affect the imaginary unit in +3 TEM? Sadly, this isn’t so clear. 

Let’s look at some different cases to clarify what happens when a Sniper attacks.

Case One

This is by far the easiest case. The Sniper lands directly on a target hex. In this situation, the Sniper player may freely choose to attack either the unit in the Rooftop Location OR the unit in the building Location. Rule A14.2 clearly defines this. If your 10-3 is trying to hide from a Sniper, having a unit in the same hex with a lower in-hex TEM will not help.

Case Two

Situation 2 is also fairly easy. Here, the Sniper has not landed directly on N2 so Alternate Target Selection kicks in. Since there is a clear “closest” hex with eligible targets, TEM is irrelevant to selection. Place the Sniper counter in N2. Then, per A14.2, the Sniper player is free to choose which eligible Location in that hex is attacked by the Sniper just like in Case One. 

So far everything is pretty straightforward. All of that is about to change. 

Case Three

This brings us back to the situation I first mentioned above. What happens now? By far, the easiest solution is the Sniper player attacks the unit in N6. This is easy and clean. But our opponents rarely seek to do us any favors. He really needs to break the unit in the Ground Level of N2. But can he? 

It pays to excerpt A14.21 here: … Should ≥ two such hexes be equidistant, the Location with the lowest TEM is the target. Only the lowest (to a minimum of zero) in-hex TEM/SMOKE DRM applicable to any eligible target currently occupying that hex, regardless of LOS, is considered in the comparison … If the target hex is still undetermined, the Sniper player chooses which of those equidistant hexes to attack. I have simplified this some so I encourage you to take a moment to read the rule. 

Here is where confusion arrives. We meet the first requirement. We have two equidistant Locations, each with the same TEM. The first sentence suggests we pick whichever one we want and move on. But from that point on, all hell breaks loose. The next sentence says only the lowest TEM applicable to any eligible target applies to the consideration. Here, “consideration” is regarding selecting the target hex. The last sentence reinforces this is about a tie between hexes based on TEM. If the Sniper player chooses a hex with multiple units, this seems a repeat of Case Two now.

This is NOT the case and we need some Q&A to clear this up. 

The Q&A

The first Q&A is a restatement of Case Two. That firms up our understanding of Case Two. The second Q&A gets us past Case Three. This second Q&A affirms the first sentence of A14.21 carries the day. The units with the lowest TEM are the only potential targets under consideration when choosing between multiple Locations. You can’t push your Sniper to one of those Locations and then select which unit to attack per Case Two. You must attack the unit with the lowest TEM no matter which hex you attack.

History

I am lucky enough to have a pristine rulebook from 1987. The rulebook has no errata or replacement pages in it. I also have a fully patched v1 rule book. It is helpful here. Replacement pages updated A14.x in 1992. The v2 rulebook updated it again to its current form. I believe the v2 rule book incorporated the first Q&A. The second Q&A is from 2005. This Gamesquad thread contains the original Q&A posted in 2005. It is interesting that back then I believed this was a Case Two until someone pointed out “Location” to me. On the FB post, I said I think this is a Case Two situation but for the Q&A so it is nice to see my thinking is consistent. 

Looking back at the v1 paragraph is also informative. Notice how the last sentence says the Sniper player chooses which equidistant Location to attack. This is far clearer and consistent with the second Q&A. It makes the intent of Case Three perfectly clear. It is also another example of where using hex and Location interchangeably is a bad idea. Sadly, the rewrite changed a perfectly clear sentence into the land of confusion. 

Conclusion

Anyone looking at the early GS thread can easily see my thinking on this changed back in 2005. I was clearly a Case Two player. You can also see that I also understand the argument for Case Two even today from my Facebook post. But it should also be clear that I accept and abide by the validity of Case Three as supported by the Q&A. I have long said we as players have to accept the Q&A as our only means of resolving differences. It’s nice for me to see that I have internalized this one.

Keep in mind, this is how I see it. I think I am on firm ground based on the rules, the Q&A, and the historical context gleaned from the v1 ASLRB. That doesn’t mean I am right though. It would take a rewrite of the existing rule to make it perfectly clear in my opinion. Until next time. 

ASL, Chapter A Tags:Sniper

Post navigation

Previous Post: An Examination Of Fire Grouping
Next Post: Half Squads And Subsequent First Fire

Related Posts

  • Wire And Routing ASL
  • Wall Advantage Edge Cases ASL
  • Fire Lanes ASL
  • Texas Team Tournament ASL
  • Maintaining Covered Arcs and Determining To Hit DRM  AFV
  • Smoke Mortars: A Constant Question ASL

More Related Articles

Wire And Routing ASL
Wall Advantage Edge Cases ASL
Fire Lanes ASL

Comments (5) on “Sniper: Alternate Target Selection”

  1. David says:
    February 2, 2024 at 9:56 am

    Once again, I think you nailed it.

    Parenthetically, I also have a pristine V1 rule book. I like to see how many rules have changed/evolved over time. I also marvel at how many have remained the same after all these years!

    Reply
    1. Jim Bishop says:
      February 2, 2024 at 10:03 am

      I like to go back to the v1 rule book whenever something like this comes up. Invariably, some rules drift tends to be the root of the issue. Recall the chat 2 months ago about a Shocked/Stunned AFV maintaining WA. That was another case were a rule change caused weird consequences.

      Reply
  2. Chris says:
    February 4, 2024 at 6:12 pm

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yet another case where keeping a copy of ASLRB1 can help decipher how we got here.

    While reading your explanations, I began to wonder why the third sentence (below) of A14.21 has a parenthetical reference to a minimum TEM.

    “Only the lowest (to a minimum of zero) in-hex TEM/SMOKE DRM applicable to any eligible target currently occupying that hex… is considered in the comparison…”

    Runways have been with us since the days of Squad Leader. And one would think that a unit on a runway would be especially vulnerable to Sniper fire. This never came up (for me) when playing Festung Budapest with its numerous Wide City Boulevard (WCB) hexes. Twilight of the Reich not only adds WCB to the core rules, but also includes several geo boards and overlays with this terrain. This begs the question as to whether a player would have the freedom to choose between a HS in a WCB (-1 TEM) and an equidistant kill stack in an orchard (0 TEM), for example. In other words, is the WCB Location treated as having 0 TEM for the purposes of A14.21? And what do you think the rationale was for zero TEM being the minimum?

    Reply
    1. Jim Bishop says:
      February 4, 2024 at 10:35 pm

      No idea why the call for ZERO TEM. Perhaps Woods TEM since it could be argued Airbursts makes it a -1 TEM? No idea. I find it more interesting that it says TEM/SMOKE since SMOKE was TEM in some situations and a hinderance in others. If you have any old SMOKE counters around you may find a couple with even say TEM on them. They have long since disappeared though.

      Reply
  3. Dan says:
    February 17, 2024 at 9:44 am

    Good to see someone is making use out of all that old stuff I can’t seem to throw away. I still have all my old rules, and even the boxes (except BRT – anyone got an extra?). And why is the box for TotR so big? Thanks for doing these, as I really don’t go near facebook, and don’t go on to gamesquad much. These detailed dissections make me think, and improve my play.

    Why is anything TEM below zero ignored? Because this is a squad level game. With ten guys running through the open, there is gonna be someone to shoot at. With ten guys running through trees, he will take the other shot.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Jim Bishop on Good Order VehiclesMay 3, 2025

    Keep reading that rule (A21.2). It is quoted in the article. That rule specifically says "Abandoned enemy AFV". There is…

  2. Darryl on Good Order VehiclesMay 3, 2025

    But A21.2 also states "Otherwise, an Abandoned AFV can be captured only by a CC attack capture attempt in a…

  3. Tommi Lehtinen on Demystifying Slopes: LOSMarch 24, 2025

    Stupid auto-filler! It added my son's name instead of mine to the post. I.e. the previous post was made by…

  4. Elias Lehtinen on Demystifying Slopes: LOSMarch 24, 2025

    I have located a rule that unambiguously clarifies this point. Footnote 6 of Pegasus Bridge refers to section Q3.3 and…

  5. Stuart Brant on Texas Team TournamentMarch 22, 2025

    This is very true Jim, mainly go to Blackpool twice a year for the social aspect, just wish I could…

AFV AFV_Combat ASL ASL Maxims Chapter A Chapter C Chapter D Chapter F Control Etiquette Guest Author Gun Guns Guns As Targets Hatten Infantry Infantry_Combat Lets Look LOS Math OBA Planning Prisoners Rules Scenario Analysis Sleaze_Freeze Slopes Sniper Tactics Tournament Update

Recent Posts

  • Wire And Routing
  • Wall Advantage Edge Cases
  • Fire Lanes
  • Texas Team Tournament
  • Maintaining Covered Arcs and Determining To Hit DRM 

Categories

  • AFV
  • ASL
  • Chapter A
  • Chapter B
  • Chapter C
  • Chapter D
  • Chapter F
  • Infantry
  • Learning From My Mistakes
  • Missing Example
  • Opinion
  • Prisoners
  • Rules
  • Scenario Analysis
  • Tactics
  • Tournament
  • Unarmed Units
  • Uncategorized
  • Update
  • Blogs and Websites:
  • Sitrep
  • Hong Kong Wargamer
  • Six Plus One
  • Texas ASL
  • Old Sarges Wargame and Model Blog
  • Ritter Krieg

Article Archive:

  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021

Copyright © 2021 - 2023 The Bishop Says