The definition of "Armed" says that any vehicle with an Inherent Crew is "Armed".

The definition of "Unarmed" says that any unit without any functioning Gun/SW is "Unarmed".

This means that an armed unarmoured vehicle (e.g., jeep with MG) is Armed because it has an Inherent Crew, but if that MG malfunctions then it is *also* Unarmed!

I would suggest that the definition of \"Unarmed\" be modified

In the definition of "Armed" in line 2 after "(A20.54)" add "not possessing a functioning Gun/SW".

In the definition of "Unarmed" in line 2 after "Gun/SW" add "or inherent crew".

General Comments about the Index and Examples in the Rule book...

This is posted from Perry after a lengthy discussion on the ASL Mailing List about an instance where the Index seemed to conflict with the rules. Note too that on the last line, Perry says the examples are part of the rules too.

>>Because IMO I am not qualified to speak about what was and was not
>>considered in writing the Glossary, nor am I going to presume to
>>speak for the game designers/MMP et al. I just _read_ what the
>>rules _say_  and try to go from there.<<<
>
> Nor am I qualified ... just asking folks to consider that the index is
> sometimes not consistent with the rules.

Brien is perhaps more qualified than many to comment on the Index, and surely has much insight into how it was updated. However, it is unacceptable for the Index and the rules to be in conflict. The Index is part of the rules and any such inconsistency reflects an internal inconsistency. One that needs to be rectified.

[snip argument about how the "rule" didn't change despite changes to the Index]

> It's easy to hide behind the "well, I didn't write the rules, so I'll
> just play them exactly as they are written" gambit ...

Despite the fact that I know some people delight in pointing out possible inconsistencies in the rules just to make themselves feel important, it seems clear that neither Seth nor Fritz falls into that category. Both of them (all of us) are entitled to a rules set that is not internally inconsistent and that is as clear as we can make it. There is no shame in pointing out potential areas of improvement in the rules, although there surely comes _some_ point where the enlightened debater admits that it is clear that the rule should be played one way even though it is not crystal clear.

> it's more work to
> use some logic and common sense, which says that had these rules
> *really* changed (as it appears that you are claiming), don't you
> think someone would have bitched about those changes two years ago???

Without suggesting that anyone in this debate is lacking in logic or common sense, there is some truth to what Brien said. Nevertheless, new issues are discovered now and then, and old issues can become more salient over time.

> In other words, most ASL players probably didn't even note the change
> in the index, and wouldn't care, anyway. The rules themselves are
> quite clear on the matter, therefore, the index is not needed to prove
> a point ... unless you're looking for any way you can to make your
> version of PF usage possible.
>
> And newbies won't be reading the index to find out how to play the
> game, they'll be using the rules ... which, again, are quite clear (as
> I think you have conceded, if I read your last response correctly).

Again, the Index is part of the rules and should not just be ignored. If we need to fix the Index (e.g., so that not _all_ Inherent SW are Small Arms), we will.

....Perry "Examples are part of the rules, too"