SSR vs A7.55 Mandatory FG

[SSlunt]

Playing FT 100 Hungarian and Germans vs Russians

The SSR states that the Hungarians and Germans may not form a FG
What happens when the two are stacked together and want to fire at the same unit?

Can they both make separate attacks against the same target violating A7.5
Are the forced to choose to fire at separate targets?

 

[Eagle4ty]

Playing FT 100 Hungarian and Germans vs Russians

The SSR states that the Hungarians and Germans may not form a FG
What happens when the two are stacked together and want to fire at the same unit?

Can they both make separate attacks against the same target violating A7.5
Are the forced to choose to fire at separate targets?

It has always been my understanding that they may fire at the same unit since A7.5 is invalidated simply by disallowing multi-national FGs even tough they occupy the same Location.

 

[lightspeed]

Hmm...good question Steve,

A7.55 deals specifically with the case of units in the same location. The SSR seems to override A7.5
and A7.55.

That, to me, seems to indicate that they cannot combine their firepower at the same target. Do they
have to fire at separate targets? Or are they permitted to fire separately at the same target?

I think it's worth a Q to LFT.

Just my 2 cents.

indy

 

[WuWei]

I would allow that they fire at the same target, one after the other. I can hardly imagine that the scenario designer had different intentions.

 

[Vinnie]

I would expect they could not FG and as a result one would be unable to fire. It has the effect of discouraging stacking and penalizing it if you end up stacked.

 

[Stewart]

I would expect they could not FG and as a result one would be unable to fire. It has the effect of discouraging stacking and penalizing it if you end up stacked.

It doesn't say you lose the FP of the other unit.
Ammo shortage allows this same action by the SAME unit with a SW.

 

[Vinnie]

It doesn't say you lose the FP of the other unit.
Ammo shortage allows this same action by the SAME unit with a SW.

If you have two units stacked and they are not permitted to FG by SSR and mandatory FG applies, I think that would mean they could not both fire on the same target. I may well be wrong in that the SSR could be read to say mandatory FG rules do not apply either.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I would allow that they fire at the same target, one after the other. I can hardly imagine that the scenario designer had different intentions.

I agree.
A similar (not identical, so I am speculating) situation could be compared with that one : a non halftrack vehicle in the same Location as infantry may fire its MG vs the same target as the infantry, in a distinct attack, without transgressing the Mandatory FG rule.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I would expect they could not FG and as a result one would be unable to fire. It has the effect of discouraging stacking and penalizing it if you end up stacked.

I agree with this. -- jim

 

[BattleSchool]

It depends.

...if the SS are represented by black or blue counters.

In the latter case, the Germans would blend in with their Hungarian allies and no one would be the wiser.

But given that this is a Holstein design, it's black livery, as per the artwork on the scenario card. Then there is the SSR, which clearly prohibits multi-national FG, while offering no exceptions for Kaffeeklatsch, usw.

 

[Stewart]

If you have two units stacked and they are not permitted to FG by SSR and mandatory FG applies, I think that would mean they could not both fire on the same target. I may well be wrong in that the SSR could be read to say mandatory FG rules do not apply either.

A mandatory FG is a FG, n'est pas?

 

[Eagle4ty]

A mandatory FG is a FG, n'est pas?

But if they cannot be a Fire Group (by exclusion) they cannot be considered a Mandatory FG even though they may occupy the same firing Location.

 

[Stewart]

I would expect they could not FG and as a result one would be unable to fire. It has the effect of discouraging stacking and penalizing it if you end up stacked.

I think I misread your entry.
"Unable to fire" meaning at the same unit in a FG? It just unable to fire

 

[Vinnie]

I think I misread your entry.
"Unable to fire" meaning at the same unit in a FG? It just unable to fire

German squad and Hungarian squad stacked. Wish to fire at a Russian squad so mandatory FG applies....but! by SSR, they are unable to FG so they cannot fire together so one or other may fire. The other is free to fire at othervtargets but they cannot fire together.
Note The SSR says they may not firegroups, not tgat firegroups restrictions do not apply.

 

[Stewart]

German squad and Hungarian squad stacked. Wish to fire at a Russian squad so mandatory FG applies....but! by SSR, they are unable to FG so they cannot fire together so one or other may fire. The other is free to fire at othervtargets but they cannot fire together.
Note The SSR says they may not firegroups, not tgat firegroups restrictions do not apply.

They can fire at the same target, just not in a FG.
A stack of Berserk units can do the same thing.

 

[Robin Reeve]

They can fire at the same target, just not in a FG.
A stack of Berserk units can do the same thing.

That is how I understand things (see my example with a tank firing its MG separately from Infantry in its Location).

 

[BattleSchool]

They can fire at the same target, just not in a FG.
A stack of Berserk units can do the same thing.

Interesting point re berserkers. However, provided neither German nor Hungarian unit is berserk, I'd still argue that A7.55 prohibits firing at the same target during the same phase [EXC: on a separate MF/MP expenditure] as a consequence of the SSR, which prohibits multi-national FG. IOW, there is a workaround during DFF that allows two nationalities in the same Location to fire at the same enemy unit, just not on the same MF/MP expenditure.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

How exactly is the SSR written? It does not sound like it specifically "overrides" the Manadatory FG rules.

 

[BattleSchool]

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Ok. It does not override the Mandatory FG rules, and I don't think it should either.

During Defensive First Fire it could actually be a benefit; e.g., two 4FP, -2 attacks are often preferable to on 8FP -2 attack, and this SSR does not strike me as intended to give any benefits. The problem with FPF still remains though - could have been an exception for that.