Firing at an armored assault

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
From looking through the gamesquad archives, I am pretty sure that this sequence of events is legal, but correct me if I am wrong:

AFV and squad in A1 declare armored assault.

1) AFV starts (1 MP), squad spends no MF.
2) Move to A2 (2 MP/1MF).
3) Move to A3 (3 MP/2MF).
4) In A3, the AFV fires its smoke discharger successfully (4MP/2MF).
5) Move to A4 (5MP/3MF).
6) Move to A5 (6MP/4MF), the squad is done moving.
7) The AFV turns its VCA (7MP) and stops (8MP).


Assuming that the above is legit:

A gun that fires Area Target Type in response to 2, 3, 5, and 6, will clearly hit both the AFV and the squad.

Firing ATT in response to 7 would seem to only hit the AFV, since the squad is no longer moving.

Does firing ATT against the MP spent in 1 and 4 hit the AFV and the squad? Or just the AFV that spent the MP? Is the squad "moving" for the purposes of A8.1, even though it has not (#1) or did not just then (#4) expend any MF: "Defensive First Fire attacks affect only the moving unit/stack regardless of other units that occupy the same or intervening hexes at the instant of attack."

If you think that attacks vs #4 will hit both the AFV and the squad, there is a followup:

What if a mortar fired at #3, hitting both the AFV and the squad, but both survive. Now the AFV fires its sD. May the mortar fire again?
Per A8.14, "A unit that survives a Defensive First Fire attack with no effect can be fired on again in that same Location during its MPh before expending additional MF/MP, but only by different attackers or if it expended at least two MF/MP in that Location (see 9.2)." A9.2 is about MGs specifically, the Ordnance rule is C6.17: "An ordnance weapon may not Defensive First Fire at the same target in the same Location more times (including the use of Multiple-ROF/Intensive-Fire) than the number of MF/MP (including Delay MP; D2.17) expended by that target (in its current Target Facing, if an AFV) in that Location."
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Any attack on #1 will only affect the AFV.

Q&A:

A8.1 & D9.31
A MMC stacked with a stopped AFV declares an armored assault. The AFV starts. Does this spent MP allow enemy units to
defensive first fire at the MMC?
A. No.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Any attack on #1 will only affect the AFV
I dont think the OP was unclear on that issue... the live part of question it seems to me is point 4, when The AFV expends MP to fire smoke... is the Armored Assaulting infantry vulnerable there...?

in my opinion it is not. The infantry is vulnerable to all usual DFF and invulnerable to DFF according to all the usual rules around MF exependiture. If it's not expending MF it's not moving and cant be hit by DFF (EXC. fighter bombers)... that it is involved in an armored assault move that means the smoke is being disharged during its mph doesnt change that.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I dont think the OP was unclear on that issue...
Perhaps not - though he did ask:
"Does firing ATT against the MP spent in 1 and 4 hit the AFV and the squad?"


Regarding any of the step where just a MP is spent - then only the AFV can be hit/affects I'd say.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
May offer a contrarian view?

Should the infantry not be considered as moving throughout the entire MPh. As armoured assault is a type of impulse move, with tank and infantry moving together but with potentially different costs and end hexes, the infantry could never 'stop' moving while the tank expended additional MP in an impulse. If it did so, this would violate A4.2.

Take for example an armoured assault that changes elevation, a tank would normally expend 5 MP and an infantry squad 2 MF. However, the infantry are still moving in the hex despite the additional MP expended by the tank. It simply takes the tank more MP to change elevation but the infantry are not "waiting" (non-moving) for the tank to finish its climb.

Popping smoke in a hex for an extra MP should not protect the infantry from being considered a moving unit unless it has ended its movement phase in the hex and the MF expenditure 'trigger' in that hex has been exhausted.

Edit: in 3) and 4) above the MP would not be split but instead be considered one total expenditure, the sequence having 2) 2MP1MF go immediately to 3) 4MP/2MF. The infantry would thus be subject to FFNAM
'
 
Last edited:

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
@The Purist, I suspect that you might be able to weasel out of A4.2 because it explicitly only refers to MF, which leaves open to interpretation how AFV/infantry stacks work. Not sure though.

Your point about what happens going uphill is an interesting one. If the MMC goes uphill for 2 MF, and the accompanying AFV goes uphill for 5 MP, the mortar can definitely take 2 shots against the whole stack. Can it take a third+ shot? It seems you could argue:

  1. Yes, but C6.17 limits you to only hitting the tank.
  2. Yes, C6.17 lets you fire at the tank, and since the MMC is still in the stack, A8.41 means you get to hit the infantry a third time as well.
  3. No, you can't fire at the tank again, because A8.41 means you would get to hit the infantry a third time, which is forbidden by C6.17.
These seem about equally plausible. Thoughts?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
The MTR can take 2 shots vs Infantry+AFV, and 3 more vs the AFV. Defensive First Fire attacks are done vs MF/MP expenditures.

Old 1st Edtion official Q&A:


A8.3 & D9.31 While Armored Assaulting, an AFV spends three MP to enter a hex but the
Infantry spends only one. Having First Fired once, may an enemy unit fire again at the same
moving stack?
A. Yes, but the second shot could only affect the AFV. [J1]
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I would agree. However, the infantry would be considered as a moving target for as many shots as it triggered unless/until the AA is ended.

1) AFV starts (1 MP), squad spends no MF. - tank only, not moving
2) Move to A2 (2 MP/1MF). - tank and inf, both moving
3) Move to A3 (4 MP/2MF incl SD attempt). - tank and inf, both moving
5) Move to A4 (5MP/3MF). - tank and inf, both moving
6) Move to A5 (7MP/4MF incl VCA change), - tank and inf, both moving

Now a Mtr can shoot with the applicable allowed shots and TH mods. NB** The defender should be waiting for the complete expenditure within the hex before declaring a shot. As such, the first shot would hit both tank and infantry as movers as applicable.

MP and MF are not created equal and both are abstracted game mechanics. Ideally the two should be meshed for AA with the tank still being able to do all its ticky-tacs within each 'impulse' but not spending any more 'time' in the hex being shot at while the infantry looks on,....safe.
 
Last edited:

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Defensive First Fire attacks are done vs MF/MP expenditures.
Do we think that this is reciprocal? If the infantry spend some MF throwing smoke grenades or placing DC or going under wire or whatever, and the AFV isn't spending MP, then ATT attacks against those expenditures can affect only the infantry?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
A move into A3 and an sD attempt are two different MP expenditures - they are not combined. Same as entering A5 and making a VCA change.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Do we think that this is reciprocal? If the infantry spend some MF throwing smoke grenades or placing DC or going under wire or whatever, and the AFV isn't spending MP, then ATT attacks against those expenditures can affect only the infantry?
That's certainly how I would play it, per A8.1:
"...Anytime a unit/stack expends MF/MP in the LOS of one of his units, the DEFENDER has the option to temporarily halt its movement while he fires at it in that Location with as many attacks as he can bring to bear..."
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
A move into A3 and an sD attempt are two different MP expenditures - they are not combined. Same as entering A5 and making a VCA change.
Quite right,.... my sentence was poorly crafted.

I should have said the defender "can" wait for full expenditure before declaring a shot. This way he knows if the SD will actually trigger a second shot or not (with the obvious implications of Smoke). Either way the defender could fire once at the infantry and once, or twice, on the tank (SD result dependent).

The sequence was designed to show full expenditure in the hex and how many shots could be triggered.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
I thought impulse rules (D14.33) would apply here, but eventually it is only for "multi-hex stacks".
I think "impulse rules" is exactly where confusion arises. Armored Assault isnt impulse movement... its so distinctly not impulse movement the RB goes to pains to give the rules for how Impulse Movr and AA may be used together, as Mr. T points out -- D 14.33

All the questions/musings that are previous in this thread come, in my opinion, from thinking of impulse movement as the model for fire vs AA units. It makes a lot of sense -- but it isn't the rules. JMO.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
The larger problem, as I see it, is that not only is this not impulse movement, it is the only example (I think) of mixed-stacks where some spend MF and some spend MP. All the Chapter A rules talk about the expenditure of MF by stacks, and so it isn't at all clear where Armored Assault comes in, especially since the rules for it are just a single short paragraph long. Hence the need for those Q&As.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I thought impulse rules (D14.33) would apply here, but eventually it is only for "multi-hex stacks".
:unsure:

However, an AA stack can split. For example, if an MMC and SMC declare Double Time while using AA, starting in the same hex and immediately separate, the infantry could move through woods, buildings or other terrain feature for 8 MF with the tank remaining on a road (for example). As long as the tank does not move further than the infantry could (potentially 8 hexes) AA remains in effect.

One could argue that as soon as soon as the tank and squads separate into different hexes or even Locations w/i a hex, Impulse movement should be used.

See the example on page D18 for D9.31. The infantry splits off to enter the building using 2 MF while the tank continues on the road for two more hexes, expending 1 MP per hex. The 'Impulse' is only finished when the tank has expended its 2nd MP. Def First Fire can take place on either/both MF/MP, the defending player having to choose which target to attack for each MF/MP expended.

At least that is my reading of D9.31 and D14.33. The D9.31 example does not appear to use D14.331 Breaking Off.
 
Top