A 8.3 Subsequent fire

[Robin Reeve]

A squad first fired its MG that lost its ROF (inherent FP wasn't used).
The MG is marked with a First Fire counter, and the squad itself is not marked yet.
Another First Fire opportunity is available.

1) May the squad First Fire with the MG (and then Subsequent First Fire conditions apply) or must it "normally" First Fire without the MG ?

2) I do think the MG couldn't SubsequentFF alone, as the inherent FP is always included in the SubsqtFF (it is the MG that can be excluded)...

 

[Ole Boe]

1) May the squad First Fire with the MG (and then Subsequent First Fire conditions apply) or must it "normally" First Fire without the MG ?

Yes, I think so, but I see no reason to do so.

2) I do think the MG couldn't SubsequentFF alone, as the inherent FP is always included in the SubsqtFF (it is the MG that can be excluded)...

No, I think you got it backwards. A8.3 says: "Whenever a unit uses Subsequent First Fire, it must use all MG/IFE in its possession ... as Subsequent First Fire or forfeit their use for the remainder of that Player Turn". I don't see that it says that the Inherent FP cannot be excluded.

However, A8.3 (J6 errata) also says: "If a unit, or any SW/Gun it possesses, uses Subsequent First Fire (or Intensive Fire) then that unit and all its SW/Guns are marked with a Final Fire counter.".

So after firing the MG with SFF, both the MG and squad is marked with Final Fire, regardless of whether you used the Inherent FP in the attack or not - thus leaving FPF as the only remaining option.

Also note that if you fire the MG and IFP together, only the MG is treated as using SFF - the Inherent FP is fired using normal Defensive First Fire.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Also note that if you fire the MG and IFP together, only the MG is treated as using SFF - the Inherent FP is fired using normal Defensive First Fire.

I have doubt, here.
A sq using Inherent FP as SFF that uses a not yet fired MG, fires it as SFF and sustained fire penalties apply, don't they? So why not in the inverse situation?

 

[Ole Boe]

I have doubt, here.
A sq using Inherent FP as SFF that uses a not yet fired MG, fires it as SFF and sustained fire penalties apply, don't they?

Yes...

So why not in the inverse situation?

Because the rule doesn't say so.

The reason that SFF'ing Inherent FP also forces SFF of an unmarked MG, is the A8.3 sentence I quoted above: "Whenever a unit uses Subsequent First Fire, it must use all MG/IFE in its possession ... as Subsequent First Fire ...".

However, there is no rule telling us the opposite, that when using SFF for an MG, the Inherent FP must be used as SFF.

Also note that the rule in question is only about Defensive First Fire. If you hold your fire until the DFPh (the target must be adjacent), then you can fire your Inherent FP with halved FP as Final Fire while firing the MG with full effect (and possible ROF).

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi guys

However, there is no rule telling us the opposite, that when using SFF for an MG, the Inherent FP must be used as SFF.

This situation is actually described in the example for this rule section, but I have problems to justify this kind of usage by reading the rules alone :-(

If I just could have done something to the A8.3 rule...


Bjørnar

 

[Robin Reeve]

After the J6 erratum, whenever the MG or the squad's Inherent FP uses SFF, both are marked by a Final Fire counter...

A8.3: add at the end “If a unit, or any SW/Gun it possesses, uses Subsequent First Fire (or Intensive Fire) then that unit and all its SW/Guns are marked with a Final Fire counter.â€

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi


My concern was mostly that I have problems to see wheter the unmarked squad should use full firepower of half FP when combining with a SFF'ing MG. The errata clarified only that both are marked with a Final Fire counter (as I have understood it)



Bjørnar

 

[Treadhead]

A squad first fired its MG that lost its ROF (inherent FP wasn't used).
The MG is marked with a First Fire counter, and the squad itself is not marked yet.
Another First Fire opportunity is available.

1) May the squad First Fire with the MG (and then Subsequent First Fire conditions apply) or must it "normally" First Fire without the MG ?

From what I can gather, Defensive First Fire occurs when: "A DEFENDING Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again... "

The condition for Subsequent First Fire is that an Infantry (emphasis included) "unit" (with MF allotment and not portaged) is marked with a First Fire counter.

In your example, only the MG is marked with a First Fire counter, and therefore Subsequent First Fire does not apply.

I.e., the MG may not fire again until the squad has First Fired.

2) I do think the MG couldn't SubsequentFF alone, as the inherent FP is always included in the SubsqtFF (it is the MG that can be excluded)...

I agree with your conclusion about the MG not being able to use Subsequent First Fire alone, because it does not meet the requirement for Subsequent First Fire: namely, the MG is not an "Infantry unit".

For those who protest that MG are indeed allowed to fire as Subsequent First Fire, please note that the option for firing said MG only presents itself when the "Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter" declares Subsequent First Fire.

Only after the declaration to fire is made, does one decide which combination of Inherent FP/MG to use.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

So after firing the MG with SFF, both the MG and squad is marked with Final Fire, regardless of whether you used the Inherent FP in the attack or not - thus leaving FPF as the only remaining option.

The MG is not eligible to fire as Subsequent First Fire because the Infantry unit is not marked with a First Fire counter. [A8.3]

Also note that if you fire the MG and IFP together, only the MG is treated as using SFF - the Inherent FP is fired using normal Defensive First Fire.

I contend that a MG marked with First Fire may not form a FG with a possessing squad that is not marked.

Sustained Fire may only be used during the MPh by MG making a Subsequent First Fire attack. [A9.3]

A MG only makes a Subsequent First Fire attack if the Infantry unit is already marked with a First Fire counter. [A8.3]

Since the latter does not apply, the former may not be used.

Thus the First Fired MG could not fire again until its possessing unit is also marked with a First Fire counter.

That's my logic.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[zgrose]

One thing to note is that SW can't fire themselves. I'm sitting on the fence per this particular discussion at the moment but referring to Infantry firing and SW firing maybe be equivalent in the mind of the authors.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Thank you Bruce, for your excellent reasoning.
The question about the "unit" condition seems very convincing.
My initial questions stemmed from the same logics, though I hadn't put my finger on the detailed reasons that led me to ask them...

Note that, even if the MG could SFF without the unmarked squad, both would then be marked with a Final Fire ctr : it would be utterly stupid not to make both fire.
But, as you say, the squad should normally FF before it decided to SFF (which is not mandartory for the MG, that can SFF as its first FF.

When will somebody create a FF flowchart ?

I am a little anxious about myself...
I have been playing ASL from the beginning and I realize I am still in need to learn new thinks about basical mechanics as SFF ! :surprise:

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi


Bruce has a lot of good points. These aspects have actually been the reason for my confusing of the A8.3 rule section all the time. The rules seem to differ between unit and MG, but at the same time the rules implies some kind of equivalency between them.

Link to First fire Flow Chart:
http://www.mindspring.com/~tqr/misc/FFflowchartv3.1.PDF

Bjørnar

 

[Robin Reeve]

Note that the flowchart allows a MG to SFF alone, without InhFP of the squad manning it... But it is Ole's work, so it is consistent with his reading of the rules.

 

[rdw5150]

Hi!

By my understanding (which must be taken with a grain of salt :laugh: ), I would have to agree with Bruce. The MG would not be able to fire until the unit first fires.

Peace

Roger

 

[zgrose]

The A8.41 EX does seems to contradict this understanding, however. Note the example of the LMG using Sustained Fire at the same time as the MMC using First Fire (2nd paragraph of the example, near the bottom).

 

[Robin Reeve]

The A8.41 EX does seems to contradict this understanding, however. Note the example of the LMG using Sustained Fire at the same time as the MMC using First Fire (2nd paragraph of the example, near the bottom).

J6 debriefing changed the example text at that place : 467 and LMG would then both be marked with a Final Fire counter.
But the calculation still makes the 467 fire at full FP, while the LMG fires at half FP as it is using sustained fire... Which understates that the LMG SFF and the 467 FF normally (otherwise it would fire as Area Fire) - but they are marked as if both SFF, and will both be forced to FPF afterwards.
I do find this confusing - especially when the notion of "unit" seems not been taken seriously in the example...

 

[MajorDomo]

Interesting rules discussion. I have always played that you essentially get three non-adjacent shots before Final Protective Fire:

1. Either inherent/MG fires as First Fire
2. The non-firing inherent/MG fires as First Fire
3. Both inherent/MG can fire as SFF, or the inherent alone can fire as SFF. Both are then marked as Final Fire.

But you do have the option in #2 above to add the already fired inherent or MG as SFF and then all are marked with FF (A8.3).

This discussion suggests that you cannot add the MG in as SFF if the inherent hasn't First Fired. While I haven't encountered this interpretation in play it may indeed be correct. Is this a "Perry Sez" question?

Rich

 

[Jim McLeod]

I am a little anxious about myself...
I have been playing ASL from the beginning and I realize I am still in need to learn new thinks about basical mechanics as SFF ! :surprise:

...frightening, isn't it Robin ...

:devious:

This game is a mindbending convoluted exercise ... and that is just learning how to play the basic game mechanics correctly! Never mind actually applying those rules to best effect.

Just way _is_ a unit?



=Jim=

 

[Treadhead]

The A8.41 EX does seems to contradict this understanding, however. Note the example of the LMG using Sustained Fire at the same time as the MMC using First Fire (2nd paragraph of the example, near the bottom).

Noted.

"If the LMG (only) were already marked with a First Fire counter ... the LMG would be using Sustained Fire ... the 4-6-7 would then be marked with a First Fire counter while the LMG's First Fire counter would be flipped to its Final Fire side."

Interesting. But wrong for the following reasons.

This example flatly contradicts the rule which states that an Infantry unit must be marked with First Fire in order to use Subsequent First Fire. [A8.3]

Further, since a MG may only use Sustained Fire during Subsequent First Fire, the example also violates that rule. [A9.3]

Finally, I note that in that example quoted above, the words "Subsequent First Fire" are never used. Also interesting.

I guess I'm repeating myself. Probably because it's pretty straightforward, IMO.

So far, I stand by my reasoning.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

1. Either inherent/MG fires as First Fire
2. The non-firing inherent/MG fires as First Fire
3. Both inherent/MG can fire as SFF, or the inherent alone can fire as SFF. Both are then marked as Final Fire.

But you do have the option in #2 above to add the already fired inherent or MG as SFF and then all are marked with FF (A8.3).

I disagree, obviously. I cannot find any rule allowing what you propose.

Except for the A8.41 EX, as mentioned by Zoltan. I do not believe that the EX can be supported by the rules themselves; in fact I believe the EX contradicts the rule.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken