A 8.3 Subsequent fire

[Ole Boe]

But the IFP is effectively fired at full FP (it is used, isn't it?).
I'd call that a "split" between IFP and MG.

But the sentence talks about a unit using SFF:
"Whenever a unit uses Subsequent First Fire, it must use all MG/IFE ... as Subsequent First Fire or forfeit their use for the remainder of that Player Turn"
Since the unit is not using SFF, only the MG, then the unit is not restricted by the sentence. But the sentence restricts it from later using the Inherent FP as SFF - even before the J6 errata.

To say the IFP is not used "as SFF" would then authorize the contrary : a SFFing IFP could use a not yet marked MG "not as SFF"... That would be a tremendous change in DFF tactics used by many players.

It could, if it wasn't for the fact that the above sentence says that the SFF'ing unit must use all MG as SFF or forfeit their use. If the "as SFF" part had been missing from the sentence, then SFFing IFP while firing a MG normally would be legal.

So you contend this, if I understand well :
A 1stFire marked squad firing SFF with a yet unmarked MG must fire the MG with Sustained Fire (and the MG is firing at half FP).

Correct, as explained above.

An unmarked squad with a 1stFire marked MG may fire the MG as SFF while not firing its IFP as SFF (and not halving it).

Correct, as shown by the example, and also because there is no part of A8.3 which says that SFFing the MG requires the IFP to be SFFing.

The MG syndicate is complaining about discriminating treatment. :laugh:

I'm not happy about this part of the rule myself. I'm generally strongly in favour of consistancy in the rules, and I think this is a bad example of lacking consistency - so if/when A7/A8 is rewritten, I think think this should be changed. But until then, the example is clear, and the rule sort of supports it in most cases... :nuts: