A 8.3 Subsequent fire

[Robin Reeve]

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

That is why there is an erratum in J6 (see my post above).

 

[zgrose]

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.

Well, we've been over this before. Perhaps the rule contradicts the EX. There are several (at least) examples with the "rule text" is less specific than the example (or chart) text or even cites the EX within the body of the "rule". I see no precedence to believe that EX text is any less authoritative than "rule text".

 

[Robin Reeve]

I see no precedence to believe that EX text is any less authoritative than "rule text".

And when they contradict one another, does the example have more authority thant the rule ?
Note that the example we are speaking about already had to be erraticized to fit the rule...

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi guys


Just some small thoughts from me. I wonder if part of the reasons for the different interpretations, and difficulties, of rule section A8.3 may be that for SFF purposes the rules/the example/peoples interpretations of the rule seems to mix the definition of a unit with that of an infantry manned MG (or something similar).

The A8.3 rule section is not that long and it shouldn't be necessary that almost "everybody" has it's own interpretations.


Bjørnar

 

[zgrose]

And when they contradict one another, does the example have more authority thant the rule ?

I said (or tried to say) they have equal authority, nothing more.

Note that the example we are speaking about already had to be erraticized to fit the rule...

And still the FP calculation remains unchanged!

As an analogy, you can have a prose description of a turtle, and then a picture of a turtle on the next page (an example, so to speak). If you say, "Hey, that picture doesn't look much like the turtle they described over here," does that mean the picture is wrong? Or perhaps the mental image you formed based on the text is just different.

That is why I'm a firm believer in examples and illustrations. Crafting the perfect legalese to describe a rule can be very tricky. Illustrating the concept with a concrete example can provide the proper context in which to understand the authors intent.

Can A8.3 be made clearer? Probably. But I think a better solution would be to provide a set of concrete examples based on the principles described in A8.3. Make it "offical" and then move on.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Can A8.3 be made clearer? Probably. But I think a better solution would be to provide a set of concrete examples based on the principles described in A8.3. Make it "offical" and then move on.

So the example has more authority than the rule, as it establishes an MG as a unit.
I am not sure that the consequences of such a notion on other rules would not be disastrous...

 

[Robin Reeve]

I just sent Perry the following questions...

Situation :

A squad has first fired a MG - losing ROF - but not its Inherent FP yet.
The MG is marked by a First Fire counter, but not the squad.

Questions :

1) May the MG Subsequent First Fire without the Inherent FP of the squad ?

2) May the MG subsequent First Fire, adding the Inherent FP of the squad ?
2b) In this case, does the squad's FP apply fully or halved (the example given after the rule calculates the squad's Inh FP as not halved) ?

3) Must the squad normally first fire before it can use the MG in SFF ?

4) Can an MG be considered a "unit" as per the definition of the SFF rule ?

When I have the answers, I'll post them here.

 

[zgrose]

So the example has more authority than the rule, as it establishes an MG as a unit.

Or, less drastically, it establishs that Infantry possessing a First Fired SW also satisfy the requirement to fire SFF.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Or, less drastically, it establishs that Infantry possessing a First Fired SW also satisfy the requirement to fire SFF.

And that it can fire its Inherent FP without Area Fire halving, in opposition with the rule that asks for it...
Note that I don't really mind which between the rule and the example is right : I just need to see how to resolve the apparent contradiction...

 

[Ole Boe]

Hi,

Bruce B. is of course correct that A8.3 says "A DEFENDING Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter may..."

However, as noted, the example shows that this includes an Infantry unit with an MG already marked with a FFF counter.

I don't consider that those two contradict each other, rather that the ruletext is a bit muddy when it comes to FF counters on the unit itself vs its SW. So if you include Infantry units with MG/IFE SW that is marked with FF, then the rule and example fits nicely together.

And when they contradict one another, does the example have more authority thant the rule ?

Equal - although you could make a case for the example being the higher numbered rule. However, a rule text may be vaguely phrased, but when the example is clear, I think the example shows how the rule is intended and therefore normally should have more authority.

Note that the example we are speaking about already had to be erraticized to fit the rule...

If you're thinking of the J6 errata, then note that this errata has nothing to do with what we're discussing now. Furthermore, the example and rule text was erraticized together to make the whole rule clearer - not to make one fit the other (they already did, but the old rule was confusing).

This is one more reason for rewriting A7/A8 though...

 

[Ole Boe]

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.

I agree that this is legal, based on A8.3 and the example in combination (see my previous) post.

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).

Correct. Note that if you do so, there's a small (but important) difference, depending on whether it is the Inherent FP or MG that has a FF counter:

If it is the Inherent FP that is marked, then the MG is treated as using SFF as well - but if it is the MG that is marked, then the Inherent FP is used as normal Defensive First Fire.

Both are marked with a Final Fire counter afterwards though.

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.

Except that the example shows that this is legal...

 

[Treadhead]

Bruce B. is of course correct that A8.3 says "A DEFENDING Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter may..."

However, as noted, the example shows that this includes an Infantry unit with an MG already marked with a FFF counter.

Well, the example gives the case of a MG marked with a FF counter. There is no indication that the "unit" is also considered to be "marked" with a First Fire counter. The only implication one can infer is that -- because the MG fires again in the example (and note, nowhere is "Subsequent First Fire" used in that particular example) -- the unit is therefore also "marked".

This is an invalid inference, because of the specification in A8.1 about marking units/weapons.

I don't consider that those two contradict each other, rather that the ruletext is a bit muddy when it comes to FF counters on the unit itself vs its SW.

I am currently NRBH, but I believe you will find a rather explicit statement in A8.1 about marking units/weapons that fire, and remembering to not mark SW that have not fired if the unit fires.

And you would certainly agree that in actual practice, the unit itself is not marked with a First Fire counter just because its SW is. This is true because when a unit (a squad) makes its initial First Fire attack, it is treated as First Fire and not Subsequent First Fire.

That is a clear demonstration to me that a unit is not considered to be marked with a First Fire counter when its SW is marked.

Because the unit is not marked with a First Fire counter, the unit is not allowed to make a Subsequent First Fire attack, per A8.3. And the only way a MG may use Sustained Fire during the MPh is if the unit makes a Subsequent First Fire attack.

I do not think it is logical consistent to state this:

"Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter" = "an Infantry unit with an MG already marked with a FF counter"

... when the said Infantry unit is not considered marked by a First Fire counter for purposes of A8.1.

Bad logic.

There is no way around it: only a unit marked with a First Fire counter may make a Subsequent First Fire attack. The text is unequivocal, the EX notwithstanding.

Further, when a squad fires a MG only, but not its Inherent FP, the squad is not yet considered to be marked with a First Fire counter for any other purpose, including OVR, etc.

I am unconvinced by your simple reasoning.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

If it is the Inherent FP that is marked, then the MG is treated as using SFF as well - but if it is the MG that is marked, then the Inherent FP is used as normal Defensive First Fire.

If you allow the MG to use Subsequent First Fire based on the provision that "MG marked" = "unit marked" for this purpose, then you are in fact declaring a Subsequent First Fire attack.

You reinforce this by stating:

Both are marked with a Final Fire counter afterwards though.

Why would the latter be the case unless you are applying the provision of Subsequent First Fire that states that unit and all SW are thusly marked?

That being the case, you must apply all of the consequences of Subsequent First Fire, not just some of them. E.g. must use all Inherent/MG or forfeit, and fires at 1/2 FP. I.e., absolutely not a "normal Defensive First Fire".

No, it just seems too funny to me to allow a MG to use Subsequent First Fire even though the unit itself is not marked (contrary to A8.3), then allow the Inherent FP to fire at full strength (also contrary to A8.3 for a unit uses Subsequent First Fire), but then force both the unit and the MG to be marked with a Final Fire counter (following A8.3).

That seems like a selective application of a rule to me.

I understand that this is what the EX seems to show.

I think it is fair to state that I am currently skeptical about the source/author of this particular EX.

I would also be interested if you could demonstrate to me -- by any means other than with this EX -- how "SW marked" = "unit marked" for any other purpose.

I think it would be so easy to simply accept what the rule states as written (clearly, I might add), and perhaps start exploring the possibility that the EX is flat wrong.

Or perhaps one is a bit too attached to the example?

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Larry]

Could a squad with a MG already marked with a First Fire counter use that MG again as sustained fire and thereby using its allotment of SW for the phase?

The squad would then have forfeited its use of IFP in First Fire. Both the squad and the MG would be marked at this time with a Final Fire counter. A9.3. The squad and the MG would still have FPF capacity, the MG with sustained fire penalties again. This could come up with enemy closing in beyond the long range capacity of the IFP.

:smoke:

 

[Robin Reeve]

Could a squad with a MG already marked with a First Fire counter use that MG again as sustained fire and thereby using its allotment of SW for the phase?

The squad would then have forfeited its use of IFP in First Fire. Both the squad and the MG would be marked at this time with a First Fire counter. The squad and the MG would still have SFF capacity, the MG with sustained fire penalties again. This could come up with enemy closing in beyond the long range capacity of the IFP.

:smoke:

Sustained fire is only related to SFF/FPF.Even if you admit that the MG could SFF without the IFP of the squad, both units should be marked with a Final Fire and they would only be able to FPF thereafter.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I find the 8.4 example confusing.
Why is the 467 not halved?
If the MG is SFFing (it uses Sustained fire, which is only possible during SFF/FPF when FFing - A9.3), the squad is also SFFing and must have its FP halved (A 8.4 : "... a squad may not split its usable inherent FP from that of its MG/IFE during Subsequent First Fire unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all."). The squad couldn't make a 'first' 1stF while its MG SFF, as one cannot split a squad from its weapon during SFF...

If the MG is not SFFing, why does the example speak of Sustained fire?

Other question-remark :
If the MG SFF alone, then the IFP of the squad cannot be used anymore, as says A 8.4 (see above).

Up to now, I find that Bebakken's points are convincing.
There is something wrong with the example - at least, something badly expressed, when it speaks of sustained fire but not clearly of SFF and when it doesn't halve the squad's fire, though it is associated to the Sustained fire of its MG...

At least, Ole and Bebakken, though they haven't the same reading of the rule, consider something ought to be fixed.

 

[Ole Boe]

And you would certainly agree that in actual practice, the unit itself is not marked with a First Fire counter just because its SW is. This is true because when a unit (a squad) makes its initial First Fire attack, it is treated as First Fire and not Subsequent First Fire.

That is a clear demonstration to me that a unit is not considered to be marked with a First Fire counter when its SW is marked.

I mostly agree. There are some exceptions though (like the fact that a HS/crew is marked when it fires one SW, since the unit cannot then fire its Inherent FP).

Because the unit is not marked with a First Fire counter, the unit is not allowed to make a Subsequent First Fire attack, per A8.3.

I agree that a literal reading of A8.3 leads to that conlcution... and yet, such a unit is allowed to make a SFF attack, according to the example. So something doesn't fit.

It could be that the example is wrong, but I rather believe that A8.3 is clumsily written. We already know (from earlier discussions here and on the ASLML) that A7 and A8 have many ambigious parts. That's why I believe that the example is correct and that A8.3 intends to allow such an attack.

I do not think it is logical consistent to state this:

"Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter" = "an Infantry unit with an MG already marked with a FF counter"

... when the said Infantry unit is not considered marked by a First Fire counter for purposes of A8.1.

To get the rule to match the example, the rule would have to say something like "Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire countrer and/or such a unit with a MG/IFE capable weapon marked with a First Fire counter". The rule doesn't say so, but the example shows this, and I'm not surprised that Don Greenwod (the original writer) chose a simpler, yet not presise rule text, but displayed the meaning through the example. At least that's what I think is the case.

There is no way around it: only a unit marked with a First Fire counter may make a Subsequent First Fire attack. The text is unequivocal, the EX notwithstanding.

...and yet, the example is part of the rules, and the example is even higher numbered, so it cannot be dismissed alltogether.

I will admit though, that my interpretation is influenced by what I think is logical. Assume two squads both manning a HMG. Squad 1 has both the HMG and itself marked with FF, while Squad 2 has only the HMG thusly marked. Now assume that an enemy unit moves in OG 10 hexes away (more than twice the squads' normal range).

Squad 1 may SFF his HMG because the unit has a FF counter, while squad 2 cannot because he has fired less. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Ole Boe]

If you allow the MG to use Subsequent First Fire based on the provision that "MG marked" = "unit marked" for this purpose, then you are in fact declaring a Subsequent First Fire attack.

...with the MG, but not with the squad's Inherent FP, since the latter isn't marked. Note that I'm not saying that the unit is considered marked, but that A8.3 probably means to not only allow units marked, but also SFF-capable weapons marked, to use SFF.

Why would the latter be the case unless you are applying the provision of Subsequent First Fire that states that unit and all SW are thusly marked?

Because that's what A8.3 and the example says.

That being the case, you must apply all of the consequences of Subsequent First Fire, not just some of them. E.g. must use all Inherent/MG or forfeit, and fires at 1/2 FP. I.e., absolutely not a "normal Defensive First Fire".

But the squad is not firing SFF, only its MG. The example shows this...

No, it just seems too funny to me to allow a MG to use Subsequent First Fire even though the unit itself is not marked (contrary to A8.3), then allow the Inherent FP to fire at full strength (also contrary to A8.3 for a unit uses Subsequent First Fire), but then force both the unit and the MG to be marked with a Final Fire counter (following A8.3).

That seems like a selective application of a rule to me.

I understand that this is what the EX seems to show.

Yes, the example is my main support. As I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) The example is plain wrong, and Don Greenwod invented something he didn't intend to be allowed when he wrote the example.
2) The example is correct, but the rule text is not presise.

I find 2) more likely than 1), in addition to the fact that I see no sense in not allowing a FF-marked HMG to fire, just because the manning squad has not yet fired (see previous post).

I think it is fair to state that I am currently skeptical about the source/author of this particular EX.

I understand this

 

[Ole Boe]

I find the 8.4 example confusing.
Why is the 467 not halved?

Because only the MG was marked with First Fire, and therefore only the MG uses SFF in this attack.

If the MG is SFFing (it uses Sustained fire, which is only possible during SFF/FPF when FFing - A9.3), the squad is also SFFing and must have its FP halved (A 8.4 : "... a squad may not split its usable inherent FP from that of its MG/IFE during Subsequent First Fire unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all."). The squad couldn't make a 'first' 1stF while its MG SFF, as one cannot split a squad from its weapon during SFF...

You're forgetting the "unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all." part. In this case, the unit "opts" not to use the Inherent FP as SFF at all. This is clarified in J6 by explicitely marking the unit with Final Fire. Before J6, the squad would only be marked First Fire, but could not use SFF due to the above rule quote.

Other question-remark :
If the MG SFF alone, then the IFP of the squad cannot be used anymore, as says A 8.4 (see above).

Agree, which is why the clarification in J6 was made - so that the squad too is marked with Final Fire.

Up to now, I find that Bebakken's points are convincing.

There is something wrong with the example - at least, something badly expressed, when it speaks of sustained fire but not clearly of SFF and when it doesn't halve the squad's fire, though it is associated to the Sustained fire of its MG...

But it all fit together if you buy my argument, that the start of A8.3 is intended to mean: "A DEFENDING Infantry unit (and/or a MG/IFE capable SW possessed by such a unit), already marked with a First Fire counter, may fire again..."

At least, Ole and Bebakken, though they haven't the same reading of the rule, consider something ought to be fixed.

We also both agree on what the rule text says and what the example says. But when they contradict each other, Bruce chooses to follow the rule text and I the example. We both agree that they contradict each other and that one of them needs a fix though.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You're forgetting the "unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all." part. In this case, the unit "opts" not to use the Inherent FP as SFF at all. This is clarified in J6 by explicitely marking the unit with Final Fire. Before J6, the squad would only be marked First Fire, but could not use SFF due to the above rule quote.

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.
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.

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).
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).

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