A11.622 Crew small arms and multiple attacking units

[mgmasl]

Hello to all

reading this rule it looks to me that if rolling a 12, ALL the attacking units suffer CR.

Last night a 9-2, a 458 squad and a hero attacked a tank in CC and rolled a 12.

We rolled CR to see the unit affected , but reading carefully it looks all the units are affected "the attacking unit(s) suffers Casualty Reduction"

Any help about that.

Thanks in advance

Miguel

 

[richfam]

The rule is actually A11.621 CREW SMALL ARMS... (not 11.622)

I would have expected that Random Selection is to be used to select which of the attacking units receive the Casualty Reduction, but I can't find any suport for that in the rules.

So I think that you are right: the way this rule is written, ALL attacking units will suffer Casualty Reduction on an original DR of 12.

Ouch!

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hello to all

reading this rule it looks to me that if rolling a 12, ALL the attacking units suffer CR.

Last night a 9-2, a 458 squad and a hero attacked a tank in CC and rolled a 12.

We rolled CR to see the unit affected , but reading carefully it looks all the units are affected "the attacking unit(s) suffers Casualty Reduction"

Any help about that.

Thanks in advance

Miguel

First, they can not all attack together on the same DR. At max, only two units can stack to attack an AFV, and one of those must be a SMC (A11.5). I am not sure about the Casualty Reduction being played the way you read it though. When many units move in the open and suffer a K/# result, they too are subject to "Casualty Reduction" with RS determining who gets Reduced (A7.302). I know this is how I have played it in the past, but I am willing to conceed it could be wrong (although I certainly think not). -- jim

 

[Treadhead]

First of all Jim, good catch on the "No more than two units may combine in a single CC attack vs a vehicle" [A11.5].

With regard to Crew Small Arms, I have to conclude that it was meant to include both units because of how it is so directly worded.

In my reading, both units suffer Casualty Reduction. (Well, in his case, all three should suffer.)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[mgmasl]

Thanks

Very interesting the limit of 2 units to attack a vehicle.

I see clear now; only 2 units, and the 2 of them suffer CR... In our case, with 3 units attacking -missing the 11.5 rule, the 3 of them would be affected, a very bad roll..-

Miguel

 

[richfam]

Well, this is interesting...

I just happened to see that this same question was asked a while back on CSW concerning ASLSK #3, which was answered by Perry Cocke:

Perry Cocke - Apr 25, 2007 8:22 pm (message #3307) wrote:
>> 3) A MMC combines with a SMC to attack an AFV in CC
>> and rolls an original 12. Do they both suffer casualty
>> reduction? Just the MMC? Either the MMC or the SMC
>> determined randomly?
>
> Select randomly even though that is not clearly stated.

 

[Treadhead]

Well, I haven't looked up what is stated in ASLSK #3.

I do know that Perry's answer is not supported in the ASLRB, however. Maybe it's what the ASLRB should say, but is definitely not what it does say.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Larry]

11.621 is very clear on this ... it is both.

the attacking unit(s) suffers Casualty Reduction.

 

[Sparafucil3]

11.621 is very clear on this ... it is both.

I agree it is clear as written, but I personally question if it is not an error. You have to add the "(s)" to cover the case were a SMC joins in with an MMC to conduct the attack. I can think of no other instance where multiple units are subject to CR automatically without the benefit of a Random Selection DR first. From a system standpoint, this is an anomaly and I question the presence of all anomalies that appear without an explanation for why it is and exception or a clarification to state pedantically this was the intention. Unexplained things sound to me like an error. Just my .02 -- jim

PS: just to be clear, I agree the rules say both and thats how we would play it if we ever sit down. I also will not whine about this likes its a bridge TEM change. This is just my personal observation on the matter and I am prepared to be wrong as always.