A4.12, 4.2 Leader late CX conferring MF bonus to MMC becoming CX

[Robin Reeve]

Hi all,
Just checking if my last dirty trick was allowed.

A leader carrying a DC moves with a squad, expenfing 5 MF.
The leader declares late CX to place the DC into an ADJACENT building Location (i.e. for a total of 7 MF).

I considered that the leader alone should go CX, as only the leader spent the 2 more MF - actually breakng from the stack without changing Locations, thus allowing leader MF bonus to apply to the squad.

Or should the squad become CX too?

A4.12 LEADER BONUS: Any Good Order MMC which begins the MPh/APh and ends its MPh/APh stacked with a leader of the same nationality in the same Location, at the same level (2.8), and with the same Wire/entrenchment/panji/paddy status is eligible for a two MF bonus during that MPh/APh, provided it expends all its MF while moving in a combined stack with that leader, and does not expend any of its MF to mount, ride, or dismount any form of conveyance.

A4.2 ... Otherwise, units may choose to move together as a stack at their own risk and may break up the stack during the MPh to continue to move separately but all members of that moving stack must end their MPh before another unit not in that stack may move.

PS : of course, the DC attack will suffer the CX +1 DRM (that is, if the leader is not pinned or broken by DFF or anither cause on his two DC placement MF).

 

[Vinnie]

Nope just the leader needs to go CX. The squad is not even moving at that time.

 

[Vinnie]

Consider Russian sqd mmg, sqd lmg and leader with DC.
The stack can move 4 hexes, drop off the sqd with MMG (he gets the leader move bonus as he spent all of HIS MPh with a leader) move a further 2 hexes and then the leader can go CX to drop the DC into another open ground hex.


(forgot the 5PP of the MMG can't be helped by the leader, he's got a DC already)

 

[Robin Reeve]

I confess that I am a man of doubts too much.
Thanks for confirming that I wasn't straying into heretical waters.

 

[von Marwitz]

A leader carrying a DC moves with a squad, expenfing 5 MF.
The leader declares late CX to place the DC into an ADJACENT building Location (i.e. for a total of 7 MF).

So far so good. But what about reduced portage capability due to being CX?

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

So far so good. But what about reduced portage capability due to being CX?

von Marwitz

good catch!

 

[buser333]

So far so good. But what about reduced portage capability due to being CX?

von Marwitz

Yes, this reduces the leader to zero PP and is therefore disallowed. I have corrected many an opponent with this. A reason NOT to give those DCs to leaders.

 

[fanatic+1]

Hi all,
Just checking if my last dirty trick was allowed.

A leader carrying a DC moves with a squad, expenfing 5 MF.
The leader declares late CX to place the DC into an ADJACENT building Location (i.e. for a total of 7 MF).

I considered that the leader alone should go CX, as only the leader spent the 2 more MF - actually breakng from the stack without changing Locations, thus allowing leader MF bonus to apply to the squad.

Or should the squad become CX too?





PS : of course, the DC attack will suffer the CX +1 DRM (that is, if the leader is not pinned or broken by DFF or anither cause on his two DC placement MF).

The leader has a portage capacity of 0 when CX. A DC is 1 portage point, thereby reducing his available MF by one. Late declaration of CX gives him one additional MF, for a total of seven. This would be reduced to 6 by carrying 1PP in excess of his capacity of 0. Accordingly, I do not think he had sufficient MF to make the move.

sorry, just saw all the other posts regarding this issue.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Yup, prior planning could have avoided this by declaring the Leader CX (Double Time) at the beginning if its MPh which would have reduced his MF allowance to 7 for excess portage. The squad could still have moved 5MF during its MPh accompanied by the leader.

 

[buser333]

Yup, prior planning could have avoided this by declaring the Leader CX (Double Time) at the beginning if its MPh which would have reduced his MF allowance to 7 for excess portage. The squad could still have moved 5MF during its MPh accompanied by the leader.

Double timing at the start would reduce the leader's PP to 0, prohibiting him from moving with the DC whatsoever.

 

[buser333]

The leader has a portage capacity of 0 when CX. A DC is 1 portage point, thereby reducing his available MF by one. Late declaration of CX gives him one additional MF, for a total of seven. This would be reduced to 6 by carrying 1PP in excess of his capacity of 0. Accordingly, I do not think he had sufficient MF to make the move.

sorry, just saw all the other posts regarding this issue.

PP of zero does not mean MF is reduced by one for carrying one, it means they cannot carry anything at all and move.

 

[jrv]

PP of zero does not mean MF is reduced by one for carrying one, it means they cannot carry anything at all and move.

Not according to Q&A for the wounded case:

A17.2 Even though a wounded SMC "has no IPC", may he portage a SW?
A. Yes, subtracting that SW's PP value from his three-MF allotment. (In A17.2, change "no IPC" to "an IPC of zero"). However, a wounded SMC may not carry > 2 PP (A4.42), nor may he portage any SW while he is being "carried" by a MMC. [An93b; Mw]

It would be surprising if the same did not apply to CX.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

PP of zero does not mean MF is reduced by one for carrying one, it means they cannot carry anything at all and move.

I'm not sure that A4.42 & A4.52 supports this view. (?) [See also Example]

 

[buser333]

Not according to Q&A for the wounded case:



It would be surprising if the same did not apply to CX.

JR

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying for me.

 

[buser333]

I'm not sure that A4.42 & A4.52 supports this view. (?) [See also Example]

It seems completely counterintuitive to me but I suppose a strict reading does support the official view.

 

[clubby]

I think there's an inherent difference between having no portage capability and having an IPC of zero.

 

[James Taylor]

PP of zero does not mean MF is reduced by one for carrying one, it means they cannot carry anything at all and move.

Curious if I've missed something... what rule leads you to this conclusion?

JT

 

[Rock SgtDan]

Consider Russian sqd mmg, sqd lmg and leader xxxxxxxx.
The stack can move 4 hexes,
drop off the sqd with MMG (he gets the leader move bonus as he spent all of HIS MPh with a leader)
move a further 2 hexes xxxxxx.

.
Seems odd that the leader can spend his bonus on coordinating the hauling of the mmg, and then spend it again to coordinate a different stack of MMGs move of 2 more hexes.
.
Seems odd that when a stack moves from A to B, the player is allowed to declare that different members of the stack are spending different amounts of Movement.

 

[Vinnie]

.
Seems odd that the leader can spend his bonus on coordinating the hauling of the mmg, and then spend it again to coordinate a different stack of MMGs move of 2 more hexes.
.
Seems odd that when a stack moves from A to B, the player is allowed to declare that different members of the stack are spending different amounts of Movement.

It seems odd because this is not what is happening. The leader (if not carrying anything) can assist the mmg haulers but only one of them.
The mmg haulers get his 2mf bonus as well. They just get left behind. (C'on guys, keep up!)

 

[Rock SgtDan]

It seems odd because this is not what is happening. The leader (if not carrying anything) can assist the mmg haulers but only one of them.
The mmg haulers get his 2mf bonus as well. They just get left behind. (C'on guys, keep up!)

So they moved into hex A, then B, then C, then D, then E, then F.
How many MF did the leader expend in each hex?
You say the bonus was expended on the MMG carriers prior to E & F.