A7.353 SFF Inherent FP vs non adjacent targets

[Robin Reeve]

A7.353 is about crew/HS manning a SW and having used it previously.

A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks (regardless of how they were used during First Fire)—although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attacks can negate inherent FP in the normal manner. See the 8.41 EX.

There is a debate on the Italian forum, I think, about the possibility that SFF could be used vs non adjacent targets.
Good players have answered positively.

I beg to differ for the following reason:
1) FPF and Final Fire normally apply only to adjacent targets.
So the "vs adjacent units" mention would be redundant in those cases.

2) So "vs adjacent units" is indicated to apply to SFF (which normally is not restricted to adjacent targets). Why would that precision mean otherwise?

Thoughts?

 

[Houtje]

A7.353 is about crew/HS manning a SW and having used it previously.

There is a debate on the Italian forum, I think, about the possibility that SFF could be used vs non adjacent targets.
Good players have answered positively.

I beg to differ for the following reason:
1) FPF and Final Fire normally apply only to adjacent targets.
So the "vs adjacent units" mention would be redundant in those cases.

2) So "vs adjacent units" is indicated to apply to SFF (which normally is not restricted to adjacent targets). Why would that precision mean otherwise?

Thoughts?

Interesting question. One thing, wrt to your first point: 'Final Fire', according to 8.4, is "that portion of Defensive Fire which occurs during the DFPh", so its general definition does not presume adjacency. In this case, of course, it will actually be the Final Fire of units that are already First fired, and thus Final Fire that can only be against adjacent units: however, since Final Fire in general can be against any unit (adjacent or not), the "vs adjacent units" in 7.353 could be intended to clarify that it is not about Final Fire in general, but only, indeed, about Final Fire against adjacent units.

I probably could have put this a bit more clearly, but pollen allergy is fogging up my mind

Anyway, the sentence could then be read to apply to: SFF (against adjacent or non-adjacent units), FPF (by definition always against adjacent units), and Final Fire (in this case always against adjacent units). My idea is that the explications I put in red are not mentioned because they were thought to be clear/evident, but that the one I put in blue IS mentioned (as a reminder), since Final Fire is not by definition against adjacent units.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Thanks for the answer.
You may be right indeed.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

This has been asked before, and there might even be Q&A.

Plus this Tip from the latest Journal...


ASL Journal 15, page 25.
Provided it doesn’t cower, a squad that uses two SW (including two attempts at PF) in Defensive First Fire can still use its Inherent FP
as Subsequent First Fire (A8.3) in the normal way per A7.353. That rule does not restrict Subsequent First Fire to adjacent units, only
Final Fire (A8.4) and (obviously) FPF (A8.31).

 

[Robin Reeve]

Thanks.

 

[ecz]

(...) and there might even be Q&A.

I think it is this one

A7.353
Q. May a HS that fired a SW in First Fire
use its inherent FP in Subsequent First Fire vs. a
non-adjacent target?
A. Yes, under the usual conditions (range, etc.).

 

[Robin Reeve]

I do find the rule ambiguous.
But I will follow the case law decision.

 

[Tesgora]

See also the excellent post by Jim Bishop on this subject.

Half Squads And Subsequent First Fire – The Bishop Says

Twice in the past two weeks I was playing ASL when Subsequent First Fire (SFF) options for half squads came up. In both instances, my opponents pointed to a rule stating SFF can only attack Adjacent enemy units. Now for me, this is pretty frustrating. Not because they have read the rule wrong...

jekl.com

In my opinion, this is another instance where the rulebook could benefit from a clearer statement of the rule.