A7.55 Mandatory FG

[Koniak]

Can someone clearify this for me.

1. I have a russian MMC 4-4-7 and LMG 2-6.
2. I have a target 8 hexes away which I wan't to fire at.
3. Thus the MMC FP is halved from 4 to 2 FP
4. The LMG FP is halved from 2 to 1 FP

In this case, the LMG would not affect the attack at all, since I would have to use 2 FP on the IFT anyway.

The option here would be to fire only the MMC first (2 FP) and then the LMG (1 FP). But as I understand it, A7.55 will not allow this and I will have to fire all at once or forfeit one of them. Is this correct?

A Similair situation would be having 3 HS of 2-4-7 firing at a distance of say 8 hexes. That would give me a combined FP of 3 FP. But with only one target available I have no use of one of the HS in this fire attack. Is this correct?

/Micke

 

[Brian W]

Is this correct?

Yes, this is one reason some people use the IIFT, since that fire table has a 3 column.

 

[Pitman]

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I hate the IIFT, since it seems to be promulgated on the notion that each addition of firepower in combat, no matter how small, will have an additional effect.

 

[Koniak]

Yes, this is one reason some people use the IIFT, since that fire table has a 3 column.

Thanks gyus.

Probably it's something I ought to know, but what is the IIFT and when can you opt to use it? (I've only used the IFT...)

 

[Pitman]

The IIFT, or Incremental Infantry Fire Table, is an optional rules table that can only be used if both players agree to use it instead of the IFT. It is different from the IFT in that it has a great many more fire columns (as opposed to 1fp, 2fp, 4fp, 6fp, 8fp, etc.).

 

[Robin Reeve]

IIFT appeared in ASL Annual 1989.
There was a great debate about its use.
Now it is published and cited as an option in the 2nd edition of rules.
Here in Switzerland and France we use it, because it stops players using their SW and other FP just to fit with the "standard columns" (your question about not using a LMG just because it does not change anything is typical of what sort of 'gamey' calculation the IIFT tries to prevent : would the Russian really hesitate using ist LMG?).
But good remarks were made about some supplementary "PTC" results in the "in-between" columns, which led to the accusation against the IIFT as a "Concealement stripping" Table. Now, these additional "PTC" are marked in blue, so that one does not apply their result when firing at a "?" stack...

I always use IIFT, because it leads me to take decisions that are more natural than calculating every FP (you find the same unnatural counting in games where you must attain "3 against 1" odds).
Pitman's argument about adding every teeny weeny FP, because it adds to the effect, is partially acceptable.
First, the difference of effect is minimal (the IIFT columns are very progressive and one is not led to add FP just for the small progress they offer - there are much more important arguments for using or not a supplemental FP).

Second, over 5FP, there is no IIFT column with half FP (as 2 1/2).

Third, in my case anyway, I do not ask myself : "Does the 1 FP ATR add something to that 4FP FG?" but I just play saying to myself "Why should my 4FP restrain from using a 1FP ATR, just because the standard IFT does not make any difference and that I only risk a breakdown?"

I believe the best prevention against using meaningless FP is the Sniper rules (with a SAN of 4, per example, one usually restrains from firing if one only obtains a significant result rolling 3 or less : risk of a sniper activation is greater than using the last nearly unsignificant FP available).

On another side, if small FP were not to be taken in account, why then bother with IFT FP colulmns 1 and 2 at all?
In ASL, 1FP and 2FP attacks have created so many problems and have helped so many victories, that I do believe that small FP really count in this game...
Last note : the most important is to have fun playing, whatever the choice... I have been playing SL (and ASL) since 1982, way before the IIFT came out. The pleasure of gaming was full and remains whatever the table one uses. 8)

 

[Koniak]

Thanks guys, that was good information!

 

[da priest]

Rather than starting the debate again for the five hundredth time, let it be noted the use of the IFT is mandatory unless both players agree to another fire table.

That being said, Robin repeats the IIFT players mantra quite well. The IFTers have an equally compelling mantra, disputing all his points.

The use of Fire Table is a religious thing only.