A8.2 (RFP) and IFT Attacks vs armored units with no vulnerable PRC.

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,384
Reaction score
4,408
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Reading the latest "Perry Says" with regards to MOL and incumbent IFT attacks against an AFV this piqued my interest:
QUESTION #4: If the answers to Q1 & Q3 are yes - is the IFP of the squad halved as if conducting an attack vs a Concealed unit for RFP purposes?

A. If no non-armored unit was subject to the Small Arms attack, the RFP would be halved.


Does this mean if an IFT attack is conducted against an AFV with no vulnerable PRC the Residual Firepower Power normally placed is halved?

It has been my experience over the years this is simply not the case. Many (if not all) the players I've come across regularly fire at an AFV in an adjacent hex to leave full RFP to dissuade follow-on infantry from using that hex(es) to move adjacent to the friendly unit for the upcoming APh and then move into CC. The answer given above seems to imply that the RFP should have been halved all along because there was no vulnerable PRC to be attacked. Is that the case?
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,384
Reaction score
4,408
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The Q&A is specific to a MOL AFV attack, and answers the case when there is no unit at all present that is attacked beyond the AFV. Akin to a FF attack using Spraying Fire vs two hexes of which only one has a moving unit.
I understand, but by that very explanation, an IFT attack against a BU AFV with no Infantry (or other vulnerable PRC) in the Location would meet that criterion as well. The target of the IFT is by default the AFV in both case; I just fail to see the difference here. Perhaps I've been playing an IFT attack vs a CE AFV with attendant infantry using Armored Assault wrong. I always thought the FP directed against those targets was the full FP exerted against the location at both the infantry and the CE AFV. It seems as if it must be treated as spraying fire based upon your response, am I correct?
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
1,060
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
It seems odd that a unit that successfully rolls for a MOL but fails to destroy the AFV target will place less residual FP than if it just made exactly the same inherent FP attack without the MOL. Means that there is a disincentive to trying to use the MOL in the first place.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
2,838
Reaction score
459
Location
California
Country
llRussia
It seems odd that a unit that successfully rolls for a MOL but fails to destroy the AFV target will place less residual FP than if it just made exactly the same inherent FP attack without the MOL. Means that there is a disincentive to trying to use the MOL in the first place.
How the hell is that even interpreted from the rules??
With no kill vs the vehicle the MOL attack FP is still added to the SCA.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,043
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I understand, but by that very explanation, an IFT attack against a BU AFV with no Infantry (or other vulnerable PRC) in the Location would meet that criterion as well.
Don't think so - since in that case there is a unit that's being fired upon. The Q&A is only for the situation of a MOL attack vs an AFV.
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,384
Reaction score
4,408
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I can understand the MOL IFT part of the attack not having any RFP (or reduced-but that's not the case), but the Inherent IFT FP of the attacking unit is the same whether applied as part of a MOL attack or simply directed at the AFV or even if directed at an AFV with Armored Assaulting Infantry. The response simply doesn't make sense, realistically, logically, or rule wise IMHO.
 

ScottRomanowski

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
966
Reaction score
1,229
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
I can see @klasmalmstrom's point -- for the IFT at only a BU AFV, that attack is made against something. On the other hand, the IFT attack with the MOL TK attack is "extra" and has no target -- like the empty hex in the spraying fire example mentioned.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
2,838
Reaction score
459
Location
California
Country
llRussia
I can see @klasmalmstrom's point -- for the IFT at only a BU AFV, that attack is made against something. On the other hand, the IFT attack with the MOL TK attack is "extra" and has no target -- like the empty hex in the spraying fire example mentioned.
Yet it has effect vs PRC? when the Tank was the target?

Maybe one of those...doesn't happen that often concepts
 
Top