A8.312 TPBF, A12.151 Bypass, D7.2 Reaction Fire, and D7.22 Non-CC Reaction Fire

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
A8.312 TPBF: An armed, unbroken Infantry DEFENDER not in Melee must after all Residual-FP/minefield/OBA attacks then immediately attack any Infantry/Cavalry MMC unit that enters its Location during the MPh whether it uses Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF [EXC: A SMC with a MG/IFE already marked with a First Fire counter may not use Subsequent First Fire or FPF because it cannot use Sustained Fire; 9.3]. See also OVR; D7.2. All such FPF and any Defensive/ Subsequent First Fire must be combined into one Mandatory FG (7.55).
A12.151 Bypass ...Any AFV using VBM in the hex can be attacked using Reaction Fire (D7.2).
D7.2 REACTION FIRE: Reaction Fire is conducted during the MPh by the DEFENDER, who uses it to attack a vehicle in that DEFENDER'S (or, if using Street Fighting [7.211], in an allowed ADJACENT) Location. There are two types of Reaction Fire: CC Reaction Fire (7.21), which is resolved on the CCT; and Non-CC Reaction Fire (7.22), which is resolved on a TK Table or the IFT and which can be used only vs an OVR.
D7.22 NON-CC REACTION FIRE: Each unbroken DEFENDER unit in an OVR Location and not beneath a CC/Melee counter may conduct Non-CC Reaction Fire within (and up to the limits of) its present capabilities, using TPBF/ordnance/FT/Thrown-DC in the normal manner vs that OVRing vehicle [EXC: if that DEFENDER is marked with a Final Fire counter, see 7.221; if it possesses a Gun that is marked with a fire counter, see 7.23; if it is pinned, see A7.81]. A Gun must change its CA to coincide with that of the OVRing vehicle's VGA before it can fire, but TH Cases A and E are NA. A Reaction Fire ordnance hit or FT/DC attack vs an OVRing AFV automatically strikes (or is Thrown through; C7.346) that AFV's rear Target Facing. MOL cannot be used with/as TPBF if that DEFENDER, or any Gun it possesses, is marked with a First/Final/Intensive/No Fire counter. For TPBF vs an OT AFV, see also A7.211.
1a. Does the reference in A8.312 that directs readers to D7.2 mean that all fire by Infantry vs a vehicle moving in its Location/hex is a form of Reaction Fire?

b. If not, where do the rules make a distinction between "ordinary" Defensive First Fire and Reaction Fire where Infantry fire on a vehicle moving in its Location/hex?

2a. Given that A12.151 allows Reaction Fire vs a vehicle using VBM, should D7.22 include an exception for vehicles using VBM in a DEFENDER's hex?

b. Or should A12.151 be amended to read "CC Reaction Fire."
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Thanks for the insight Bob. Not sure it answers the question posed by a friend of mine.

But I'll let him know that your take on the subject is Gröfaz approved. ;)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,184
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The fact that a vehicle in bypass can be attacked by Reaction Fire in A12.151 does not mean that it can only be attacked by Reaction Fire. A12.151 grants an additional capability and does not limit any others, i.e. the ability to fire DFF normally.

JR
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
The fact that a vehicle in bypass can be attacked by Reaction Fire in A12.151 does not mean that it can only be attacked by Reaction Fire. A12.151 grants an additional capability and does not limit any others, i.e. the ability to fire DFF normally.

JR
CC Reaction Fire only, correct? Having a hard time visualizing non-CC Reaction Fire in this case.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
So this ought to lay to rest any questions regarding Reaction Fire being the only fire option available to a DEFENDER during the MPh in order to attack a vehicle in that DEFENDER'S (or, if using Street Fighting [7.211], in an allowed ADJACENT) Location.

In other words, given that non-CC Reaction fire is not permitted in a VBM situation, regular defensive First Fire must be. And therefore, regular DFF is also permitted against an OVRing vehicle before the OVR is resolved, because D7.2, in part because this rule doesn't exclude the option of using DFF. Have I got this right?

I'm trying to explain to a friend why the OVR Flowchart is correct in this regard even though it was printed long after the publication of the first edition of the ASLRB.

As I see it, the main advantage of foregoing a DFF option in favour of a non-CC Reaction Fire one is to benefit from the fact that a "Reaction Fire ordnance hit or FT/DC attack vs an OVRing AFV automatically strikes (or is Thrown through; C7.346) that AFV's rear Target Facing." Also correct?

TIA
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,184
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
As I see it, the main advantage of foregoing a DFF option in favour of a non-CC Reaction Fire one is to benefit from the fact that a "Reaction Fire ordnance hit or FT/DC attack vs an OVRing AFV automatically strikes (or is Thrown through; C7.346) that AFV's rear Target Facing." Also correct?
That's one reason. The unit that is considering non-CC RF might be concealed, in which case the OVR will be at half FP.

Note that all placed/thrown DC & FT (& MOL) attacks against a same-hex vehicle target are vs. its rear facing [A23.5; D3.2], so waiting for the non-CC RF is not useful for those cases.

JR
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
That's one reason. The unit that is considering non-CC RF might be concealed, in which case the OVR will be at half FP.

Note that all placed/thrown DC & FT (& MOL) attacks against a same-hex vehicle target are vs. its rear facing [A23.5; D3.2], so waiting for the non-CC RF is not useful for those cases.

JR
Thanks.

I was thinking more of a LATW attack vs the rear aspect. A squad with a LATW in a foxhole has a decent chance of surviving an OVR unbroken. But good point re a concealed DEFENDER.
 
Last edited:

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,058
Reaction score
831
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
Would not a PAATC be required to maintain concealment versus an overrun (if not exempt from PAATC soul)?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,184
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Would not a PAATC be required to maintain concealment versus an overrun (if not exempt from PAATC soul)?
True. If all the units in the target hex are concealed, the OVR can't be declared outside the hex. The vehicle has to enter without declaring OVR. The DEFENDER then takes the PAATC based on the entry if the units are subject to it, or it can choose to give up concealment and possibly make a DFF attack against the entering vehicle. Once the entry and PAATC/DFF have been completed, the ATTACKER may declare an OVR as a new, separate expenditure. The DEFENDER already knows whether he is losing concealment or not. If not, he can choose regular DFF anyway, losing concealment for the OVR and hitting a random facing (unless using MOL, FT or DC), or he can choose to wait for non-CC-RF attack, take the OVR while concealed and attack the target in the rear assuming he survives the OVR. There's quite a number of options.

JR
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,935
Reaction score
1,656
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
A related Q&A:

A12.41

An armed, "unbroken" AFV enters a Location containing one or more HIP units during that AFV's MPh. The HIP units do not voluntarily drop Concealment (HIP) and so are required to take a PAATC. If the HIP units pass this PAATC, are they placed on board under a "?" counter or do they remain HIP?

A. HIP.

If they remain HIP, may the AFV conduct an Overrun as Area Fire on the HIP units, if otherwise able to do so?

A. Yes.

If the HIP units are immune to PAATC, is there any requirement to inform the opposing player that there are HIP units in the Location his vehicle has entered?

A. No. {2}
 

ReggieRed

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
93
Reaction score
35
Location
Central Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Sorry for bringing this semi-zombie thread back to life (it has only been dead for a couple of months...not even enough time to start to decompose!), but my regular VASL opponent and I had a reaction fire situation come up in our current KGS scenario tonight that tripped us up a bit. I think the question came down to the definition of "non-CC Reaction Fire".

A German 9-1 and 548 squad with a MMG occupy a fortified building and have yet to fire in the Russian MPh. A Russian tank moves ADJACENT to the building in its MPh in a hex that would permit it to be attacked from the fortified building via Street Fighting. The Germans pass their PAATC, attack using Street Fighting, and proceed to immobilize the tank. Per D7.21, the squad, leader and MMG are all marked with a CC counter and a First Fire counter. The question is can the squad (and MMG using sustained fire if so desired), SFF vs other units that move ADJACENT to the building? D7.21 says that the CC counter's effect is to "...prohibit non-CC Reaction Fire attacks", but it seems to me that "non-CC Reaction Fire attacks" only apply to units that are being overrun per D7.22. That is, a normal SFF shot vs. another infantry unit moving up is not by definition a "non-CC Reaction Fire" attack, and thus would be permitted even if the unit is under a CC counter? Klaus' response above stating that "Non-CC RF is only vs OVRing vehicles" would have be think that an SFF shot against other ADJACENT infantry would be legal even if under a CC counter.

Scott

Sc
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
10,898
Reaction score
4,325
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Klas may have a different opinion, but if the intent was to restrict normal SFF attacks, then CC counter would suffice and there would be no need for a First Fire counter. "non-CC Reaction" attack is well defined in the ASLRB (D7.22). Those types of attacks are prohibited when marked with a CC counter. Anything else allowed by the rules is fair game. Since the immobilized tanks is Adjacent, your SFF would be limited to Adjacent- and Same Location-targets. Remember that even though immobilized, the AFV is still considered a moving target so the +1 TEM for the AFV won't apply during the same MPh. -- jim
 

ReggieRed

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
93
Reaction score
35
Location
Central Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Klas may have a different opinion, but if the intent was to restrict normal SFF attacks, then CC counter would suffice and there would be no need for a First Fire counter. "non-CC Reaction" attack is well defined in the ASLRB (D7.22). Those types of attacks are prohibited when marked with a CC counter. Anything else allowed by the rules is fair game. Since the immobilized tanks is Adjacent, your SFF would be limited to Adjacent- and Same Location-targets. Remember that even though immobilized, the AFV is still considered a moving target so the +1 TEM for the AFV won't apply during the same MPh. -- jim
Thanks, Jim. That's what I thought.
 
Top