A8 Defensive Fire...

[Tompy]

Question:

Situation: A half-squad with a BAZ First Fires on a unit and is marked First Fire.

Can that unit then fire its BAZ in the Defensive Fire Phase at an ADJACENT AFV?

Argument:
All over the rulebook it says things like, "...if a unit fires a MG/SW it forfeits its inherent FP for the remainder of that player turn [EXC: CC]..." However, nowhere does it say the opposite.

From my research I think the half-squad would be allowed to fire the BAZ with a +2 To Hit DRM.

What say ye?

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Brien Martin]

Jeff:

I don't think so, because you shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

If you can't use inherent because you used the BAZ first, then how could you simply switch the order, use the inherent first, *then* get to use the BAZ?

This is one of those "either-or" situations that works in both directions, even if the rule isn't worded to cover both directions.

Brien "Hey, but what do I know? I went 1-5 ..."

 

[Tompy]

Interesting Q&A...

A8.31 If a HS uses a LMG during Defensive First Fire, can it use both the LMG and its inherent FP during Subsequent-First-Fire/Final-Protective-Fire in the same phase?

A. No. It can use its LMG or its inherent FP in Subsequent First Fire; for FPF, it must use its LMG and cannot use its inherent FP. {96}


A halfsquad can fire its inherent FP as First Fire, then again as Final Fire. And if it had a MG it could fire the MG as First Fire, then again as Final Fire. So why couldn't it mix and match? In the rules it says it can't fire the MG then its inherent, but not vice versa.

Here's the thing. The SW would be fired using sustained fire penalties, i.e. +2 To Hit, X# = old B# and B# = old B#-2. It's not a freebie.

Anyway, mull it over. In my opinion, its not whether or not a halfsquad can fire its Inherent FP then a MG, because the Q&A clearly allows it, but whether the SW can be a BAZ.

Later,
Jeff

 

[Corporal Kindel]

Question:

Situation: A half-squad with a BAZ First Fires on a unit and is marked First Fire.

Can that unit then fire its BAZ in the Defensive Fire Phase at an ADJACENT AFV?

A half squad marked with a first fire counter cannot shoot a baz (or non-mg sw) because only Guns (not sw) may use intensive fire as per C5.6 v2. Sustained fire is an option only available to MGs as per A9.3. Another more (indirect) confirmation is with rule C13.31 on PFs: "... A unit may not make a PF Check in SFF or FPF ..."

 

[Slam]

Having just completed a thread on C9 mortars, applying what I think I learnt from the venerable Brian W and Ole to this example :

- The half squad CAN fire the mortar as First Fire and still use its inherent as Subsequent First or Final Fire Vs. Adj targets as per 8.3
- The half squad CANNOT use inherent FP for FF and then fire the BAZ as SFF or FF because the BAZ cannot use either Intensive (Not a GUN) or sustained fire (Not an MG) so has no way to get another shot as per 8.41.

I hope thats right....

 

[Thoroughbreds]

Double Dipping

No chance Thompson...get with the program...

 

[Tompy]

No chance Thompson...get with the program...

Crap! I forgot completely about the issue of Sustained fire. Sadly all my MG MMC were gone due to boxcars. Even had it been an MG I would not have been able to take To Hit with it because you can't roll To Hit with sustained fire.

But what I find interesting is that if you have a halfsquad and a MG and fire the inherent FP in First Fire, you can fire either in SFF. In fact in a TPBF situation, if able, the halfsquad must use the MG.

It was like 2am and I was desperate, that's all I remember.

Ok, thanks guys, my head is back where it should be.

Later,
Jeff

 

[Treadhead]

Question:

Situation: A half-squad with a BAZ First Fires on a unit and is marked First Fire.

Can that unit then fire its BAZ in the Defensive Fire Phase at an ADJACENT AFV?

Yes, certainly.

The HS is marked with a First Fire counter, and the BAZ is not.

" ... (being sure to place any SW that are still eligible to fire above that First Fire counter)" [A8.1]

Argument:
All over the rulebook it says things like, "...if a unit fires a MG/SW it forfeits its inherent FP for the remainder of that player turn [EXC: CC]..." However, nowhere does it say the opposite.

True.

But for this case:

"During Final Fire any of the DEFENDER's units/weapons that are not marked with a First, Final, Intensive, or No Fire counter may fire." [A8.4]

From my research I think the half-squad would be allowed to fire the BAZ with a +2 To Hit DRM.

Since the BAZ is not marked with a First Fire counter, it has full capability during Final Fire.

If the HS uses the BAZ during Final Fire, it loses its inherent FP, i.e. it cannot use its inherent FP versus an adjacent unit per A7.353.

Otherwise, I haven't been able to find anything restricting the BAZ in your situation.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Brien Martin]

Except, Bruce, that the Support Weapons Usage Chart says that if a HS uses a BAZ, it does so at the loss of its inherent FP. Therefore, the HS can *either* use its inherent, *or* use the BAZ, but not both.

Thus, both are placed under a FF counter if *either* is used, and, as someone else mentioned, that puts any SW in the position to use Sustained Fire, which is only usable by MG in SFF/FPF situations. Thus, the BAZ can't be used, as it is not capable of Sustained Fire.

Brien

 

[Ole Boe]

I think Bruce's reasoning is that if the HS uses its Inherent FP first, then there's no rule telling us to mark all its SW with First Fire, and that the HS therefore may fire the BAZ as normal since it is not marked with a fire counter.

Using the BAZ means the loss of Inherent FP, but use of Inherent FP doesn't mean loss of SW capability - seems to be Bruce's reasoning.


I think Bruce is utterly wrong. The problem is that no rule spells it out clearly. The SW useage chart and A7.353 says that the use of a SW means the loss of Inherent FP, but doesn't really say that this means that the SW use is illegal after having used Inherent FP - which I think is the intention.

If Bruce was right, then a HS could always fire its Inherent FP and one SW in any fire phase, as long as it fired its Inherent FP first.


Fortunately, there is one place that proves that this is illegal, and that is the large example at the end of A8. The last paragraph says:
"Now assume that the LMG was possessed by a 2-2-8 crew ... The crew could use either its inherent FP or the LMG. The crew or its LMG (now both marked with a First Fire counter)"

Note that both the crew and its LMG is marked with a First Fire counter regardless of whether it used its Inherent FP or the SW, thus making it illegal to use the SW for anything but SFF/FPF/Final Fire vs adjacent unit - and those three options are na for a BAZ.

This makes sense - as soon as a HS or Crew fires one weapon (inherent, SW or Gun) without maintaining ROF, it and all its weapons are marked with the appropriate fire counter, since one weapon is all a HS/Crew can fire per Player Turn.

 

[Paul S NJ]

PF and CR squad question

Ole,
I believe you are correct.

Saw an interesting event at the ASL Open though and am curious for the group's opinions.

A full squad fires a PF from a building. It takes the backblast and rolls a red '1' to CR to a hs. (of course the white DR was high enough to miss the target :nuts: )

If it didn't CR clearly the squad would have used its SW-equiv FF capability, but would retain it's FF capability (for its inherent FP).

Now is the hs marked with a FF or not (or in other words, can the hs now try for a PF too)?

Since the game doesn't distinguish between SW and inherent FP FF in the counters, but does in the rules, I don't believe the rules are clear on this.

The players involved rolled a die to see 'which hs' had fired (which I think was as good an answer as any).

Of course the roll allowed for another shot, the hs found a PF, hit the target, and rolled a dud on the TK :laugh: . Isn't this a fun game!

Paul

 

[Ole Boe]

Ole,
I believe you are correct.

A full squad fires a PF from a building. It takes the backblast and rolls a red '1' to CR to a hs. (of course the white DR was high enough to miss the target :nuts: )

If it didn't CR clearly the squad would have used its SW-equiv FF capability, but would retain it's FF capability (for its inherent FP).

Correct, or rather, the Squad would retain FF capability for a second weapon, which may be a (inherent) SW or Inherent FP.

Now is the hs marked with a FF or not (or in other words, can the hs now try for a PF too)?

I would say that the HS is not marked with FF, and therefore can make one more PF check. The reasoning is that it was a full Squad at the time the first attack was made.

 

[Brien Martin]

<i>The SW useage chart and A7.353 says that the use of a SW means the loss of Inherent FP, but doesn't really say that this means that the SW use is illegal after having used Inherent FP - which I think is the intention.</i>

Ole, I agree with your assessment.

I would like to point out that the rule doesn't need to explicitly state that, if one uses reverse logic.

That is, if using a SW *first* causes the loss of inherent FP, then using the inherent FP *first* prevents the use of a SW, because, once used, the inherent FP cannot then be "lost" through the use of a SW, because it has already been used. In other words, how can you be forced to "lose" something you have already demonstrated a use for?

Brien

 

[Treadhead]

I think Bruce's reasoning is that if the HS uses its Inherent FP first, then there's no rule telling us to mark all its SW with First Fire, and that the HS therefore may fire the BAZ as normal since it is not marked with a fire counter.

You basically got it.

I looked for that rule. Couldn't find it though... I quoted what I found and thought was pertinent.

Keep in mind that "BAZ as normal" in this case is governed by A7.352-.353.

Using the BAZ means the loss of Inherent FP, but use of Inherent FP doesn't mean loss of SW capability - seems to be Bruce's reasoning.

Let's be clear about this; we're talking about Defensive First Fire.

For First Fire, if the HS uses the BAZ, the Inherent FP is not available, and the unit and BAZ is marked with First Fire, which it would have to be because of A7.352.

Then, for Subsequent First Fire, A7.353 tells us that Inherent FP is available again, but at 1/2 FP. It does not matter how or if that FP was used during First Fire.

Say the HS instead used its Inherent FP as First Fire; the unit is marked with a First Fire counter, but the BAZ is not, because of A8.1. The BAZ may not use First Fire because of A7.352.

Again, for Subsequent First Fire, A7.353 tells us that Inherent FP may be used again, but that it can be forfeit if using a SW. So that tells me the BAZ is available for Subsequent First Fire; and since the unit cannot use Inherent FP for Subsequent First Fire when firing the BAZ, the unit is marked with a Final Fire marker.

I think Bruce is utterly wrong. The problem is that no rule spells it out clearly. The SW useage chart and A7.353 says that the use of a SW means the loss of Inherent FP, but doesn't really say that this means that the SW use is illegal after having used Inherent FP - which I think is the intention.

Nice of you to think I am utterly wrong, even though "no rule spells it out clearly." I would say, not even vaguely.

Again, to be clear, there absolutely is no rule directing us to mark the SW of a HS that has used its Inherent FP. In fact, A8.1 makes it a point to remind players to not mark a SW that has not fired. So I follow that rule and go from there.

If Bruce was right, then a HS could always fire its Inherent FP and one SW in any fire phase, as long as it fired its Inherent FP first.

No, that's not what I mean at all.

Remember, in the original question of this thread, we had a HS firing its Inherent FP in the MPh.

So, applying A7.353:

"In both of the above cases [HS firing SW], ... Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks (regardless of how they were used during First Fire) [emphasis added] -- although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attack can negate inherent FP in the normal manner."

This clearly implies that, even though inherent FP was used for First Fire, for Final Fire the HS may have "use of full SW capability" during Final Fire. This tells me that the HS may possess SW that are not marked by a First Fire counter; otherwise, that statement is false.

Which is no problem, because A8.1 told me "to place any SW that are still eligible to fire above that First Fire counter".

Fortunately, there is one place that proves that this is illegal, and that is the large example at the end of A8. The last paragraph says:
"Now assume that the LMG was possessed by a 2-2-8 crew ... The crew could use either its inherent FP or the LMG. The crew or its LMG (now both marked with a First Fire counter)"

Note that both the crew and its LMG is marked with a First Fire counter regardless of whether it used its Inherent FP or the SW, thus making it illegal to use the SW for anything but SFF/FPF/Final Fire vs adjacent unit - and those three options are na for a BAZ.

I cannot refute the example.

May I just calmly state -- and ask you to appreciate -- the level of my angst right now.

You see, I used simple rules and simple reasoning to prove my point about what the rules say.

But I give you credit for digging deep into an EX of small print, and finding a parenthetical reference to marking both the unit and the LMG with a First Fire counter.

What I ask is this: Exactly why should it be taken that they are "now both marked with a First Fire counter". This is an EXAMPLE, supposedly to demonstrate a rule. Where is the rule that states what this EXAMPLE is demonstrating?

I have been told from Perry that "EX are a part of the rules". Fine; I think that's stupid, but I accept that because... well, because of this exact situation.

All this has done is increased my animus toward EX-as-Rules.

Examples are used to demonstrate or illustrate a concept or idea that has already been presented. The concept the example is demonstrating should be sufficient to stand alone without the example; the example is only to clarify.

Well, when used correctly, that is.

If at all possible, show me this somewhere in the rules, and without resorting to opinion about its possible intention.

... as soon as a HS or Crew fires one weapon (inherent, SW or Gun) without maintaining ROF, it and all its weapons are marked with the appropriate fire counter ...

"... it and all its weapons"? Where do the rules say this? That's all I'm asking...

During Prep Fire, if I fire my inherent FP with a HS, why do I have to mark the LMG it is carrying? I would not argue that the HS could later fire it, because the unit itself is marked, but nowhere, no-how do I see instruction to also mark a SW that did not fire.

I guess you win this argument. A feeble parenthetical reference buried at the end of a lengthy EXAMPLE... sheesh.

I guess the ASLRB still has a long ways to go... so does that make it a "Living Rulebook" or "Rulebook that Lives"???

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[zgrose]

Does seem a little odd if a HS could fire both IFP and SW as long as it fired the SW first. But I agree with Bruce that this conclusion could use a more explicit affirmation somewhere in the body of the rules. The whole mechanics of who/what is firing and who/what gets First/Final Fire markers could use a nice big illustrated example. =)

 

[Ole Boe]

Let's be clear about this; we're talking about Defensive First Fire.

For First Fire, if the HS uses the BAZ, the Inherent FP is not available, and the unit and BAZ is marked with First Fire, which it would have to be because of A7.352.

Then, for Subsequent First Fire, A7.353 tells us that Inherent FP is available again, but at 1/2 FP. It does not matter how or if that FP was used during First Fire.

I'm with you so far...

Say the HS instead used its Inherent FP as First Fire; the unit is marked with a First Fire counter, but the BAZ is not, because of A8.1. The BAZ may not use First Fire because of A7.352.

I think the BAZ is marked with a First Fire counter, although I don't think the rule is very clear here. A8.1 only says not to mark SW "still eligible to fire", but the BAZ is not eligible to fire due to A7.352, and the A8.41 example tells us to mark it with First Fire - which makes perfect sense IMHO, since the HS has used its one normal (non SFF etc.) shot for the Player Turn.

Again, for Subsequent First Fire, A7.353 tells us that Inherent FP may be used again, but that it can be forfeit if using a SW. So that tells me the BAZ is available for Subsequent First Fire; and since the unit cannot use Inherent FP for Subsequent First Fire when firing the BAZ, the unit is marked with a Final Fire marker.

This is correct, except that you forgot that BAZ cannot use SFF at all - it is correct if we're talking about a MG though. A8.3: "Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire."

Nice of you to think I am utterly wrong, even though "no rule spells it out clearly." I would say, not even vaguely.

I guess I didn't communicate well enough what I meant. I think Defensive (First) Fire works very logical if you simply mark the unit and all its SW as soon as it has fired one weapon (SMC, HS, Crew) or two weapons (Squad). Any other interpretation makes the rule less logical and more convoluted IMHO. That's why I added the "utterly wrong" part - not because your interpretation is stupid. I do think the rules spells it out - vaguely - though.

Again, to be clear, there absolutely is no rule directing us to mark the SW of a HS that has used its Inherent FP. In fact, A8.1 makes it a point to remind players to not mark a SW that has not fired. So I follow that rule and go from there.

There is the main A8 example telling us to do so. I dislike examples having to tell us what to do since the rule lacks clarity, but the example is part of the rule. And as I wrote above, A8.1 tells us to not mark SW still eligible to fire, which the BAZ no longer is, so A8.1 doesn't help you.

Remember, in the original question of this thread, we had a HS firing its Inherent FP in the MPh.

So, applying A7.353:

"In both of the above cases [HS firing SW], ... Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks (regardless of how they were used during First Fire) [emphasis added] -- although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attack can negate inherent FP in the normal manner."

You're wrong about what "In both..." refers to. It clearly refers to A7.351 and A7.352, which means HS firing SW or Squads firing SW...

This clearly implies that, even though inherent FP was used for First Fire, for Final Fire the HS may have "use of full SW capability" during Final Fire.

That is absolutely not what it says, and not what it means.

It simply means exactly what it says, that if you use the full SW capability (one SW for a HS, two SW for a Squad), then the Inherent FP is negated.

Those SW must of course be allowed to fire though - which the BAZ cannot since it can only be fired at the cost of the HS' Inherent FP - and the Inherent FP is already spent.

This tells me that the HS may possess SW that are not marked by a First Fire counter; otherwise, that statement is false.

The statement is only false with your false interpretation of what it means. It only means what it says though.

Which is no problem, because A8.1 told me "to place any SW that are still eligible to fire above that First Fire counter".

But you forget that the BAZ is not eligible to fire. Look at the SW Chart (which you seem to have overlooked). It says: "May fire one SW but at cost of inherent FP". I think that is pretty clear: if you already have spent your inherent FP, then you can of course not fire any SW at the cost of them.

I cannot refute the example.

May I just calmly state -- and ask you to appreciate -- the level of my angst right now.

You see, I used simple rules and simple reasoning to prove my point about what the rules say.

But I give you credit for digging deep into an EX of small print, and finding a parenthetical reference to marking both the unit and the LMG with a First Fire counter.

Don't underestimate this EX. This is the main A8 example, and is the closest we get to a comprehensive DFF example.

I understand that you think the example is wrong, based on your interpretation of what A7.353 says, and when overlooking the SW Chart. But I have shown why I think your reasoning is incorrect, based on the rules (and the chart) - thus the example makes sense.

What I ask is this: Exactly why should it be taken that they are "now both marked with a First Fire counter". This is an EXAMPLE, supposedly to demonstrate a rule. Where is the rule that states what this EXAMPLE is demonstrating?

The rule is mainly A7.352 and the clearer text of the SW chart, telling us that the BAZ can only be used if the HS has not used its inherent FP. Unfortunately, A7.351/A7.352 doesn't tell us the logical implication of this: to mark all SW when the fire capability is used, but that is the logical implication of the restriction, and the example shows that this is the intention.

Or in other words (to rub it in) - this example shows that my interpretation (and not yours) of the rules, is the correct one. :whist:

Examples are used to demonstrate or illustrate a concept or idea that has already been presented. The concept the example is demonstrating should be sufficient to stand alone without the example; the example is only to clarify.

Well, when used correctly, that is.

I really agree to this. Unfortunately, parts of the rules aren't written clearly enough to stand by themselves as they should- and I've always though that A7 and A8 is way too muddy for their importance.

If at all possible, show me this somewhere in the rules, and without resorting to opinion about its possible intention.

I think I've done so, and even (IMHO) refuting your opinion about A7.353's possible intention. :laugh:

"... it and all its weapons"? Where do the rules say this? That's all I'm asking...

In the example. The ruletext only tells us that all its weapons can no longer be used - which happens to be best indicated by marking them with the appropriate counter.

During Prep Fire, if I fire my inherent FP with a HS, why do I have to mark the LMG it is carrying?

Because it makes it easy to see that the LMG cannot fire anymore.

I would not argue that the HS could later fire it, because the unit itself is marked, but nowhere, no-how do I see instruction to also mark a SW that did not fire.

Suit yourself - only don't break the rule by firing a SW with a HS at the cost of the inherent FP after having used the inherent FP. I would consider it a nuisance if you deliberately neglect to put a SW beneath a fire counter when it no longer can fire, though - as the only result of doing so is to create confusion.

 

[Tater]

Again, for Subsequent First Fire, A7.353 tells us that Inherent FP may be used again, but that it can be forfeit if using a SW. So that tells me the BAZ is available for Subsequent First Fire; and since the unit cannot use Inherent FP for Subsequent First Fire when firing the BAZ, the unit is marked with a Final Fire marker.

A8.3 "Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire. "

Nope, a BAZ is not small arms, MG, or IFE so can not be used for SFF.

 

[Treadhead]

I'm too tired right now to go through all the permutations again.

Suffice it to say that I accept that BAZ may not use SFF.

Suit yourself - only don't break the rule by firing a SW with a HS at the cost of the inherent FP after having used the inherent FP. I would consider it a nuisance if you deliberately neglect to put a SW beneath a fire counter when it no longer can fire, though - as the only result of doing so is to create confusion.

I, sir, do not "deliberately neglect" to apply rules when it suits me. I find your attitude of "nuisance" to be a bit too presumptuous in this matter.

I claim it as an application of "(being sure to place any SW that are still eligible to fire above that First Fire counter)". [A8.1]

Having seen no other ruling about the marking of such weapons when a HS uses its Inherent FP, I find that I am neglecting no rule.

(I've already seen the parenthetical commentary in the EX, but I've seen no evidence to indicate why that commentary -- being an example -- is true.)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[zgrose]

Bruce, I'm curious if you think allowing half-squads to fire IFP and SW as long they fire IFP first was intentional or if you think that it was the way the rule was written so that is how it should be played, regardless of intent. Nothing wrong with taking the rules literally, just wanted to get a feel for what POV you use when interpreting the rules.

 

[Jim McLeod]

A7.353 and A8

Forumites,

A7.353, my former favourite pet peeve rule. :cheeky:

Now that I have my noodle around A7.353, I have no problem with it other than how it is worded.

In a current PBEM match, my opponent has a leader and a squad with a bazooka stacked together. During my MPh, he 1stFired the leader and squad at one of my units, his leader and squad are now marked as 1stF'd. He then fired the leader and squad at another target as SFF. Now, the leader, squad and bazooka are all marked with a Final Fire counter. The bazooka can't fire since the squad used 1st Fire and SFF.

Now, assume that he chose to fire the bazooka while the squad was marked with a 1st Fire counter only. The leader, squad and bazooka would then all be marked as 1st Fired, correct?

If this is so, then the squad could still fire its IFP as SFF, correct?

If all that is correct, it seems odd that the order in which units/weapons fire will determine whether or not a squad can;

1st Fire, fire a bazooka and then fire its IFP as SFF,

or,

it can fire its IFP as 1st Fire and then SFF but then the use of the bazooka is lost.

Ole, you are correct. A7. and A8. need cleaning up.



=Jim=