A9.22 Fire Lane and DR Sequence

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
122
Reaction score
19
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Hi all,

May a unit firing a MG wait till the result of the DR before declaring a fire lane, or must one declare a fire lane before rolling? If I may wait to see the result of the DR, I might prefer to retain ROF...if lucky enough to retain it.

Thanks
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
No. You state you are firing a MG and at that time you "declare" you will place the FL. It is part and parcel of that first shot.

9.22 FIRE LANE: Whenever the DEFENDER declares a Defensive First Fire attack with a Good Order SW MG that is manned by unpinned Infantry (even as ordnance or as part of a FG), he may also declare a Fire Lane with that MG if it is not already marked with a First/Final Fire counter and is firing within its Normal Range (but not using TPBF) and at a same-level (B.5) target. If he does declare a Fire Lane, he must place a First Fire counter on the MG and, after resolving that First Fire attack in the normal manner, must also place a Fire Lane Residual FP counter in one hex along a Hex Grain; that Hex Grain must include the MG’s hex and its First Fire target hex, but he may place the Fire Lane counter in or beyond the latter hex [EXC: no Fire Lane is placed if the MG’s manning Infantry Cowered, and/or used Subsequent-First-Fire (8.3-.31)/FPF, during that initial First Fire attack]. Fire Lane FG are NA; i.e., each MG must create a separate Fire Lane even if using the same Hex-Grain/IFT-DR as another. An illegally placed Fire Lane counter is removed, but the MG is still marked with a First Fire counter. Each Fire Lane Residual FP counter contains an ID letter to match the A-F ID letter of its MG counter, and should be placed so that the arrow points back along the Fire Lane Hex Grain to the firing MG.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,125
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
May declare a Fire Lane in a subsequent shot -not the first- because of ROF
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
May declare a Fire Lane in a subsequent shot -not the first- because of ROF
You mean on the first shot you just have a "normal" shot and maintain ROF, then on another shot legally available, say b/c the unit used two MF in the hex, you then declare a FL on that shot .......yes.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,566
Reaction score
1,026
Country
llLithuania
You mean on the first shot you just have a "normal" shot and maintain ROF, then on another shot legally available, say b/c the unit used two MF in the hex, you then declare a FL on that shot .......yes.
Same target if spending two or more MF or a different target.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Yes, agree or different target should have mentioned that, good that you did.
 

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
122
Reaction score
19
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for all your replies. Yes, the key to my question was whether I had to declare the fire lane at the SAME INSTANT that the unit first fired - before the DR. Would have been nice to have the option to see the first DR before losing ROF for the fire lane. The target spent 2MF in its current hex. Cheers
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Would have been nice to have the option to see the first DR before losing ROF for the fire lane.
Yes, but if it seems to me if it worked that way you'd always wait, and it would generally make sense to place a firelane everytime after an MG lost rate, why not?
 

EJ1

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
122
Reaction score
19
Location
Boulder, Colorado
Country
llUnited States
Yes, but if it seems to me if it worked that way you'd always wait, and it would generally make sense to place a firelane everytime after an MG lost rate, why not?
Hi Pyth, agreed. One of those instances where it was better to confirm rather than lose and obvious advantage by making a faulty assumption. Cheers
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Yes, but if it seems to me if it worked that way you'd always wait, and it would generally make sense to place a firelane everytime after an MG lost rate, why not?
One benefit is that the initial fire has its effects as computed normally based upon the 1st MF, you would get a 2nd shot (albeit at reduced FP) from the RFP based upon the 2nd MF spent.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
One benefit is that the initial fire has its effects as computed normally based upon the 1st MF, you would get a 2nd shot (albeit at reduced FP) from the RFP based upon the 2nd MF spent.
Wait.... are you saying that if say a MMC enters Brush for 2MF and you fire a 2 FP LMG at it and call fire lane...and say no effect on that shot, that the MMC then immediately gets a 1 FP FL reside attack "based upon the 2nd MF spent." ??? I do not play it that way nor EVER had it played on me that way....

Please explain what you mean....
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Yes, but if it seems to me if it worked that way you'd always wait, and it would generally make sense to place a firelane everytime after an MG lost rate, why not?
No you would not automatically do so...why?
B/c FL with MGs that are B11 are problematical in that regard. If you are certain there will be more units to go through the FL, then likely yes...if the OPFOR is prepared to have a CE AFV drive down the 1 FP FL or even 2 FP FL just to make your roll to see if he can break your MG...b/c next turn he really intends to cross that beaten zone maybe you don't FL. Likewise he may do the CE ploy just b/c his last remaining asset to have to cross the possible FL is a key asset, the MMC with DC need 1 turn from now...or the leader to rally up a ket asset past the FL... In these tactical and situational instances you might well not call for the FL and hope for rate, b/c you wish to avoid excessive chances of malfunction or the follow up ROF shot is needed as full FP.
I can think of another weird EX...the enemy has a high SAN...his sniper is hovering near an important asset of yours, which if it breaks or pins is a game changer...the FL could give him multiple chances as SAN activation...sure I agree it is a very rare bird...but again as I noted above you have to see the wider tactical situation.
All that noted "in general" why not often applies.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
No you would not automatically do so...why?
B/c FL with MGs that are B11 are problematical in that regard. If you are certain there will be more units to go through the FL, then likely yes...if the OPFOR is prepared to have a CE AFV drive down the 1 FP FL or even 2 FP FL just to make your roll to see if he can break your MG...b/c next turn he really intends to cross that beaten zone maybe you don't FL. Likewise he may do the CE ploy just b/c his last remaining asset to have to cross the possible FL is a key asset, the MMC with DC need 1 turn from now...or the leader to rally up a ket asset past the FL... In these tactical and situational instances you might well not call for the FL and hope for rate, b/c you wish to avoid excessive chances of malfunction or the follow up ROF shot is needed as full FP.
I can think of another weird EX...the enemy has a high SAN...his sniper is hovering near an important asset of yours, which if it breaks or pins is a game changer...the FL could give him multiple chances as SAN activation...sure I agree it is a very rare bird...but again as I noted above you have to see the wider tactical situation.
All that noted "in general" why not often applies.
I said "in general" precisely to leave space for the kinds of concerns you've voiced.

I like your counter-examples, particularly the high SAN

But this part doesn't follow:

"In these tactical and situational instances you might well not call for the FL and hope for rate, b/c you wish to avoid excessive chances of malfunction or the follow up ROF shot is needed as full FP."
No you wouldn't ever need to hope for rate. You would always fire until you'd run out of rate (or decided the shots weren't worth taking) and then decide whether a firelane was needed. There is no case (I can think of) in which one would want to place a firelane before full strength FP/ROF had expired -- if that were an option allowed by the rules. Once ROF had expired you'd place a firelane if it made any sense. And I agree you've pointed out are a few cases (eg. FL breakdown sleaze, SAN concerns) where placing the FL would be inadvisable.

But surely this is a new Game Squad low... debating the fine points of the tactics of a rule that we both acknowledge doesn't exist!?🤪
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,059
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I have failed to make myself clear...you general position is why not...

My position is ...most times that is not true...BUT there are times where acting on the "why not" can be the wrong decision, the save it for later b/c of the tactics you seemed not to grasp EXC the SAN. In any case it does not matter, by you grasping the SAN point you can see the fact that there are cases where "why not" not not apply that is and was my point.

I was never trying to address the I wanna see the DR before deciding if I want FL or not.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,085
Reaction score
2,562
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Wait.... are you saying that if say a MMC enters Brush for 2MF and you fire a 2 FP LMG at it and call fire lane...and say no effect on that shot, that the MMC then immediately gets a 1 FP FL reside attack "based upon the 2nd MF spent." ??? I do not play it that way nor EVER had it played on me that way....
The unit would not get "hit" by the Residual FP (Fire Lane or normal) on the 2 MF spent...both MF are expended before the Residual FP is placed.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,125
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
IMHO A Fire Lane eliminates any possibility of ROF for a MG.. I´ve played always the inverse is also true.. I mean, a MG using its first shot not declaring a Fire Lane may not declare a Fire Lane if getting ROF, because it´s using ROF and ROF and Fire Lanes are not compatible.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,331
Reaction score
3,305
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
IMHO A Fire Lane eliminates any possibility of ROF for a MG.. I´ve played always the inverse is also true.. I mean, a MG using its first shot not declaring a Fire Lane may not declare a Fire Lane if getting ROF, because it´s using ROF and ROF and Fire Lanes are not compatible.
There was some discussion about this (ROF applicability) in another thread. ROF only applies as a result of a taken shot. It possibly prevents the placing of a Fire marker, depending upon your DR. If you get lucky then the SW is treated as having not being fired for nearly all purposes (EXC: B# or moving the firing unit). Placing a FL reduces the ROF to 0. So if you normal fire a MG and you "retain ROF", IE place no fire marker on the MG, then you can fire that MG either as a "normal" fire action (possibly again retaining ROF) or place a FL (with no chance of retaining ROF). Rules wise there is almost no difference between a MG that has retained ROF and one that has not fired.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,132
Reaction score
5,259
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
IMHO A Fire Lane eliminates any possibility of ROF for a MG.. I´ve played always the inverse is also true.. I mean, a MG using its first shot not declaring a Fire Lane may not declare a Fire Lane if getting ROF, because it´s using ROF and ROF and Fire Lanes are not compatible.
A9.22 is clear in that any DFF attack with a GO SW MG may also declare a firelane. There is no mention of whether the MG has fired before and kept ROF. As long as the MG is using DFF (i.e. not marked with a First or Final Fire counter, in which case it would be using SFF/FPF), it may place a firelane. I don't think the rules agree with you that a firelane may not be placed if the MG has fired and kept ROF. Moreover, if that were true there would be a counter for it.

A9.22 also says that a First Fire counter is placed on a MG that declares a firelane in all cases, i.e. regardless of colored dr. Here the rules agree with your play.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The unit would not get "hit" by the Residual FP (Fire Lane or normal) on the 2 MF spent...both MF are expended before the Residual FP is placed.
I do not see that this is true. A MG retaining ROF or a unit using Subsequent First Fire may fire at a unit a second time on the 2nd MF (or greater) spent to enter a building/wood/etc., the only restriction of RFP attacks based upon a MF expenditure is A8.22 "• MF/MP expended "simultaneously" (e.g., two MF to enter a building, two MF to cross a wall and enter Open Ground, eight MP for a truck to ascend a Crest Line, etc.) do not cause multiple Residual FP attacks." If one were to fire at the unit entering the terrain costing multiple MF to enter and had fired on it on the 1st MF expended (as most people do in order to possibly retain ROF or use S1F [A8.2 When a unit is attacked by Defensive First Fire/Subsequent First Fire/FPF, the target Location in which the attack is resolved (even if in Bypass) is marked with a Residual FP counter...]), RFP is placed then. Since RFP has not attacked the moving unit previously it would attack the unit on its 2nd MF spent but be unable to attack it again on any additional MF spent to enter the hex as explained by A8.22. No where do I see that RFP is placed upon the completion of a move, simply that it is placed upon the completion of the initial fire (i.e. the shot at the 1st MF spent). It does say that RFP does not attack until a specific activity such as Searching/ Recovery/Placing Smoke Grenades/etc. has been completed, but does not imply that entering terrain at an increased cost falls within that purview. Granted I have rarely seen it enacted as I propose, but the rules simply do not seem to bear out the contention that it is RFP is placed after all initial MF to enter a Location are expended. Furthermore, if that were he case, a S1F shot (or ROF shot) at the unit based upon the expenditure of of a 2nd or subsequent MF expenditure to enter the Location would also be denied and this is simply not the case as I have seen.

EX of Play: A squad and MG fire at an enemy infantry unit entering woods declared at the 1st MF spent (assume no cowering and ROF for the MG); by rights (A8.2) the RFP should be placed immediately upon the resolution of that shot (A8.2); now the unit opts to fire S1F or a 2nd shot with his ROF MG at the 2nd MF spent to enter the Location, but first if one follows the criteria of A8.2 the RFP would attack first.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,132
Reaction score
5,259
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The unit would not get "hit" by the Residual FP (Fire Lane or normal) on the 2 MF spent...both MF are expended before the Residual FP is placed.
EX of Play: A squad and MG fire at an enemy infantry unit entering woods declared at the 1st MF spent (assume no cowering and ROF for the MG); by rights (A8.2) the RFP should be placed immediately upon the resolution of that shot (A8.2); now the unit opts to fire S1F or a 2nd shot with his ROF MG at the 2nd MF spent to enter the Location, but first if one follows the criteria of A8.2 the RFP would attack first.
I believe that if the unit announces and makes a multiple MF or MP expenditure and then is attacked on a MF/MP lower than the last one, the placement of residual (whether firelane or regular) will not result in the unit being attacked by that residual on later MF/MP of that same expenditure. I read, "Thereafter any unit entering (or expending MF/MP in) that same Location in the MPh is attacked on the IFT," as meaning that the entry/expenditure causing a residual attack has to be announced and made after the placement of the residual. The residual will not attack a unit in the same expenditure that the residual was placed on, no matter how many MF/MP that expenditure was.

One can think of this as the residual being place after the completion of the expenditure, but the rules don't specifically say that. In particular this might have odd effects on impulse movement. If an impulse movemade a multiple MF/MP expenditure and a firelane is announced on the first MF/MP, I would think the firelane would be placed immediately and the additional impulse attacks made per A9.222. If the firelane is considered placed at the very end of the impulse, the defender could not observe the effects of the firelane on these other moving units before announcing his other Defensive Fire for that expenditure.

JR
 
Last edited:
Top