Acquisition lost after CC?

[turlusiflu]

As per C6.5: The target remains acquired until the Gun/manning-infantry that placed it leaves its present Location [EXC: Gyrostabilizer; 6.55]—or the Gun changes its CA without firing on its already-acquired target during the current phase—or the Gun (or its CMG unless in a separate turret) attacks (including in CC, or Interdicts) a different target—or the Gun malfunctions or fires SMOKE (6.56), canister or IFE—or its crew/manning-infantry are eliminated or not in Good Order, or they no longer possess it, or they fire Inherent FP/SW or use Interdiction,...

It is not expressely stated that a gun with an acquired target loses it when its crew fights in CC (providing that they survived and are not later engaged in Melee). Is the crew considered to fire Inherent FP in CC, causing then the lost of the Acquisition?

 

[Binchois]

I don't think AQ can be maintained. Since a Gun can't attack in CC other than through its crew, it is hard to see how else to interpret this, rather vague, parenthesis.

Two older Q&As state that simply becoming engaged in CC will be enough to void an Acquisition:

C6.5 If an AFV that currently has an Acquired Target is attacked in CC by some other unit, can the acquisition be retained? Can an AFV decline to attack back in CC with its CMG just to preserve Acquisition?​

​

A. No. No. [Gen24.2; An95w; An96; Mw]​

and:

C6.5 Can a Gun maintain acquisition to a target in its own hex?​

A. Yes, unless it is attacked in CC. [Compil5]​

 

[Carln0130]

If the Gun's Infantry Crew gets held in melee, it is not Good Order, acquisition is gone.

 

[Commissar Piotr]

If the Gun's Infantry Crew gets held in melee, it is not Good Order, acquisition is gone.

You would say that it only loses acquisition if it is held in Melee, not just by attacking/being attacked in CC?

 

[Carln0130]

If it's acquired on the unit in its location, yes. Otherwise, the acquisition won't do it much good since it can't fire out of the location unless someone gets rid of the unit in its location before melee occurs.

 

[Sparafucil3]

You would say that it only loses acquisition if it is held in Melee, not just by attacking/being attacked in CC?

The rule says the Acq is lost if the manning unit uses it's Inherent FP. CC is a ratio of two inherent FP's contested on a combat table. To argue that Acq is not lost is to argue CC doesn't use Inherent FP. This flies in the face of a unit (and it's SW's) being marked with a Fire Counter when conducting CC-Reaction fire on the same combat table. Maintaining Acq is not consistent with the rules as written. Thrown in old version 1 Q&A and there is more than enough information to argue against your position. -- jim

C6.5 If an AFV that currently has an Acquired Target is attacked in CC by some other unit, can the acquisition be retained? Can an AFV decline to attack back in CC with its CMG just to preserve Acquisition?
A. No. No. [Gen24.2; An95w; An96; Mw]

C6.5 Can a Gun maintain acquisition to a target in its own hex?
A. Yes, unless it is attacked in CC. [Compil5]

 

[Commissar Piotr]

If it's acquired on the unit in its location, yes. Otherwise, the acquisition won't do it much good since it can't fire out of the location unless someone gets rid of the unit in its location before melee occurs.

In this case the acq was in a adjacent hex and part of those units acquired advanced into my hex and was eliminated by the crew of the Gun in CC before it was in melee. I left the acq in the adjacent hex since it was still known enemy units left there.
Now it is the PFPh and the question is if the acq can be used by the crew that was never in melee or if it was lost since it attacked in CC.
I definitely see the validity of Sparas argument that it would be marked First Fired if CC reaction fire but at the same time in the CCPh it does not use it's inhgetrent FP if the opposing unit would have been a tank as it would use it's CCV.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I definitely see the validity of Sparas argument that it would be marked First Fired if CC reaction fire but at the same time in the CCPh it does not use it's inhgetrent FP if the opposing unit would have been a tank as it would use it's CCV.

What could its CCV possibly be based on other than Inherent FP? Even if you believe the unit is hopping on the tank and using their hands to punch it into oblivion, it has to be some sort of inherent weapon getting the job done. Do you imagine they appeal to heaven and call down the wrath of God or some other external agency to eliminate the AFV? -- jim

 

[Commissar Piotr]

What could its CCV possibly be based on other than Inherent FP? Even if you believe the unit is hopping on the tank and using their hands to punch it into oblivion, it has to be some sort of inherent weapon getting the job done. Do you imagine they appeal to heaven and call down the wrath of God or some other external agency to eliminate the AFV? -- jim

I have no idea how they do it, what I want to know for certain is what the rules actually mean.