An easy CC question for you vets

ASLurker

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
39
Reaction score
50
Location
Reading rules
Country
llUnited States
I've always been confused on how to attack against leaders in a CC situation.

Let's say I have the following, I'll try to keep it simple
  • Germans: 2 x 467, 9-1 leader
  • Russians: 1 x 447
Germans go all in against the Russians 9 to 4, so 2:1. Simple.

Now this is where I get fuzzy on the Russian side attack. A11.14 says "A SMC defends in CC as part of the group it attacks with..." in this case the 9-1 attacked with both 467. While A11.12 says "Units may attack any unit or combination of units in the same Location, so long as no unit attacks or is attacked more than once per CCPh." Which causes my brain to misfire because if I'm forced to attack the "group" that the 9-1 attacked with, then I can't really attack "any unit or combo of units".

Anyhoo, what are the Russian options for CC? Can the 447 go against the single 467 and the 9-1 leader stacked on top of it at 4 to 5 (1:2), or must it go against the 2 x 467 and 9-1 because that is the "group" the 9-1 attacked per A11.14 (in this case at 1:4 odds)?

Hope I'm making sense.

Thanks.
 

WuWei

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
912
Location
Germany
First name
Tobias
Country
llGermany
The German player has to specify one MMC the leader is grouped with. The Russian player then can either attack that MMC+leader, the other MMC, or all of them at once. He can't attack only the leader.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
The German player has to specify one MMC the leader is grouped with. The Russian player then can either attack that MMC+leader, the other MMC, or all of them at once. He can't attack only the leader.
He could choose not to stack the leader, no?
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Yes, but I think that would be foolish because it would let the Russian make a 4-1 CC attack vs only the 9-1 without giving the German any advantage. The Russian could still attack one 467 at 1-1, or one 467 and the 9-1 at 1-2, or everything at 1-4.
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
He could choose not to stack the leader, no?
Yes but as Scott pointed out it is usually a bad idea unless for some reason he wishes to withdraw without either squad, or maybe to a different location than a squad who is also withdrawing.
 

WuWei

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
912
Location
Germany
First name
Tobias
Country
llGermany
He could choose not to stack the leader, no?
I assumed that all three German units want to attack. In that case, the leader has to stack with one of the MMCs.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
I think the question can be more complicated if the leader is a 6+1 or worse leader.

You would not want to use his inept leadership + in the attack, so must he defend alone?
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
NRBTH but I believe that s SMC can choose to attack alone but must then defend alone.
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Per the end of A10.72 you can decline to use the leadership modifier of a leader participating in an attack. This includes when you add his 1 to the inherent FP/CCV of an MMC in CC.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
The old Q&A:

A10.72 & A11.141 Can a player decline the use
of a (poor) leadership modifier when a leader
attacks in combination with a MMC in CC?
A. Yes. [Compil3]
A11.141

One leader may direct the CC attack of the unit(s) it defends
with (and any other units which join them in a combined CC attack) by
applying his leadership DRM to the CC DR, in addition to adding his inherent
FP (or increasing the CCV; see 11.5) to the strength of the attack.
Adding the inherent FP or increasing the CCV are separate functions from leading the attack. As to leading the attack, that action is permissive in addition to adding the FP/CCV.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
The old Q&A:



A11.141



Adding the inherent FP or increasing the CCV are separate functions from leading the attack. As to leading the attack, that action is permissive in addition to adding the FP/CCV.
Are you saying you can defend and add one FP to the attack but choose not to direct the attack?
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Are you saying you can defend and add one FP to the attack but choose not to direct the attack?
As the Eagle says, I am just reporting the finding. I try to understand the construction given in the Q&A. If I don't understand the rationale, then the Q&A is arbitrary. The old Q&A and the current collection of PS are generally reasonable constructions of the language. Reasonable is a flexible context in which you can disagree with the outcome but that does not make the construction unreasonable. Reasonable minds can differ. Or the disagreeing person might just be wrong.
 

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
457
Reaction score
588
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
I had the same question a while back in SK. According to Perry: The Leadership modifier must (not optional) be applied in the ambush dr, but may (optional) be applied to the CC DR, even if using the Leader's 1FP for the CC.
 
Top