B 9.31 + C 8.31 Wall and HEAT fire

[CHERDE]

A US MMC without a WA counter is in a shellhole hex bordered by a wall (eg. 2V7).
It is fired by a German MMC 2 hexes away (eg. 2T8) with the inherent FP. The FP attack is resolved on the IFT and the US uses the option given by the 3rd sentence of B 9.31 to use the wall TEM of +2 against this IFT attack.

After this IFT attack the German MMC announces and gets a PF shot.

Can now the US exercise its option of the 3rd sentence of B 9.31 to claim only the in-hex TEM of +1 of the shellhole instead of the +2 TEM of the wall and therefore by C 8.31 5th sentence deny the use of HEAT/PF to the German?

 

[paul]

First off, is is the same German MMC. If so they can't go for a PF once they have used their inherent FP. (bottom of C13.31)

Assuming it is another MMC, I don't see anything definative in the rules. In a sense, you are asking if a unit is required to maintain a TEM once they have used it.

I don't see anywhere it disallows selecting your TEM per attack and B9.31 definately allows them to choose between the wall and the shell hole, so I would believe that allows them to choose the shell hole on the 2nd attack.

The question now is when does that select occur, before or after the PF is on the way?

-Paul

 

[zgrose]

Last sentence of B9.322. You can't change WA between the declaration and completion of an enemy action. If, for instance, you figured it was coming, you could drop WA after the first attack. Note also that you can't claim WA at anytime but only at 5 specific times/events.

 

[Larry]

First off, is is the same German MMC. If so they can't go for a PF once they have used their inherent FP. (bottom of C13.31)

Not quite:

A unit may not make a PF Check in Subsequent First Fire or FPF (A8.3-.31)-regardless of whether it made a PF Check during First Fire.

A squad using a SW after firing the IFP is not using SFF, but is using its SW capacity.

 

[paul]

Last sentence of B9.322. You can't change WA between the declaration and completion of an enemy action. If, for instance, you figured it was coming, you could drop WA after the first attack. Note also that you can't claim WA at anytime but only at 5 specific times/events.

I would agree if the unit was WA. What is tricky with this one is that they aren't. (WA), but the rules still allows them to claim wall TEM against others that dont' have WA.

I don't thing claiming WA is exactly the same as WA. They do get the choice of inhex TEM or wall TEM, so can they switch at will as various units fire at them?

-Paul

 

[zgrose]

You don't have WA until you claim it. B9.322 "Placing a 'Wall Advan' counter and claiming WA are synonymous,.." Make sure you have version B of page B8 (downloadable from MMP or at least it was).

Regardless, the crux of the original post is clearly wrong. It explicitly says you can't claim or forfeit WA after the enemy action was declared. In this case he is asking if you could use to claim WA *after* the PF shot was declared. Even if the squad could claim WA, it is procedurally required to wait until after the PF is resolved.

 

[Larry]

I don't think that the absence of WA is critical here. It is not necessarily WA that resolves the question. B9.31 states:

A target unit not claiming WA receives only in-hex TEM, but may instead use wall/hex TEM vs enemy units which do not have WA over the hexside. In any case the wall/hedge TEM applies only as per 9.3. In order for a wall to justify firing HEAT at Infantry/Cavalry (C8.31), those units must be claiming-WA/receiving-Wall-TEM

.

Any unit receiving wall TEM is thus subject to a heat attack, including a PF.

The question is whether a unit can use the wall TEM vs. enemy units on one shot and then another. The rules are clear that a unit that claims WA cannot give it back on the next shot. That clearly is not allowed.

However, a fair question exists for a unit that does not have WA that uses the wall TEM on one shot, is that unit considered in OG for other shots. I did not see in the rules that a unit without WA that uses the wall against a non-adjacent firer cannot later claim in-hex TEM against other shots that may or may not cross the wall hexside.

Still looking ...

 

[CHERDE]

Reviewing the whole thread I state that WA should not matter here. The US dont have WA.

So the B 9.322 6th sentence clause that prohibits to forfeit WA after an enemy action is declared is not applicable here.

I intentionally choose a shellhole hex so the US is not forced to claim mandatory WA. If they would have WA they could be bombed with the PF.

The Q originated in a playing of Defiance on Hill 30.

 

[zgrose]

I think I'm following Cherde's logic. So B9.31 says you can take Wall TEM even if you don't have WA because "A target unit not claiming WA receives only in-hex TEM, but may instead use wall/hedge TEM vs enemy units which do not have WA over the hexside." So the idea being you can get Wall TEM w/o having WA. Ole wrote em, perhaps he can chime in if that meets his expectations.

In general principle, I'm not a big fan of being able to change your status "inside" of an action though.

 

[Ole Boe]

I think I'm following Cherde's logic. So B9.31 says you can take Wall TEM even if you don't have WA because "A target unit not claiming WA receives only in-hex TEM, but may instead use wall/hedge TEM vs enemy units which do not have WA over the hexside." So the idea being you can get Wall TEM w/o having WA. Ole wrote em, perhaps he can chime in if that meets his expectations.

This is correct. A unit in shellholes behind a wall, but without WA will still benefit from the wall (both realistically and in ASL) when some far-away enemies fire through the wall. But it will still benefit from being in the shellholes when enemy fire doesn't cross the wall.

This is handled in ASL by letting the defender choose between the wall and shellhole TEM. Normally, this choise is automatic: You "always" prefer +2 TEM over +1 TEM, but there are a couple of special cases. One is the discussed HEAT vs Infantry attack, and another is AFV. An AFV in a +1 TEM terrain behind a wall may choose between +1 TEM or being HD. The best choise is dependant on hit chance, and the relative armor or hull and turret. I.e. being HD is best if you have a weak hull armor, and/or the enemy has a high hit chance, while +1 TEM is better if you have an invulnerable hull armor, and/or the enemy has a low hit chance. And being HD is of course the best choise if the enemy declares a DI attack

In general principle, I'm not a big fan of being able to change your status "inside" of an action though.

I agree with you, but this one was there from the beginning of ASL, and the v2 rewrite of B9 was much more an attempt at clarifying the rules than rewriting them, so we didn't touch this.

I don't think the rule is problematic once both players know it though: It simply means that HEAT vs Infantry is NA (since the Infantry will choose the in-hex TEM), and that DI vs AFV is NA (since the AFV will choose wall TEM a.k.a. HD), and that the target will otherwise choose the best protection.

 

[Brian W]

I don't think the rule is problematic once both players know it though: It simply means that HEAT vs Infantry is NA (since the Infantry will choose the in-hex TEM), and that DI vs AFV is NA (since the AFV will choose wall TEM a.k.a. HD), and that the target will otherwise choose the best protection.

The rule is problematic and the process should be spelled out in the rules since very few people I play with think about this issue until it comes up, in some cases after the dice have been rolled.

The WA rules should have been scrapped. I certainly hope that one day they are. Perhaps ASLSK#3 will have simple, straightforward wall/hedge rules that can easily be ported into ASL.

 

[zgrose]

Its problematic because it is inconsistent. =)

You can't go BU after someone fires an MG at your tank but you can pull away from the wall after someone fires their PF at you.

But whatever; learn it, remember it, play it. =)

 

[Ole Boe]

The rule is problematic and the process should be spelled out in the rules since very few people I play with think about this issue until it comes up, in some cases after the dice have been rolled.

I won't argue that it should be spelled out. However, I think it shares the status with many ASL rules in the way that it's not evident at first reading, but quite simple to use when learned (I'm now talking about this single part of B9, not all of it).

The WA rules should have been scrapped. I certainly hope that one day they are. Perhaps ASLSK#3 will have simple, straightforward wall/hedge rules that can easily be ported into ASL.

I don't think they will ever be scrapped, too many scenarios (especially bocage) are relying on them, but I agree that the WA rules should have been more simplistic and streamlined. ASLSK3 doesn't introduce walls/hedges IIRC.

 

[Ole Boe]

You can't go BU after someone fires an MG at your tank but you can pull away from the wall after someone fires their PF at you.

But this doesn't simulate that you pull away from the wall. The unit in question was never close to the wall at all, because it lacks WA. So this doesn't simulate that the target does anything (besides being fired upon).

What it simulates is that this unit - which has remained in the shellholes all the time - receives some cover from the walls when attacked by units that are not close to the wall (and therefore unable to fire over the wall), but it is not close enough to the wall to be affected by HEAT weapons.

At least that's my take on what it simulates...

 

[zgrose]

At least that's my take on what it simulates...

Sounds like a smart plan. Getting +2 TEM from enemy MG fire and immunity to PF attacks. Too bad those guys in the Open Ground hexes couldn't figure that out.

In either case, I'm sure you already know my opinion on the ASL LOS rules and the quantum mechanical nature of units. =)

 

[CHERDE]

So I see: The PF shot in my original Question will have no effect. The German is better off not trying for a PF.


BTW:
The WA rules and the Bogace rules should not be scrapped.


PS
Those boys in the open are so frightened by the OG that they cower close to the wall, not obeying to their officer.
The clever guys in the shellhole are feeling themselves more secure so they listen to their field manuals and stay in the optimum distance from the wall.

PPS
I am also no fan of changing your status "inside" of an action. But you have to know if and when the rules allow it.

 

[zgrose]

I am also no fan of changing your status "inside" of an action. But you have to know if and when the rules allow it.

So true.

But we continue to rant so the next game designer doesn't make the same mistakes! :horse:

 

[CHERDE]

And also that the brave gentlemen working on the next rule update have some input.:whist: