Barbed Wire movement and fire question please

[JoeArthur]

So I looked but could not find anything on this so help would be appreciated please:

A squad is adjacent to a woods hex containing barbed wire. The squad declares an assault move into this woods hex. So to go in is COT = 2 MF. A dr is made giving a two. So no more assault move for that squad - it becomes a normal move having spent an extra 2 MF to get under the wire.

Per A26.4 the defender can witness this dr before deciding to fire at the squad. As the squad is going to make it under the wire he decides to shoot. Can he shoot at the moves into the woods hex - so on the first and second MF? Per A26.4 it appears that he can.

The attacker argues that this was a "continuous move" and therefore you can shoot at the squad four times (because 4 MF spent) but whatever happens the squad makes it under the wire.

The defender argues - I can shoot at the two MF. The defender takes that shot and the squad pins. The squad in his eyes does not make it under the wire. The attacker then points out that at one and two MF the squad is still doing an assault move and therefore is not pinned as there is no -1 modifier for non assault move - the squad was assault moving on the second MF.

What is the correct way of doing this move / fire please? Happily this was not one of my games - I'm doing someone a favour

 

[klasmalmstrom]

It looks to me that the entry of the woods and the MF expenditure to get beneath the Wire are two separate MF expenditures. Normally, once the MF are spent getting under the Wire, one can't take any DFF shots on the MF spent entering the Location. It would seem a bit off if one could "go back" to a previous MF expenditure.

Found no Q&A on the subject.

 

[JoeArthur]

Normally, once the MF are spent getting under the Wire, one can't take any DFF shots on the MF spent entering the Location.

Many thanks for a very prompt reply Klas.

B26.32 states that a unit on a wire counter and beneath a wire counter are in the same Location.

So is it meant to work that the unit moves in - the attacker declares he wants under the wire. Rolls a dice to give a total cost of 4 MF. So to enter that location costs 4 MF and the defender can now decide to fire at any of those MF's? With presumably the assault move going because to enter that location now costs 4MF?

 

[Vinnie]

It's an odd one as the shot prior to the roll would be against an assault move, but after the roll is against a normal move. Do you reckon a Q&A is worthwhile?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I have always played as if entry into the Location, and moving beneath the Wire are two different MF expenditures. But it could be that after the Wire Exit dr has been made, DFF vs the just preceeding MF expenditure could be allowed - but it seems like something like that would have been spelled out.

I am not exactly sure what the sentence about the DEFENDER getting to see the dr is about?

 

[JoeArthur]

I am not exactly sure what the sentence about the DEFENDER getting to see the dr is about?

Klas,

B26.4 The dr being the one dice rolled to see how many MF it costs to move beneath the wire. Per the rule book:

"The DEFENDER is entitled to see the wire exit dr before declaring any First Fire against the unit"

Hope that helps.

 

[Mister T]

If treated as two separate moves, then DFF first on woods entry and the unit is attacked by resid on its attempt to move beneath the wire, if it fails or barely succeed.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Klas,

B26.4 The dr being the one dice rolled to see how many MF it costs to move beneath the wire. Per the rule book:

"The DEFENDER is entitled to see the wire exit dr before declaring any First Fire against the unit"

Hope that helps.

Thanks, and yes, I know the sentence, I am just not sure what it is trying to say.

 

[von Marwitz]

In my opinion, these are two separate MP expenditures.

So the defender can take two shots on the first two MP spent while the attacker is still 'above' the wire and if the attacker breaks or pins there, he would be 'hung up' on the wire.

I think it is similar like moving into a hex with a Foxhole. You cannot 'combine' your MP-expenditure during the MPh to enter the Foxhole's hex and the Foxhole itself.

von Marwitz

 

[EagleIV]

As has been pointed out it is treated as 2 separate MP expenditures. First 2 to enter the woods after declaring AM then a dr to move below the wire. Somewhere I recall a Q&A that says if the dr is equal to or more than your remaining MP you are no longer using AM. I don't recall if you are allowed to move below the wire if you declare AM and the dr is equal to your remaining MP.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I don't recall if you are allowed to move below the wire if you declare AM and the dr is equal to your remaining MP.

It is - but it's no longer Assault Movement.

B26.4:
"It may declare Assault Movement in its attempt to get beneath the Wire (and even move on to another Location) but if it uses all of its MF in doing so, the Assault Movement status is voided."

 

[Eagle4ty]

ASL is not a race to to say I moved you shot etc when it comes to entering a location nor is it allowed to goad your opponent into a "false start/shot". The cost to enter a Wire location is what it is; you either Assault Move into the location and end above the wire counter (a single move. That's it, no more movement for that unit! You cannot now say I'm attempting to move beneath the wire) or announce you are attempting to Assault Move into the location and move beneath the wire counter (a single move, it is not two separate movement expenditures). The defender reserves the right to see the outcome of the attempt to move beneath the wire counter before committing to any D1F/S1F as "(A26.4) ...they expend sufficient additional MF to move beneath the Wire..." not a separate move (There is only one move here!). If the unit makes it beneath the wire with suffucient MF remaining it's Assault moving, otherwise it is not. I don't see where everyone seems to feel an Assault Moving unit gets to have a second move in a single phase in any fashion.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...(a single move, it is not two separate movement expenditures)...

Out of curiosity (and I am not saying it is incorrect) - where in the rule does it say/imply this?

What if I want to declare Assault Movement, enter the Wire Location, attempt to place Smoke (which I think is possible [it might not be] while above Wire), and then go beneath the Wire? - is that also one combined move?

 

[Eagle4ty]

Out of curiosity (and I am not saying it is incorrect) - where in the rule does it say/imply this?

What if I want to declare Assault Movement, enter the Wire Location, attempt to place Smoke (which I think is possible [it might not be] while above Wire), and then go beneath the Wire? - is that also one combined move?

As long as it is still capable of movement and declared at the point of attempting to use Assault Movement to enter the location, attempting use smoke grenades and potentially enter beneath the wire I don't see a problem here as use of Smoke Grenades does not seem to be prohibited nor does it seem smoke placement is implied to be a separate MF expenditure, just an additional MF spent to accomplish that task. (A26.4 & A24.1 as well as A8.1 'During the ATTACKER'S MPh, the DEFENDER should keep careful watch as the ATTACKER counts aloud the MF/MP expended as each unit/stack he moves enters a new Location or performs some task requiring the expenditure of MF/MP in its current Location.' as well as A4.61 ASSAULT MOVEMENT '[EXC: additional MF expenditure within a Location (e.g., out of, or into, a Fortification, or Recovery) in addition to a change of Location, does not prevent Assault Movement unless, in so doing, a unit expends all its MF or requires CX status.]')

• NOTE: In the EXC to A4.61 this is not an all inclusive list (e.g.=such as) but implies similar actions.

If one uses the reasoning applied by many that it allows two different attacks based upon the A-Mv expenditure of entering the location and also moving beneath the wire the same should be applied for crossing a wall/hedge and entering a location. The cost to enter an OG location across a wall/hedge is 1+(additional MF required) COT. One does not take a shot at the point one crosses the hedge/wall and receive the TEM for such a shot (assuming it has a unhindered and clearly open LOS to the OG location entered) and another in the OG but can take two shots at the unit in the OG applying the appropriate FFMO/FFNAM. The effects for a unit(s) entering a location with wire and attempting to move beneath it is no different.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I am pretty sure Smoke placement is a separate MF expenditure. Same as a recovery attempt or a move into a foxhole.

 

[von Marwitz]

I am pretty sure Smoke placement is a separate MF expenditure. Same as a recovery attempt or a move into a foxhole.

I agree.

von Marwitz

 

[Eagle4ty]

I am pretty sure Smoke placement is a separate MF expenditure. Same as a recovery attempt or a move into a foxhole.

Ah, not too sure as then I could declare Assault move into a rubble location and attempt to recover a SW. One could only fire at me entering the rubble location not receiving FFNAM and only fire at me getting FFNAM once I attempted to recover the SW. The only difference is the MFs expended are known prior to the (IMHO illegal) attempt to enter & pick up the SW using A-Mv and the only potential MF to enter a location and move beneath wire doing the same.

 

[von Marwitz]

Ah, not too sure as then I could declare Assault move into a rubble location and attempt to recover a SW. One could only fire at me entering the rubble location not receiving FFNAM and only fire at me getting FFNAM once I attempted to recover the SW.

I do not see room for what you say:

"A4.61 ASSAULT MOVEMENT: Non-berserk Infantry that remains Infantry throughout the MPh (i.e., is not a PRC during that phase), and that moves ≤ one Location during its MPh without using all of its MF (including any leader/road bonus, but not Double Time), may use Assault Movement. [EXC: additional MF expenditure within a Location (e.g., out of, or into, a Fortification, or Recovery) in addition to a change of Location, does not prevent Assault Movement unless, in so doing, a unit expends all its MF or requires CX status.] A unit using Assault Movement in Open Ground is subject to the -1 FFMO DRM but not to the -1 FFNAM DRM. Assault Movement, if it is to be used, must be declared prior to movement of that unit, and is not applicable to Infantry using Hazardous Movement (4.62) or to Cavalry. A unit using Assault Movement which uses all its MF to move beneath Wire (B26.4), or which breaks, or becomes berserk, due to Defensive First Fire is no longer considered using Assault Movement and is subject to the -1 FFNAM DRM for the remainder of its MPh. Otherwise, once declared, Assault Movement cannot be voluntarily voided."

In your example the unit would use all of its MF per the EXC and thus be precluded from the Assault Movement benefits altogether.

von Marwitz

 

[Eagle4ty]

I do not see room for what you say:

"A4.61 ASSAULT MOVEMENT: Non-berserk Infantry that remains Infantry throughout the MPh (i.e., is not a PRC during that phase), and that moves ≤ one Location during its MPh without using all of its MF (including any leader/road bonus, but not Double Time), may use Assault Movement. [EXC: additional MF expenditure within a Location (e.g., out of, or into, a Fortification, or Recovery) in addition to a change of Location, does not prevent Assault Movement unless, in so doing, a unit expends all its MF or requires CX status.] A unit using Assault Movement in Open Ground is subject to the -1 FFMO DRM but not to the -1 FFNAM DRM. Assault Movement, if it is to be used, must be declared prior to movement of that unit, and is not applicable to Infantry using Hazardous Movement (4.62) or to Cavalry. A unit using Assault Movement which uses all its MF to move beneath Wire (B26.4), or which breaks, or becomes berserk, due to Defensive First Fire is no longer considered using Assault Movement and is subject to the -1 FFNAM DRM for the remainder of its MPh. Otherwise, once declared, Assault Movement cannot be voluntarily voided."

In your example the unit would use all of its MF per the EXC and thus be precluded from the Assault Movement benefits altogether.

von Marwitz

That is exactly my point. Just because you know the MF to be expended doesn't mean your move is an Assault move because you announced it as such, especially if it exceeds your ability to do so. When entering upon wire you announce your intention to enter using assault move and move beneath the wire as a single move but that does not mean you are able to do so (your MF spent are just unknown until after the dr). The move into the location and beneath the wire are a single movement and announced as such, there is no such thing as assault moving into the location (step 1) and moving beneath the wire (step 2). If the A-Mv is successful, happy days; if not, probably not so much. The defender reserves the right to witness the full MF expended before committing to def. fire, you don't get to say "I'm entering using assault move", now I fire and then, "OH BTW I'm attempting to move beneath the wire."

 

[von Marwitz]

That is exactly my point. Just because you know the MF to be expended doesn't mean your move is an Assault move because you announced it as such, especially if it exceeds your ability to do so. When entering upon wire you announce your intention to enter using assault move and move beneath the wire as a single move but that does not mean you are able to do so (your MF spent are just unknown until after the dr). The move into the location and beneath the wire are a single movement and announced as such, there is no such thing as assault moving into the location (step 1) and moving beneath the wire (step 2). If the A-Mv is successful, happy days; if not, probably not so much. The defender reserves the right to witness the full MF expended before committing to def. fire, you don't get to say "I'm entering using assault move", now I fire and then, "OH BTW I'm attempting to move beneath the wire."

Ah, now I understand you point.

I agree. Either all the MF expenditures are subject to Assault Move benefits or none of them. The defender will know which case applies because per B26.4 he is entitled to see the Wire Exit dr before declaring any First Fire against the unit.

"B26.4
...
To move/rout beneath a Wire counter, each unit must make a dr (Δ) and expend that number of MF to be placed beneath the Wire counter in the same Location. Any remaining MF may be used to move/rout elsewhere normally. Once beneath the Wire counter, a unit may move/rout unhindered, even in the direction from which it originally entered the Location. MF expended in an attempt to get beneath the Wire qualify that unit for the FFMO DRM (if in an otherwise Open Ground hex) and for the -1 First Fire DRM for FFNAM if it expends all of its MF in entering that Location/attempting to get beneath the Wire. A unit on a Wire counter cannot use Sewer/Tunnel Movement. It may declare Assault Movement in its attempt to get beneath the Wire (and even move on to another Location) but if it uses all of its MF in doing so, the Assault Movement status is voided. The DEFENDER is entitled to see the Wire Exit dr before declaring any First Fire against the unit."

IMHO, this has the following consequences:

Let us assume for the example that a unit is ADJACENT to a Wire Counter in Open Ground.

Case 1:
The unit declares Assault Move to move into the Wire hex but does NOT make a Wire Exit dr at this point.

In this case, the unit would move on top of the Wire with AM benefits. The attacking player could await any reaction by the defender. If nothing happens, he could now declare Infantry Smoke placement attempt into his own and I believe also into an ADJACENT hex (but the latter is an interesting question that I have not analyzed), because this would cost him 2 or 3 MF altogether and thus less than his standard 4MF and thus still qualify as an Assault Move.

The gain could be that he might 'surprise' the defender by his Infantry Smoke placement attempt while retaining AM benefits against Defensive Fire vs. the Infantry Smoke placement attempt. The drawback would be, that the attacking unit would be prohibited to even attempt a Wire Exit dr as it did not do so before entry of the Wire hex. This he would have been required to do as the defender is entitled to see the dr before any First Fire against the attacking unit.


Case 2:
The unit declares Assault Move to move into the Wire hex and DOES make a Wire Exit dr at this point. The dr is 1.

In this case, the defender knows from the start that the attacker will attempt to move beneath the Wire and that he will be successful in doing so unless stopped by Defensive Fire.

The attacking unit moves in for 1MF on top of the Wire, is fired upon with Assault Move benefits. It survives the fire unharmed. Now (surprisingly) , the attacking unit declares an Infantry Smoke placement attempt in its own hex for 1MF. Now having spent 2MF and knowing that the Wire Exit dr was 1, we know that the overall expenditure to move beneath the Wire will amount to 3MF, which is enough to 'maintain' the Assault Move. It will be attacked by Residual FP with AM benefits and assuming it is unharmed the Residual FP attack for the Infantry Smoke placement attempt, any further Defensive Fire vs. this expenditure will as well have AM benefits.

Provided the unit survives all of that, too, it will now move beneath the Wire for its 3rd MF. RFP attack is N/A as it has already happened before and the unit does not become more vulnerable. For this 3rd MF, Defensive Fire is still subject to AM benefits.


Case 3:
The unit declares Assault Move to move into the Wire hex and DOES make a Wire Exit dr at this point. The dr is 1.

In this case, the defender knows from the start that the attacker will attempt to move beneath the Wire and that he will be successful in doing so unless stopped by Defensive Fire.

This time, the attacker moves atop the Wire for 1MF with AM benefits and is attacked, survives unharmed again. RFP is placed but does NOT attack the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure (I think, but this is interesting...) when moving beneath the Wire because it is 'one move' and the unit does not become more vulerable upon the 2nd MF expenditure while retaining AM benefits. When beneath the Wire, it now (surprisingly) declares Infantry Smoke placement into its own hex, which is successful. So it has spent 3MF, retaining AM benefits vs. the RFP attack that ensues. Compared to Case 2, the odds to survive unharmed are better as the unit is no longer atop the Wire. If it is unharmed by the RFP attack, it would maintain AM benefits against all Defensive First Fire thereafter.


Case 4:
The unit declares Assault Move to move into the Wire hex and DOES make a Wire Exit dr at this point. The dr is 2.

The attacker moves atop the Wire for 1MF with AM benefits and survives Defensive Fire unharmed. In this case, it would be prohibited to make an Infantry Smoke placement attempt as it already took advantage of AM benefits. Because it already took advantage of AM benefits for its 1st MF AND took a Wire Exit dr of 2, it cannot now void its AM in favor of Infantry Smoke placement instead of moving beneath the Wire.


Case 5:
The unit declares Assault Move to move into the Wire hex and DOES make a Wire Exit dr at this point. The dr is 3.

We know at this point, that AM is voided from the start but that the attacking unit will end up beneath the Wire unless stopped by Defensive Fire.

It could enter atop the Wire (1MF) and either now or later declare Late CX to make an (surprising) Infantry Smoke placement attempt while atop or beneath the Wire provided it survives all Definsive Fire / RFP to do so. All this without any AM benefits.


Does this sound right?


von Marwitz