Can a Hero manning a MG use the MG to interdict

[RollTide]

15.23 WEAPONS USE: A hero may use a non-MG SW as if he were a leader but applies a -1 DRM to its To Hit or IFT DR. In addition, a hero uses a MG (at full FP) or other SW normally requiring two men to fire by adding +1 to its To Hit or IFT DR as appropriate (which is negated by the heroic DRM).

Open Ground (OG; for Concealment Gain/Loss, Dash, Interdiction, and Rout determination, an Open Ground hex is any hex in Normal Range in which any Interdictor could apply the -1 FFMO DRM): A10.531 ... [for FFMO: any hex in which no positive TEM or LOS Hindrance applies: A4.6]

10.532 INTERDICTOR: One unit may Interdict any number of routing units ... If a Gun would have to change its CA in order to fire (if this were a fire phase), a positive DRM would usually come into effect and thereby disallow its Interdiction. Similarly, a CX or Encircled unit ... cannot Interdict an enemy unit due to those limitations on its fire.

Three questions:

a) First the sanity check. CX is neither a TEM nor a LOS Hinderance. May a CX unit use/claim the -1 FFMO for a First Fire?
b) Can a Hero manning a MG use the MG to interdict?
c) If yes, then can a CX (or encircled) Hero interdict?

Thanks

 

[klasmalmstrom]

A unit marked by CX can't Interdict....

A10.532:
"...Similarly, a CX or Encircled unit, or a unit using Spotted Fire or one in Melee cannot Interdict an enemy unit due to those limitations on its fire. ..."

 

[Robin Reeve]

a) First the sanity check. CX is neither a TEM nor a LOS Hinderance. May a CX unit use/claim the -1 FFMO for a First Fire?

CX and FFMO are cumulative for a First Fire (but, as Klas wrote, CX does cancel Interdiction).

 

[RollTide]

10.53 INTERDICTION with "enemy unit capable of fire" only mentions "Open Ground". So reading just 10.53 Im thinking a CX unit will be able to interdict.

10.532 INTERDICTOR, for the first an only time I can see (out of the blue) says "a positive DRM would usually come into effect and thereby disallow its Interdiction". Just 'a' (/any?) positive DRM.. This is way more expansive than 'Open Ground'. OK, CX can not interdict.

I believe the game is played that a Hero with an MG can interdict. A Hero fires an MG with a +1drm, thats "a positive DRM". However with the self applied Hero mod is a net 0drm, but 10.532 does not mention 'net 0 drm'. Yet the Hero interdicts, OK... net 0 drm. Its also net 0 if hes just CX, but this does not apply. Got it. Understood.

Returning to ASL after two years. Good to see ASL is the same ASL as when I left her, as pretty as ever.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

A10.532 lists several specific cases where a +1 DRM prevents Interdiction (CX, BU, Stun, Encircled, Spotted Fire, CA change), but it doesn't come out and say 'in general, any positive DRM prevents Interdiction' so while I think the MG/hero probably shouldn't be able to interdict, the rules seem to allow it. (If the routing unit were in the hero's Normal Range, the hero could Interdict with its IFP.)

 

[DVexile]

Relevant Q&A:

A10.531 & A10.532 In the V1 edition of the rules, A10.531 said that interdiction of a routing unit could occur in any Open Ground hex where a potential unit could exert a -1 FFMO DRM without any positive DRM. In V2 the phrase “without any positive DRM” has been removed. Does this mean that positive DRM's no longer apply to canceling the -1 DRM as described in A10.532?

A. No. Positive DRM will prevent Interdiction, per A10.532 – and A10.531 doesn't change that; A10.531 is now more about just what is OG for both rout and non-rout purposes. [Letter242]

Still ambiguous, but explains why A10.532 seems to assume positive DRM cancels interdiction. And could be interpreted to mean a Hero with an MG can’t interdict.

Seems like a new Q&A with clearer wording would be in order.

 

[Actionjick]

NRBH but couldn't the Hero forgo firing the MG at full firepower so as to not apply the DRM?

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I removed that in v23 because I thought A10.532 was clear, but I guess it wasn't. It'll be back in v29. I wish A10.532 specifically said 'in general' rather than list specific cases. You can't deduce 'all' from a list, no matter how extensive.

NRBH but couldn't the Hero forgo firing the MG at full firepower so as to not apply the DRM?

Then it couldn't interdict because of the penultimate sentence of A10.532, "Any unit whose FP is halved [EXC: mortars] (Pin, Motion, Mounted Firer, etc.) may not Interdict.".

The hero can't Interdict with the MG. Unless Q&A says that the "negated by the heroic DRM" in A15.23 means something other than 'net +0 DRM', like 'both cancel as if neither existed'.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

NRBH but couldn't the Hero forgo firing the MG at full firepower so as to not apply the DRM?

No...

A15.23 Does a hero using a SW that normally requires two men to operate fire it at full FP
(aside from PBF, Long Range, etc.)? If yes, could he instead opt to fire it using Area Fire and the -1
Heroic DRM but not the extra +1 DRM?
A. Yes. No. [An95w; An96]

 

[Actionjick]

I removed that in v23 because I thought A10.532 was clear, but I guess it wasn't. It'll be back in v29. I wish A10.532 specifically said 'in general' rather than list specific cases. You can't deduce 'all' from a list, no matter how extensive.

Then it couldn't interdict because of the penultimate sentence of A10.532, "Any unit whose FP is halved [EXC: mortars] (Pin, Motion, Mounted Firer, etc.) may not Interdict.".

The hero can't Interdict with the MG. Unless Q&A says that the "negated by the heroic DRM" in A15.23 means something other than 'net +0 DRM', like 'both cancel as if neither existed'.

Thanks to you and Klas. I shouldn't get involved in a rules discussion with NRBH and a memory of the rules that would make a seive look watertight.

 

[Actionjick]

No...

A15.23 Does a hero using a SW that normally requires two men to operate fire it at full FP
(aside from PBF, Long Range, etc.)? If yes, could he instead opt to fire it using Area Fire and the -1
Heroic DRM but not the extra +1 DRM?
A. Yes. No. [An95w; An96]

Thanks Klas!

 

[apbills]

Relevant Q&A:

A10.531 & A10.532 In the V1 edition of the rules, A10.531 said that interdiction of a routing unit could occur in any Open Ground hex where a potential unit could exert a -1 FFMO DRM without any positive DRM. In V2 the phrase “without any positive DRM” has been removed. Does this mean that positive DRM's no longer apply to canceling the -1 DRM as described in A10.532?

A. No. Positive DRM will prevent Interdiction, per A10.532 – and A10.531 doesn't change that; A10.531 is now more about just what is OG for both rout and non-rout purposes. [Letter242]

Still ambiguous, but explains why A10.532 seems to assume positive DRM cancels interdiction. And could be interpreted to mean a Hero with an MG can’t interdict.

Seems like a new Q&A with clearer wording would be in order.

I agree with your assessment. A10.532 implies something regarding a positive DRM, however, the wording previously interacted with A10.531's statement regarding a positive DRM. When that was removed in v2, it left A10.532 hanging and now it is not clear at all in the rules since there is no clear statement regarding when a positive DRM would prevent Interdiction. It gives some specific cases, even though the reason for those cases is never clearly stated anywhere else.

e.g., " If a Gun would have to change its CA in order to fire (if this were a fire phase), a positive DRM would usually come into effect and thereby disallow its Interdiction." There is no statement in the rules stating that a positive DRM disallows Interdiction. How does it "thereby disallow" anything given there is no rule stating that a positive DRM disallows Interdiction. Usually in the English language when you state "thereby" you would have previously defined the causal relationship between an action and an effect and the "thereby" statement would rely on that previous definitive statement in making its point. In this case we have a statement that just mangles the issue in an unclear manner. It would be better to just add in a statement prior to my quoted sentence that actually clearly defines that a positive DRM disallows Interdiction. If that is not true in all cases an EXC can be listed (its not like the ASLRB attempts to limit the number of EXCEPTIONS!).

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I shouldn't get involved in a rules discussion with NRBH and a memory of the rules that would make a seive look watertight.

I don't know about Klas but I always have to look up rules. eRules make searching so easy!

 

[DVexile]

I don't know about Klas but I always have to look up rules. eRules make searching so easy!

As a relatively new player I really appreciate the eASLRB as search is so critical in a rulebook that often hides critical rules in the third to last sentence of a half column long paragraph about a different topic! The Index helps of course, but isn’t comprehensive.