CE, DFF, and BFF

Georgii2222

Really Groovy Frood
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
685
Reaction score
21
Location
ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Country
llUnited States
A BU AFV declares a stop MP.

The defender declines to fire on the stop MP.

Can the AFV then declare CE and BFF without the defender being able to fire on the MP?

I found this Perry sez which indicates to me that no, the Defender can no longer fire at the MP, if you consider that declining to fire on a MP and firing on a MP are equal acts.


"D5.33 A BU AFV enters a new hex whereupon the DEFENDER fires DFF on the AFV. Once that attack has been resolved and the DEFENDER indicates no further DFF, may the AFV go CE and fire with BFF without having to spend another MP? A. Yes. "
 

Jim Burris

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
111
Reaction score
66
Location
St Louis, MO
Country
llUnited States
I thought it was the other way, the defender could Defensive Fire as you became CE before you could BFF, but I guess not. It is good to know you can go CE and BFF without the defender having a chance to shoot. Those AAMGs come in handy during BFF.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
A BU AFV declares a stop MP.

The defender declines to fire on the stop MP.

Can the AFV then declare CE and BFF without the defender being able to fire on the MP?

I found this Perry sez which indicates to me that no, the Defender can no longer fire at the MP, if you consider that declining to fire on a MP and firing on a MP are equal acts.


"D5.33 A BU AFV enters a new hex whereupon the DEFENDER fires DFF on the AFV. Once that attack has been resolved and the DEFENDER indicates no further DFF, may the AFV go CE and fire with BFF without having to spend another MP? A. Yes. "
One of the better legal "cheats" out there. If ya ain't cheat'n (legally) you're not try'in hard enough!:eek::D
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,204
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I thought it was the other way, the defender could Defensive Fire as you became CE before you could BFF, but I guess not. It is good to know you can go CE and BFF without the defender having a chance to shoot. Those AAMGs come in handy during BFF.
IIRC, Albany has a Tournament Rule to counter this - allowing a DEFENDER first crack.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
Albany tourney has the rule that if an AFV goes CE, then the defending side may shoot at the CE AFV on the previous MP.

A great idea IMHO.

Stops an AFV from moving next to a defender in say, woods; then stopping/going CE and blasting away with the added AAMG and with probable ITT to hit of a "5"
 

Doug Kirk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
487
Location
Columbia, MO
Country
llUnited States
Albany tourney has the rule that if an AFV goes CE, then the defending side may shoot at the CE AFV on the previous MP.

A great idea IMHO.

Stops an AFV from moving next to a defender in say, woods; then stopping/going CE and blasting away with the added AAMG and with probable ITT to hit of a "5"
I thought that was correct per an Perry sez or errata or something. I have always played that way.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,736
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
This Q&A says that the AFV is subject to DFF after going CE and without additional expenditure of MP.

Assume that an BU AFV expends a Start MP, possible drawing some DFF, before it then goes CE (without the expenditure of any MP). Is it correct that the DEFENDER may DFF vs the now CE AFV with all weapons that has not yet fired, still based on the Start MP expenditure (since A8.1 generally allows DFF to be declared vs an MP/MF expenditure as long as a new MP/MF expenditure has not been declared)?
A. Yes.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I thought that was correct per an Perry sez or errata or something. I have always played that way.
My recollection is that from the rules and a relatively confusing set of Q&A, the combo "going CE and BFF" is allowed. I have always played that way. The 3rd edition might usefully clarify that for good.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
This Q&A says that the AFV is subject to DFF after going CE and without additional expenditure of MP.
My recollection is that from the rules and a relatively confusing set of Q&A, the combo "going CE and BFF" is allowed. I have always played that way. The 3rd edition might usefully clarify that for good.
The Q&A says you can fire after going CE without the expenditure of a MP. The rules say you can't fire once a B1F declaration has been made. So, it comes down to semantics. Which rule applies? What's more, if the player says "B1F and go CE" the Q&A seems irrelevant. The rule at Albany negates this sort of shenanigans. If you declare CE as part of a B1F, the defender can elect to shoot before the attacker at the now CE target. Personally, I will always declare CE, ask if you're going to fire, and then if not, declare the B1F. IMO, that's as it should be. -- jim
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The Q&A says you can fire after going CE without the expenditure of a MP. The rules say you can't fire once a B1F declaration has been made. So, it comes down to semantics. Which rule applies? What's more, if the player says "B1F and go CE" the Q&A seems irrelevant. The rule at Albany negates this sort of shenanigans. If you declare CE as part of a B1F, the defender can elect to shoot before the attacker at the now CE target. Personally, I will always declare CE, ask if you're going to fire, and then if not, declare the B1F. IMO, that's as it should be. -- jim
Yes, this is the better way to play in my estimation, however, not all people do so and there is no specific interpretation to the verify that this is the correct/incorrect way to play it. My feeling on the matter is that after the MP has been spent if one declares going CE prior to the announcement of a B1F shot the DEFENDER still retains the ability to fire on the now CE vehicle based upon the Stop MP. If however the ATTACKER announces they're conducting B1F and going CE, he must first conduct B1F as a BU vehicle and then go CE after the initial shot has been made. This way it actually falls into line with the prohibition of conducting defensive fire on a vehicle after it has declared a B1F shot [EXC: Special circumstance Gun Duel] and prevents a "well I said it first" approach. JMHO
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
If however the ATTACKER announces they're conducting B1F and going CE, he must first conduct B1F as a BU vehicle and then go CE after the initial shot has been made. This way it actually falls into line with the prohibition of conducting defensive fire on a vehicle after it has declared a B1F shot [EXC: Special circumstance Gun Duel] and prevents a "well I said it first" approach. JMHO
I agree, however no rule supports it. Nothing states the order of zero MP actions. There is a rule which says you can interrupt a B1F shot. The Albany SSR clears it all up nicely. I wish it was added to canon. -- jim
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,736
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
The Q&A says you can fire after going CE without the expenditure of a MP. The rules say you can't fire once a B1F declaration has been made. So, it comes down to semantics. Which rule applies? What's more, if the player says "B1F and go CE" the Q&A seems irrelevant. The rule at Albany negates this sort of shenanigans. If you declare CE as part of a B1F, the defender can elect to shoot before the attacker at the now CE target. Personally, I will always declare CE, ask if you're going to fire, and then if not, declare the B1F. IMO, that's as it should be. -- jim
If someone says that they are declaring B1F and going CE ... the B1F goes first. The CE comes second. Take the shot with the +1 for BU. If you want to be CE on the shot, then you have to go CE before you B1F. ASL is not and should not be a game predicated on how fast you can speak nor permit players to ignore syntax and word order as important.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,361
Reaction score
10,215
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
The Q&A says you can fire after going CE without the expenditure of a MP. The rules say you can't fire once a B1F declaration has been made. So, it comes down to semantics. Which rule applies? What's more, if the player says "B1F and go CE" the Q&A seems irrelevant. The rule at Albany negates this sort of shenanigans. If you declare CE as part of a B1F, the defender can elect to shoot before the attacker at the now CE target. Personally, I will always declare CE, ask if you're going to fire, and then if not, declare the B1F. IMO, that's as it should be. -- jim
I agree, however no rule supports it. Nothing states the order of zero MP actions. There is a rule which says you can interrupt a B1F shot. The Albany SSR clears it all up nicely. I wish it was added to canon. -- jim
Jim has it right. I still remember when this minutiae was discovered for the first time in a discussion a couple of years ago. And it irks him ever since. I agree that this issue should be addressed in an ASLRB v3.

Until then, I would have no issue if someone would pull the semantics-trick on me. Basically, if someone knows how to apply it, this requires a very deep and intricate understanding of the rules. Transforming that knowledge into the 'correct' semantics when the situation turns up merits giving him the benefit of it IMHO.

von Marwitz
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
If someone says that they are declaring B1F and going CE ... the B1F goes first. The CE comes second. Take the shot with the +1 for BU. If you want to be CE on the shot, then you have to go CE before you B1F. ASL is not and should not be a game predicated on how fast you can speak nor permit players to ignore syntax and word order as important.
There is nothing in the rules that says this is so. I agree, their language suggests it, but both cost "zero" movement points suggesting both are instantaneous and nothing in the rules suggests or requires an order for zero MP/instantaneous state changes. Common sense suggests as you do. The rules often don't prescribe to common sense sadly. And I agree with your point on speed of language. When the debate over the language "CE and B1F" first occurred, I said pretty emphatically that once the CE was announced, it shouldn't be a race condition to see who could shout FIRE! first.

FWIW, it was this whole debate that led to the Albany Rule. The original TD (Gary Trezza) was even more irked by this rule than I am. ;) -- jim
 
Top