CH/KIA breaking other units in the hex

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
759
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
Hello!

A location with a leader and squad suffers a CH roll.

RS find that the leader eats the CH.

The leader is KIA'd.

Is the squad automatically broken because of this KIA (then suffers its result from the attack) or does it just suffer the result of the non CH attack on it (along with any LLMC)?

Thanks!

Roger
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,489
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Hello!

A location with a leader and squad suffers a CH roll.

RS find that the leader eats the CH.

The leader is KIA'd.

Is the squad automatically broken because of this KIA (then suffers its result from the attack) or does it just suffer the result of the non CH attack on it?

Thanks!

Roger
It suffers the non CH attack, ie. A ‘regular’ attack
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
759
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
Thanks!

LLMC as well (from the KIA)?

Peace

Roger
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
1,124
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Well,... A7.301 does not seem to care if the KIA was generated by a CH or not, if a KIA affects a target then the rule section states all survivors break. As long as the units can be affected by the attack (ie: all are moving together or during a Prep/Def/Adv Fire Phase) any survivors should break, take take a LLMC (if applicable) and the normal effects of the attack. Otherwise, a KIA generated by a CH actually protects the other units in the hex.

Note that C3.74 states that units not affected by the CH are still attacked normally but it does not say that the result of a KIA is voided and only the regular attack takes place.

CHs are bad news and made worse when leaders are involved.

I'm not aware of errata that makes KIA affects irrelevant in CH situations but others may know more.
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,179
Reaction score
2,860
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Well,... A7.301 does not seem to care if the KIA was generated by a CH or not, if a KIA affects a target then the rule section states all survivors break. As long as the units can be affected by the attack (ie: all are moving together or during a Prep/Def/Adv Fire Phase) any survivors should break, take take a LLMC (if applicable) and the normal effects of the attack. Otherwise, a KIA generated by a CH actually protects the other units in the hex.

Note that C3.74 states that units not affected by the CH are still attacked normally but it does not say that the result of a KIA is voided and only the regular attack takes place.

CHs are bad news and made worse when leaders are involved.

I'm not aware of errata that makes KIA affects irrelevant in CH situations but others may know more.
If additional units in the stack are not subject to the CH they would not automatically be broken should the Leader be subject to the CH and subsequently suffer a KIA as they were not subject to the same attack (last words of A7.301). This is similar in fashion to a stack containing a unit with a FT and others not subject to the FT DRM. If the FT carrying unit suffers a KIA other units in the stack are not automatically broken because they were not subject to the same attack. A LLMC/LLTC is a bit different however, all that is required is all units are in the same Location as the Leader as per A10.2 and has only tangential relationship of suffering from the same attack criteria of A7.301.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
1,124
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Hi Eagle4ty.

I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of A7.301 and its final sentence. An attack is the directing of fire on a target location (via IFT FP or a TH DR followed by an affects DR on the IFT), a Gun that hits its target will possibly apply different results against legitimate target units in that location. While final DR results on the IFT may vary, there is only one "attack".

See also A.5 - Attack DRM : Whenever an attack (italics are mine) is made against multiple defending units, if a modifier applies to some but not all defending units, that attack is made with only one DR by applying the appropriate DRM only to those units - thus getting two or more Final DR from the same Original DR....

This is plainly stating that a single "attack" can have multiple results. A CH simply increases the IFT table for the affected unit(s) but it remains one attack. The Final DR of xx may have varying affects on the IFT, in different columns, but is applied individually against units based on their specific DRMs. This would mean a FT carrying squad will still affect the other units as they are subject to and same "attack", they simply have (potentially) different results. A KIA would remain a KIA and still break all other target units subject to that attack in that location as per A7.301.

CH are bad, people dying in front of the group is bad.... CHs should hurt, yet under the suggested interpretation the units not hit by the CH may take only a PTC or NMC and are not phased at all by unit X being smeared across the walls on the far side of the room. Work out a 1 KIA from a CH by 50* Mor against a stone building location as an example. A 1KIA is only a PTC for everyone else?

This makes no sense. A CH would actually be preferable over a regular hit if a KIA is involved as other units are protected from the affects of that KIA, which would not be the case in a regular hit. A CH should (rightly) fuq up the target location more than a regular hit.

Cheers.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,179
Reaction score
2,860
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Hi Eagle4ty.

I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of A7.301 and its final sentence. An attack is the directing of fire on a target location (via IFT FP or a TH DR followed by an affects DR on the IFT), a Gun that hits its target will possibly apply different results against legitimate target units in that location. While final DR results on the IFT may vary, there is only one "attack".

See also A.5 - Attack DRM : Whenever an attack (italics are mine) is made against multiple defending units, if a modifier applies to some but not all defending units, that attack is made with only one DR by applying the appropriate DRM only to those units - thus getting two or more Final DR from the same Original DR....

This is plainly stating that a single "attack" can have multiple results. A CH simply increases the IFT table for the affected unit(s) but it remains one attack. The Final DR of xx may have varying affects on the IFT, in different columns, but is applied individually against units based on their specific DRMs. This would mean a FT carrying squad will still affect the other units as they are subject to and same "attack", they simply have (potentially) different results. A KIA would remain a KIA and still break all other target units subject to that attack in that location as per A7.301.

CH are bad, people dying in front of the group is bad.... CHs should hurt, yet under the suggested interpretation the units not hit by the CH may take only a PTC or NMC and are not phased at all by unit X being smeared across the walls on the far side of the room. Work out a 1 KIA from a CH by 50* Mor against a stone building location as an example. A 1KIA is only a PTC for everyone else?

This makes no sense. A CH would actually be preferable over a regular hit if a KIA is involved as other units are protected from the affects of that KIA, which would not be the case in a regular hit. A CH should (rightly) fuq up the target location more than a regular hit.

Cheers.
I would certainly like to agree to this interpretation and have played it as such previously. However, I have been ruled against at a tournament when using this same justification. The ruling was they were considered separate attacks as one (or more) units are subject to the CH attack and other units are subject to the normal hit attack. I believe Jazz was one of the first ones to point this out. I'll check out existing Q&As but hope your interpretation is correct as it simply makes more common sense (but this is ASL, so not holding out a lot of confidence).
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,095
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I would certainly like to agree to this interpretation and have played it as such previously. However, I have been ruled against at a tournament when using this same justification. The ruling was they were considered separate attacks as one (or more) units are subject to the CH attack and other units are subject to the normal hit attack. I believe Jazz was one of the first ones to point this out. I'll check out existing Q&As but hope your interpretation is correct as it simply makes more common sense (but this is ASL, so not holding out a lot of confidence).
Without having double-checked I seem to recall that Eagle4ty is correct. Digging through Gamesquad with Google and the search query of

site:gamesquad.com [search words]

will probably unearth some discussions/threads on this.

von Marwitz
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,579
Reaction score
4,163
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
IIRC, there are some Q&A that pretty much say that different end results on an IFT attack vs different groups subject to the same attack are treated as different attacks for resolution purposes.

E.g., a FT-toting squad suffers a K/2, and two other squads a NMC. Only the reduced HS takes the 2MC of the K/# - the other two only takes the NMC.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
1,124
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Gents, I beg your forbearance on this matter for now. I have an appointment in the city and will not return until late afternoon. I will lay out my argument, along with the pertinent rule sections at that time (editing this post heavily).

I suspect this may be a case of someone believing the KIA results were too painful and looked to have them dumbed down. Thus, we have a "we've always done it this way" scenario. If so, this is in direct contravention of a number of rules clearly laid out in the RB. Some Cognitive Dissonance 🤓 may need to be overcome.

More on that later. :)
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
335
Reaction score
177
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
Consider four units in a hex (A, B, C, and D) that are subjected to an ITT attack which rolls a CH. Three of the units tie and lose the RS (C3.74) and suffer a CH (B, C, and D).

And imagine that B has a different DRM than C and D (which have the same DRM): so we have three results.

Unit A faces a non-CH attack and passes any resulting MC.
Unit B faces a 2KIA, and dies.
Units C and D face a 1KIA: C dies and D breaks.

Now do we apply the KIA breaks to everyone else? Would the now-broken D suffer the 2KIA CR as well? Would A suffer an MC, and then the 2KIA break, and then a CR due to the 1KIA break?

(Of course there is also the now-problematic first sentence of A7.301, demanding that at least 2 units must die due to the 2KIA vs. unit B: do we do an RS to see which of the survivors--A [a broken HS] or D [a broken HS] dies? and do we do this before or after resolving the NMC, or the 1KIA?)

IMO it's just one attack: B caught the full brunt of it; C and D were very close; A was farther away. Due to the CH RS roll (and to A0.5), the targets in the Location face three distinct levels of severity.

C3.74: Regardless of the number of targets in a Location struck by a CH, the special provisions of a CH apply only to the target(s) determined by Random Selection.

. . . my thoughts.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,579
Reaction score
4,163
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
(Of course there is also the now-problematic first sentence of A7.301, demanding that at least 2 units must die due to the 2KIA vs. unit B: do we do an RS to see which of the survivors--A [a broken HS] or D [a broken HS] dies?
Old 1st Edition Q&A:
A7.301 & C3.74 If Random Selection due to a CH on multiple units chooses > one of those
units, but fewer units that the KIA# for that CH's FP and Final IFT DR, must Random Selection be
used again among the non-CH units in order to bring the number of CH units up to the KIA's #?
A. No – the number of units chosen by the original Random Selection is the number the
CH is resolved against.
[An93a; An95w; An96]
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
335
Reaction score
177
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for that, Klas. (And I agree with that Q&A regarding my parenthetical question.)

If the first half of the first sentence of A7.301 applies only to the subset that is directly affected by that CH and Final DR, then the second half of the first sentence of A7.301 probably also only applies to the same subset.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
1,124
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Good evening Gents.

Apologies in advance as I am sure this post will be somewhat lengthy. If it gets to be too long I will split the post into two parts:

i) a straight forward fire attack using infantry only but with multiple DRMs as per A.5 and how it works with A7.4 target Determination (an example will follow).
ii) the To Hit process and how it translates to the IFT (with an example showing both standard and critical hit resolution on the IFT).

I have no doubt that everyone reading this post will already be aware of 99% of what I am describing and that only the conclusion may may leave some questioning their previous understanding. Thanks in advance for your patience.

As above, we start with A.5 - Attack DRM :

Whenever an attack (italics are mine) is made against multiple defending units, if a modifier applies to some but not all defending units, that attack is made with only one DR by applying the appropriate DRM only to those units - thus getting two or more Final DR from the same Original DR....

For our infantry fire attack example we will assume a woods hex. In this hex are the following a German units (no leader present to keep things simple):

  • 548 with FT
  • 548 with DC
  • 467, concealed and in a 1S foxhole.
Two hexes away will be a British HS w/ an HMG and an 8-1 SMC.

With A.5 safely ensconced in the forefront out brains let's quickly run through the pertinent Rules of A7 Fire Attacks.

A7.1, 7.2 - .26 do not have any earth shaking revelations other than to state what a fire attack is and how firepower may be modified by various methods or in different phases (ie: PBF, TBF, Long Range FP, AFPh or Opportunity Fire).

Before addressing A7.3-7.306 we should jump forward to A7.4 Target Determination which notes the following:

"Except during Defensive First Fire (8.1), all Personnel-units/unarmored-vehicles/Vulnerable -PRC in the same Location are considered targets of fire that does not have to specify a particular target, with the outcome of such fire affecting all those enemy (or Melee) units in the target Location (italics are mine)...

After noting a few exceptions to the above case the paragraph continues...


...Although all targets are affected by the results of such fire combat, some may escape harm entirely while others are eliminated, broken, pinned, or affected by Heat of Battle ?(15.)...

It is important to note here how this rule section dovetails and reinforces A.5. It also makes no mention of second or separate attacks for enemy units that may have different DRMs applicable to the Fire Attack. In fact, it specifically states that the affects of a single attack may vary from unit to unit but there is no change to the A.5 rule.

With the above in mind lets execute a particularly nasty result to the German units in the woods hex and bring the rules together with A7301-.306.

Example: The British HS w/ HMG and directed by the 8-1 SMC applies a modified 6FP attack against the enemy units is the woods at a range of 2 hexes.

  • the 548 w/ FT will be attacked with a 6 FP attack with a -1 DRM (+1 for woods, -1 for the leader mod, -1 for possessing an FT [as per A22.4])
  • the 548 w/ DC will be attacked with a 6 FP attack with no DRM on the IFT (+1 for the woods, -1 for the leader mod)
  • the concealed 467 in the foxhole will be attacked by a 2 FP attack with a +1 DRM (1/2 FP for concealed target, +2 for the foxhole, -1 for the leader mod)
As per A.5 and A7.4 the attack is made with a single DR on the IFT. For our purposes we will assume an Original DR of 3 (colour dr 2, white dr 1). The HMG retains ROF.

The Final DR result for the attack on each unit are as follows:

  • 548 w/ FT Final DR is a 2 which is a 1 KIA
  • 548 with DC Final DR is 3 which is a K/2
  • concealed 467 in the foxhole Final DR is a 4 which is a 1MC.
Applying these results is clearly explained in A7.3-.306 which state:

A7.301 #KIA: At least as many targets units in each specifically targeted Location... as the number indicated (#) are eliminated (as determined by Random Selection); all remaining units are broken... The number of units eliminated can exceed the number specified if Random Selection results in a tie for the last unit to be eliminated , but in no case are more units affected than are subject to that attack.

The only change to the above that is applied to our example is that Random Selection is not used because the Final DR affect of 1 KIA is applicable to only one target unit, the 548 w/ FT.

Note that the rule is clear -
...all remaining units are broken... there are no exceptions given to the affected units. Also note that the breaking of the "remaining units" is not a result of the attack on the IFT being applied to them specifically. The breaking is the result of another target unit in the same Location being eliminated by a KIA result applied against it.

This is an important distinction.

Further, nowhere in A7.301 does it absolve the now broken units from the specific affects of the same IFT attack being applied to them.


  • the 548 w/ DC is broken as per A7.301 and then suffers a K/2 result as per A7.302 and is reduced to a broken 238 HS. Because this unit is the only one that can be affected by the K/2 due to the FP and DRM above it must take the 2MC. If it passes the 2MC it will continue on normally but if it fails, it will be eliminated.
  • Finally, the concealed 467 is broken, loses concealment and must now under go its own 1MC as per A7.304, If it passes it will carry on as is. If it fails this 1MC it will be reduced to a 247 HS.

Try as I might, I could not find any rule, exception or other caveat that exempts the above units being affected as per this example. I will note that this scenario would be very rare and would take a convergence of both bad luck and an error in judgement on the part of the player with the 548 w/ FT as well as a well placed shot by the owner of the British HS w/ HMG and 8-1 Leader. I can recall only one instance in a RB CG where a similar event occurred with catastrophic results for a German stack.

Normally, had three infantry units been in woods and an attack result in a 1KIA, one (or more) of the units would be chosen via Random Selection to be eliminated and the survivors broken without further consequence. What complicated the results above is the application of A.5 and A7.4 in particular and understanding the affects of a KIA result on surviving units.

Phew!!! That looks far more complicated than it actually is. I suppose the moral of the story is to remember Rule #1 of ASL,.... never stack. And never stack units with FTs with other units. It's asking for trouble :)
 
Last edited:

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
1,124
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I doubt anyone would be surprised to find that when applying the above example to a Gun's To Hit process and the application of the FP value to the IFT that there are no significant changes to applying results as per A.5, A7.301-306 and A7.4.

Again, apologies for stating the obvious where most rules are concerned.

If we replace the British infantry with a Russian 76L Art at range six we must first obtain a hit as per C3. To Hit process. The Germans remain as before:

  • 548 w/ FT in woods
  • 548 w/ Din woods
  • concealed 467 in a foxhole in the woods.
The Base To Hit number for ITT at range six is an 8. The two 548s in the woods modify the To Hit for them to a 7 while the concealed 467 modifies the To Hit to a 4 (+2 concealed, +2 for the foxhole).

Assume the Original DR is a 3. As this is less than half of TH # for the 548s in woods this will result in a CH versus one of them as per C3.7 - .71 and .74. The concealed 467 is also hit but as the Final TH DR is not less than half of the Modified TH # its is not a critical hit.

For our purposes we will assume the 548 w/ DC is chosen via Random Selection (C3.74) and as per C3.71 the FP value on the IFT is doubled with the +1 TEM of the woods reversed and applied as a negative DRM on the IFT.

  • The 548 w? Dc will be attacked on the 24 FP column with a -1 DRM.
  • The 548 w/ FT will be attacked on the 12 FP column with a -1 DRM as Per A22.4 (FT Possession).
  • the 467 will lose concealment and be attacked on the 12 FP with no modifier.
Assume the Original DR on the IFT is a 5.

  • The 548 w/ DC suffers a 1 KIA and is eliminated. As per A.5 and A7.4 all surviving units are broken.
  • the now broken 548 w/ FT resolves the affect of the 12FP attack with a -1 DRM as a 3MC. If it passes the 3MC it carries on normally. If it fails it is reduced to a broken 238 HS.
  • the now broken 467 resolves it 12 FP attack with no modifier as 2MC. As above, if it passes this 2MC it carries on normally. If it fails the 2MC it is reduced to a broken 247 HS.
I did look closely at Chapter C to see if there were any exceptions to the affects of A7.301 or any other means of mitigating the requirement to break survivors of a KIA in a target Location with multiple units but I could see none.

Cheers.
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
335
Reaction score
177
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
Are you discounting the 1st edition Q&A that Klas quoted above? (Not sarcasm, just an honest question.)

In that Q&A, units subject to a CH do not pass the unfulfilled kills onto units that didn't get the CH (presumably this Q&A applies since some units are hit harder by the blast than others). And I argue above that since the first half of the first sentence of A7.301 doesn't pass its effects onto non-CH units, then probably the second half of the first sentence of A7.301 shouldn't either (e.g., the auto breaks).

And consider:
C3.74 Resolution vs Multiple Targets: Regardless of the number of targets in a Location struck by a CH, the special provisions of a CH apply only to the target(s) determined by Random Selection. Attacks on other units hit in that Location are resolved as if struck by a normal hit [EXC: If a CH is obtained vs a vehicle, the vehicle always receives the CH and any other units affected Collaterally are attacked normally; D0.8]. If using the Area Target Type or OBA, and more than one occupied Location is hit, use Random Selection to determine the occupied Location in which the CH occurs.

The underlined clauses IMO support treating those two categories of targets separately.

In a similar vein, I would argue that units receiving different DRMs are also receiving different concentrations of a blast, and that the same logic should apply there too. (I can't prove it by quoting a rule, but I think the argument I'm making is fair.)

-----------

You also said this: Also note that the breaking of the "remaining units" is not a result of the attack on the IFT being applied to them specifically. The breaking is the result of another target unit in the same Location being eliminated by a KIA result applied against it.

Let's cut into that a little: one could argue that the breaking of the non-KIA units is due to their seeing other units becoming KIA--or one could argue that the breaking of the non-KIA units is due to their being too close to the blast. If it's the latter case, then the Q&A makes sense; if it's the former case, it would be more like an auto-fail LLMC. (I don't think the rulebook tells us, but how we see it might affect our stance on this issue.)

----------

For this specific question, I think it's helpful to consider our underlying rule-interpretation philosophy: some players go only by the strict letter of the text. I don't, not always. Why not? Because IMO a strict adherence to the text can sometimes lead to untenable positions, such as the bridge TEM/FFMO mess of several years ago.

One thing I value Perry for is that he "hears the music" beneath the words of the tome. The vast majority of the time he goes by what the literal wording says, but sometimes he sees that "the music" of the gaming system requires a different answer--that perhaps there is an inexactness in the phrasing in this rule or that, or perhaps a new combination of effects has arisen which the rules, as written, don't adequately account for.

Now I'm no Perry: I'm very fallible and I know it. But the main thing I do when considering a complicated rule question is to ask myself, does the answer I've come to by a strict reading of the rules pass the smell test? E.g., does it seem a little insane? And the example I gave in a post above, where one unit suffers a NMC, a KIA break, and a second KIA break does seem to me a little too complicated, like it involves too much over-counting. That's when I look for other possible interpretations.

--------

(My eyes are crossing from too many CX counters, so I'm calling it a night. Sorry if what I wrote is a bit uneven.)
 
Last edited:

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,585
Reaction score
2,339
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
KIA: At least as many target units in each specifically targeted Location (e.g., Spraying Fire or Canister, but not Area Target Type, attacks) as the number indicated (#) are eliminated (as determined by Random Selection); all remaining target units are automatically broken. Units which cannot be broken (e.g., berserk/heroic/broken/unarmed)

All remaining target units, i.e., those targeted by the KIA.
In the instance of a CH, only those affected by the KIA are automatically broken.
 

Doug Leslie

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
184
Reaction score
63
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
This is on the official Q&A:

A7.301 & A22.4 How is a K/# result resolved vs. a stack of three Personnel units, two of which possess a FT? What if all three possessed a FT?

A. Each of the FT-bearing units suffers a 1KIA, and the third unit suffers the K/#. Each of them would suffer a 1KIA. (The -1 FT DRM is unique in that for attack resolution purposes it applies in this separate, individual manner to each possessing unit). [An93b; An96; Mw]


There is nothing here to suggest that the unit undergoing the K/ result has to break as a consequence of the KIA results sustained by the other units.

There is also this which seems to be pretty definitive:

A.9 & A7.301 How are differing KIA results resolved vs. multiple units in a Location? For example, if a Location which contains six Good Order HS: A, B, C, D, E and F, is affected by an IFT attack which results, owing to differences in TEM/concealment, in a 1KIA vs. HS A and B, a 2KIA vs. HS C and D, and a 3KIA vs. HS E and F, how do I determine which HS are eliminated and which are broken?

A. Each result applies to each group. A and B roll for Random Selection for a 1KIA per A7.301. C and D suffer a 2KIA and are eliminated. E and F suffer a 3KIA and are eliminated.


There is also a practical issue here. If KIA breaks are to affect units that are affected by K or MC results, what order is used to resolve the attack effects? This could be important if the broken morale level of the affected units is different from the unbroken level. For example, a 666 would want to undergo its own morale check after being broken due to its companion squad's KIA since it would be using an 8 rather than a 6 as its morale level. Conversely, units with a lower broken morale level would want to take their morale check before the KIA break is inflicted on them. The rules are silent on what happens in that situation. Would we not expect some guidance on that if the intention of the rules was that a KIA sustained by one unit affected every unit in a hex?
 
Last edited:

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,585
Reaction score
2,339
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
While I agree with your interpretation of the rules, there are conventions of when subsequent MC are taken. A leader goes berserk. All units take the MC that causes after they have resolved the attack. Similarly, a LLMC is taken after the attack that caused the death.
 
Top