CH/KIA breaking other units in the hex

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Are you discounting the 1st edition Q&A that Klas quoted above? (Not sarcasm, just an honest question.)...

...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.)...
I understand what you are saying but I am curious why such a question was asked in the first place. Rather than trying to invent new rules we should be applying COWTRA and RAW (rules as written).

Rule A.5 is unambiguous:

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....

Rule A7.4 is also unambiguous and clear:

"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

I do not see any scope for not applying A7.301 and there exists no exception absolving other units in the hex within Chapter A or within the CH rules (C.3.71 and C3.74). I went line-by-line through all the pertinent rule sections, there is no relief.

The only time a fire attack does not affect all units in a hex is during the movement phase. As we all know, in this case only the moving units are affected.

Together the two rules clearly explain applying the affects of attacks on the IFT:

  • one Original DR is made to affects on the IFT and this DR may generate more than one result, from #KIA to PTC.
  • during the PFPh, DFPh and AFPh "all Personnel-units/unarmored-vehicles/Vulnerable-PRC" in a Location are considered a target of an attack that does not need to specify a target.
If all units are affected by the attack then A7.301 must be applied - all remaining target units are broken.

I suspect the question arose from a player not liking the risks imposed on him caused by stacking powerful units together and/or concentrating their firepower.

The solution is do not stack. The solution is to be extremely careful with units possessing FTs,.... and so on.

Why not ignore VBM freeze as too deadly? In fact, why not dumb down any other host of rules that impose risks on the players?

If a player makes bad choices and gets hurt, this is not the fault of the IFT or the rules as written.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,258
Reaction score
2,990
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I understand what you are saying but I am curious why such a question was asked in the first place. Rather than trying to invent new rules we should be applying COWTRA and RAW (rules as written).

Rule A.5 is unambiguous:

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....

Rule A7.4 is also unambiguous and clear:

"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

I do not see any scope for not applying A7.301 and there exists no exception absolving other units in the hex within Chapter A or within the CH rules (C.3.71 and C3.74). I went line-by-line through all the pertinent rule sections, there is no relief.

The only time a fire attack does not affect all units in a hex is during the movement phase. As we all know, in this case only the moving units are affected.

Together the two rules clearly explain applying the affects of attacks on the IFT:

  • one Original DR is made to affects on the IFT and this DR may generate more than one result, from #KIA to PTC.
  • during the PFPh, DFPh and AFPh "all Personnel-units/unarmored-vehicles/Vulnerable-PRC" in a Location are considered a target of an attack that does not need to specify a target.
If all units are affected by the attack then A7.301 must be applied - all remaining target units are broken.

I suspect the question arose from a player not liking the risks imposed on him caused by stacking powerful units together and/or concentrating their firepower.

The solution is do not stack. The solution is to be extremely careful with units possessing FTs,.... and so on.

Why not ignore VBM freeze as too deadly? In fact, why not dumb down any other host of rules that impose risks on the players?

If a player makes bad choices and gets hurt, this is not the fault of the IFT or the rules as written.

Cheers.
The following query sent to Perry (note: I'm pulling for your interpretation. I am more than willing to be wrong in this one):

  • Are all units in a single location and in a single stack automatically
    broken because a KIA was result was suffered by one of those units in
    that stack regardless of the IFT/TH modifiers to each individual unit
    [Exceptions noted per A7.301]?

    *NOTE: Associated comments/arguments made in Gamesquadforums thread
    "CH/KIA breaking other units in the hex", "Rules & Errata".

    **NOTE: Additional elements to consider: What if the stack included a
    CE AFV or other PRC that may be subject to a Collateral Attack?
Top
 

Doug Leslie

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
184
Reaction score
63
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I understand what you are saying but I am curious why such a question was asked in the first place. Rather than trying to invent new rules we should be applying COWTRA and RAW (rules as written).

Rule A.5 is unambiguous:

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....

Rule A7.4 is also unambiguous and clear:

"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

I do not see any scope for not applying A7.301 and there exists no exception absolving other units in the hex within Chapter A or within the CH rules (C.3.71 and C3.74). I went line-by-line through all the pertinent rule sections, there is no relief.

The only time a fire attack does not affect all units in a hex is during the movement phase. As we all know, in this case only the moving units are affected.

Together the two rules clearly explain applying the affects of attacks on the IFT:

  • one Original DR is made to affects on the IFT and this DR may generate more than one result, from #KIA to PTC.
  • during the PFPh, DFPh and AFPh "all Personnel-units/unarmored-vehicles/Vulnerable-PRC" in a Location are considered a target of an attack that does not need to specify a target.
If all units are affected by the attack then A7.301 must be applied - all remaining target units are broken.

I suspect the question arose from a player not liking the risks imposed on him caused by stacking powerful units together and/or concentrating their firepower.

The solution is do not stack. The solution is to be extremely careful with units possessing FTs,.... and so on.

Why not ignore VBM freeze as too deadly? In fact, why not dumb down any other host of rules that impose risks on the players?

If a player makes bad choices and gets hurt, this is not the fault of the IFT or the rules as written.

Cheers.
While I can understand why you might argue for your interpretation of the rules, surely the Q&As which state a different interpretation have to take precedence? The fire attack does affect all units in the same location but just in different ways. It is just a question of interpreting "target units" and the Q&A answers indicate that the term means just those units that are affected by the particular modifier that applies to them.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Well,... I suspect that the response will "qualify" the affects. This will have the affect of all but nullifying the "survivors break" result in A7.301.

The shock impact of seeing a good portion of the troops in the hex killed, wounded or otherwise rendered ineffective will be reduced to a "meh! no biggie".
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
While I can understand why you might argue for your interpretation of the rules, surely the Q&As which state a different interpretation have to take precedence? The fire attack does affect all units in the same location but just in different ways. It is just a question of interpreting "target units" and the Q&A answers indicate that the term means just those units that are affected by the particular modifier that applies to them.
Doug,

I don't see it as being applied as written. A good portion of the troops are dead,.... yet this has no impact on the other targeted units? In my view this is a strange defence of reducing the affects of a high FP, low DR attack on the target Location..

Set that aside for a moment. By 'qualifying' the results of A7.301 the Q&A are thus rewarding mistakes/bad play on one hand and penalizing clever deployment/good play on the other.

The Attacker did not force the Defender to stack a 10-3, three 838 AE squads with FTs and DCs in a hex with low TEM and then add a CE StuG III to the mix. Yet, having been caught out by the error in judgement, the owner of the cleverly placed HMG and 8-1, who then rolls low, doesn't get to collect on his good play.

The target units are given a pass on A7.301 because....?

Because....??? 🤔

A7.4 doesn't care who the target units are or how they are affected but they are all "affected".

A.5 does not divide the target Location into compartments defined by the DRMs it simply states DRMs are variable and are to be applied individually as applicable.

Neither rule overrides A7.301 (nor do any others).

COWTRA. ;)
 
Last edited:

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
The following query sent to Perry (note: I'm pulling for your interpretation. I am more than willing to be wrong in this one):
  • Are all units in a single location and in a single stack automatically
    broken because a KIA was result was suffered by one of those units in
    that stack regardless of the IFT/TH modifiers to each individual unit
    [Exceptions noted per A7.301]?
I don't really understand the wording of your question: I suggest a rephrasing . . .

A7.301: Multiple units in a single Location are subject to an IFT attack, to be resolved with the same Original DR but with differing DRMs. If two units with the same DRM suffer a "3 KIA" result, then (a) must the 3rd KIA be satisfied from among the other units who have a different net DRM? (b) and does the "automatic break" of A7.301 apply to other units who have a different net DRM?
 
Last edited:

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
A7.4 doesn't care who the target units are or how they are affected but they are all "affected".

A.5 does not divide the target Location into compartments defined by the DRMs it simply states DRMs are variable and are to be applied individually as applicable.

Neither rule overrides A7.301 (nor do any others).

COWTRA. ;)
IMO C3.74, a higher numbered rule, does have the power to override your argument.

And the Q&A overrides your argument.

And A3.701 says "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 way I look at it, "that attack" in the context of A3.701 may simply be specifying all those units that face the same DRM. (This appears similar to the way that CHs are dealt with in C3.74.) Rule A.5 doesn't seem definitive to me.
 
Last edited:

Doug Leslie

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
184
Reaction score
63
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Doug,

I don't see it as being applied as written. A good portion of the troops are dead,.... yet this has no impact on the other targeted units? In my view this is a strange defence of reducing the affects of a high FP, low DR attack on the target Location..

Set that aside for a moment. By 'qualifying' the results of A7.301 the Q&A are thus rewarding mistakes/bad play on one hand and penalizing clever deployment/good play on the other.

The Attacker did not force the Defender to stack a 10-3, three 838 AE squads with FTs and DCs in a hex with low TEM and then add a CE StuG III to the mix. Yet, having been caught out by the error in judgement, the owner of the cleverly placed HMG and 8-1, who then rolls low, doesn't get to collect on his good play.

The target units are given a pass on A7.301 because....?

Because....??? 🤔

A7.4 doesn't care who the target units are or how they are affected but they are all "affected".

A.5 does not divide the target Location into compartments defined by the DRMs it simply states DRMs are variable and are to be applied individually as applicable.

Neither rule overrides A7.301 (nor do any others).
That
COWTRA. ;)

I didn't write the rules or answer the Q&A! They are what they are.

A critical hit is a lucky break for the player who inflicts it. If a 10-3 leader is directing an elite MMC manning a MG in a stone building, it seems to me to be exaggerating the luck of the CH if both units end up being eliminated as a result of your interpretation. That isn't punishing bad play or rewarding good play. Anyone can roll snakes eyes once in a while. Even me.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
IMO C3.74, a higher numbered rule, does have the power to override your argument.

And the Q&A overrides your argument.

And A3.701 says "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 way I look at it, "that attack" in the context of A3.701 may simply be specifying all those units that face the same DRM. (This appears similar to the way that CHs are dealt with in C3.74.) Rule A.5 doesn't seem definitive to me.
Bill,

A3.74 does not override anything. But your underlined bit is correct - all units in the target Location are affected by the attack, thus including the phrase requiring 'remaining target units are broken'. In fact, A7.301 is actually reinforced by A7.4 declaring that all units in the target Location are subject to the same attack.

A.5 adds more brick and mortar to the rules by telling us that there is one (and only one) Original DR per attack on the IFT and that DRMs are applied to units as determined by their particular condition.

Nothing in these three sections changes the IFT Original DR into multiple attacks to be resolved separately with differing impacts.

One attack on the IFT and only one attack.

If there is only one attack which affects all units in the target Location, albeit with different outcomes due to variable DRMs, then A7.301 must be applied as written provided one or more units suffers a #KIA result - ...all remaining target units are broken.

I would submit the question itself is an error and shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between A.5, A7.301 and A7.4.
 
Last edited:

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I don't really understand the wording of your question: I suggest a rephrasing . . .

A7.301: Multiple units in a single Location are subject to an IFT attack, but with differing DRMs. If two units with the same DRM suffer a "3 KIA" result, then (a) must the 3rd KIA be satisfied from among the other units who have a different net DRM? (b) and does the "automatic break" of A7.301 apply to other units who have a different net DRM?
I would think that A.5 and A7.3 already answer your question a) -

A.5: "Whenever an attack is made against multiple defending units, if a modifier applies to some but not all of the defending units, that attack is made with only one DR by applying the appropriate DRM only to those units...

A7.3: "... Make a DR and, after adding any applicable DRM due to the effect of terrain , Hindrances, target characteristics, and/or leadership, cross-index the adjusted DR with the applicable FP column of the IFT to determine the result results of the attack... The result vs personnel targets are applied as follows:"


One then applies A7.301-306 as applicable. Note the last phrase of A7.301 (noting that increased #KIA is possible only due to RS):

A7.301 "..., but in no case are more units affected than are subject to the that attack."

We then return to A7.4 where, again, all units in the target Location are subject to the same attack and also A.5, where there is only one DR per attack, which may be impacted by variable DRM.

The circle is closed.

I would add the following to you question b)


(b) and does the "automatic break" of A7.301 apply to other units who have a different net DRM but are subject to the same Original DR on the IFT as per A.5 and A7.4 Target Determination?
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
I would submit the question itself is an error and shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between A.5, A7.301 and A7.4.
Gerry, we've both made our arguments and neither of us seem able to sway the other. So we're left with a disagreement.

On one side we have an old Q&A (that Klas quoted), an unofficial Q&A (that Doug quoted), and the thinking of me, Vinnie, Doug, and von Marwitz (if I read the tea leaves correctly), and Eagle4ty's statement that it was ruled this way in a tournament he attended.

On the other side we have your opinion, and I think that of Eagle4ty.

So without a ruling from Perry, we're left with a disagreement, one that can resolved with a friendly dr should the need arise, until we hear something further. (And in the meantime your advice is good: don't stack!)
 
Last edited:

Doug Leslie

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
184
Reaction score
63
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Gerry, we've both made our arguments and neither of us seem able to sway the other. So we're left with a disagreement.

On one side we have an old Q&A (that Klas quoted), an unofficial Q&A (that Doug quoted), and the thinking of me, Vinnie, Doug, and von Marwitz (if I read the tea leaves correctly), and Eagle4ty's statement that it was ruled this way in a tournament he attended.

On the other side we have your opinion, and I think that of Eagle4ty.

So without a ruling from Perry, we're left with a disagreement, one that can resolved with a friendly dr should the need arise, until we hear something further.
The Q&A that I posted are shown here.

https://thetrove.is/Books/Advanced Squad Leader/ASL - Comprehensive Errata v21 Oct 2002.pdf

The first originally appeared in the 93b ASL annual. The second seems to be in response to a query sent to Avalon Hill and is listed as unofficial. I note that your name appears on three of the letters listed as "unofficial sources" on this!
 

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
The first originally appeared in the 93b ASL annual. The second seems to be in response to a query sent to Avalon Hill and is listed as unofficial. I note that your name appears on three of the letters listed as "unofficial sources" on this!
My fifteen minutes of fame . . .
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
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....
There are no modifiers applicable here.
Its a CH
CH affects ONLY that unit.
In your case,
Why isn't a Cavalry unit, FT unit, 447, and ?ed 226 in a hex.
You roll low enough to get a result on the ?ed 226... Say a NMC, on the 447 its a 1MC, the FT, a 1MC and the CAV a 2MC.

Does each unit take the MC's of the other units? I hope your answer is no.
Same applies to the CH...its on a different column..you just use the same DR (most of the time)
KIA only affects THAT unit just as a NON KIA would.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Good morning, Stewart,

I’ll keep this brief as plenty of words have already been used upthread.

Tbh, I fully expect for Perry to side with the ‘compartmentalizing’ of the various affects on the IFT and I understand why.

However, this compartmentalizing allows players to insulate chosen units by placing lower valued or expendable units in more precarious positions vis-a-vis the IFT (either via infantry FP DRM or TH DR). By making units more susceptible they can avoid the worst affects of A7.3- 7.306, the secondary affects of A7.301 in particular.

Note that the rules for A7.3 are absolutely silent on how any particular result is obtained. It only tells us what the impact of that affect is.

The compartmentalizing of the affects by DRM and/or IFT column has the (unintended) consequence of allowing the structure of the rule to contravene its intent.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
So, you want the KIA to apply to the units that weren't CH?
And then have those units take its IFT dictated MC?

Just to be quick
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
I'm not concerned about a #KIA itself (obtained by CH or otherwise). One or more units will be selected to be affected by a #KIA regardless of the column used. What players can avoid by compartmentalizing the units in a hex (including making one or more vulnerable to a CH) are the secondary impacts of a KIA - "all remaining target units are automatically broken."

If the 'breaking' of surviving units in a target hex is meant to show the of 'shock', 'temporary panic', etc., from having members of a group killed, wounded, otherwise incapacitated for the remainder of the scenario, then this effect should not be lost due to different DRMs on the
IFT or via the TH process (a CH), dead is dead. If anything, a KIA caused by a CH should trigger that breaking even more emphatically than a regular hit (a more shocking/horrifying death?- you choose the adjective). If A7.4 applies in the Prep, Def or Adv fire phase to all units in a Location so should the secondary impact of a KIA.
 
Last edited:

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
3,743
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
"all remaining target units are automatically broken."
In general, I am inclined to believe as you do, but this is the key phrase. Not all units are "targeted" by the same attack. The DRM's are such that multiple attacks are being resolved by a single DR. -- jim
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,729
Reaction score
4,332
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
One "issue" (and I think someone mentioned this already) with breaking all units (not suffering a KIA) just because one unit suffers a KIA - is then in which order does one apply the various results....
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,349
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Ah, but there's the rub. As per A7.4 they are all subject to just one attack (apologies for the repetition):

"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.

There is no allowance for 'secondary', 'second', 'separate' or 'extra' attacks, all units are affected by the outcome of that attack.

Then it gets complicated. An attack generates only one original DR but this DR may be impacted by numerous +/- DRMs or column shifts but it is just one attack:

A.5 - Attack DRM : Whenever an attack 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....

It is the confluence of A.5 and A3.74 that creates an issue. There is one attack that should be affecting all target units the now has variable DRMs leading to different results. This leads back to the secondary affects of A7.301 (survivors break). Using the DRM (or separate column) provision a player can protect himself from the requirement to break the surviving units.

I've always played it where the survivors units break and then take their K/# and #MC results - which only goes to show how seldom I have scored HE Critical hits against stacks with variable DRM over the past 35 years that no one has challenged this interpretation (or I have convinced them otherwise by my peerless logic :whistle: ;) ).
 
Last edited:
Top