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
True. If we want to go solely by what the rules state, the secondary affects of A7.301 would also need to be applied to the K/# and #MC results when there is a #KIA. There is no [EXC: ...] stating that surviving units don't break if subject to the 'same attack' under A7.4.

EDIT: My read of the rule concerning 'same attack', when DRM/column shifts are involved that generate a KIA, is to apply the #KIA, with survivors breaking. These broken units then resolve the various affects generated by the variable DRMs.
 
Last edited:

Bill Kohler

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
345
Reaction score
200
Location
North Carolina
First name
Bill
Country
llUnited States
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 had a different net DRM?

No.

(b) and does the "automatic break" of A7.301 apply to other units who had a different net DRM?

No (assuming they aren't subject to some other KIA [besides a 3KIA] result).

....Perry

MMP
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
True. If we want to go solely by what the rules state, the secondary affects of A7.301 would also need to be applied to the K/# and #MC results when there is a #KIA. There is no [EXC: ...] stating that surviving units don't break if subject to the 'same attack' under A7.4.

EDIT: My read of the rule concerning 'same attack', when DRM/column shifts are involved that generate a KIA, is to apply the #KIA, with survivors breaking. These broken units then resolve the various affects generated by the variable DRMs.
If it were the case where you apply the KIA result...then you'd simply apply ALL TEM DRM's to the ONE attack.
Why should a unit in a foxhole be exposed to the same hazard as the FT wielder outside walking around?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,374
Reaction score
6,595
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Soothing that just sometimes I am convinced of the same stuff as the 'ultimate rules lawyer'. ;)

von Marwitz
 

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
...Why should a unit in a foxhole be exposed to the same hazard as the FT wielder outside walking around?
You are missing the point of the argument - applying the secondary affect of a KIA. If breaking is caused by the 'shock' of other unit(s) in the Location being eliminated then why would that shock be lessened based on a different position within that Location?

We go from: "Oh my Gawd, Lt Dan is dead,.... run for the hills" to "Sucks to be Dan" <shrug>.

Anyway,... as expected by all involved, Perry has given his response.
 

Doug Leslie

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
184
Reaction score
63
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I don't see the problem with the rules as they have been confirmed. If a stack of units having the same modifier suffers a KIA result, they are all affected by that result. If they have different modifiers, they undergo their own attacks albeit using the same DR. The suggestion that, in effect, they should suffer two attacks when the attacker gets a lucky KIA roll seems to me to be excessive. At the end of the day, it is a game and speculating about how DR results might translate to real life is a futile exercise. They are an abstraction as opposed to an attempt to mimic reality (whatever that reality might be).
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,374
Reaction score
6,595
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
You are missing the point of the argument - applying the secondary affect of a KIA. If breaking is caused by the 'shock' of other unit(s) in the Location being eliminated then why would that shock be lessened based on a different position within that Location?
'Reality arguments' can always be found to support opposing views:

On the left side within that 40x40 meters of Woods 'Dan' is shot and those in the immediate vincinity are broken in remorse. Some 30m further to the right, maybe even out of sight, some others merely hear some screams but they are too busy to take cover from some rifle bullets impacting around them (while the enemy HMG seemed to have been firing into the direction in which 'Dan' was last seen...).

This is why I don't bother with 'reality' in ASL or 'historical'.

Just one word: Geoboard. End of story.

ASL is abstraction right, left, and center. It is one's personal choice what one requires for the suspension of disbelief.

Just sayin'
von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,258
Reaction score
2,990
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
BTW I also received a definitive reply from Perry regarding this matter, the best I've ever received:

Q. 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]?

A. Not necessarily.

....Perry
MMP

:unsure:o_O🤣
 
Top