D6.24 Bailing Out Riders and residual FP of fire that caused Bailing Out

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,624
Reaction score
2,991
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
D 6.24 says : "Bailing Out never costs the transport any MP but for Defensive First Fire purposes the Rider is considered to spend all remaining (but at least one) MF subject to FFNAM."

1) Is that MF expense considered as part of the resolution of the fire that caused the Bailing Out?
1) No.


1a) Is then the residual fire of the shot that made the unit Bail Out placed after the MF expense?
1a) No, before.


1b) Would that mean that other DFF only occurs vs the rider after his Bailing Out, on the expended MFs (minimum 1 MF) of the Bailing Out, using FFNAM vs the unit which now is Infantry?
1b) Follow-up DFF can occur against either the pre-Bail Out MP or against the post-Bail Out MF; the target would still have it's post-Bail Out status though in either case.


2) If hat MF expense is NOT considered as part of the resolution of the fire that caused the Bailing Out, could the Bailing Out riders be attacked by the residual fire that caused the Bailing Out?
2) Yes, if it is subject to more-negative/less-positive DRM (A8.22). Note though that in addition to FFNAM, the target will usually get AFV TEM as well.

2a) Would such an attack by RF only occur if DRM are less than when the Rider was initially fired at, when still a rider?
2a) Yes, a second attack by RFF would require worse DRMbasically.


2c) Would that mean that other Defensive Fire could be taken against the Riders, before they Bail Out?

2c) No, just like if a shot breaks a unit then for all other shots it is in it's broken state.



....Perry
MMP
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
D 6.24 says : "Bailing Out never costs the transport any MP but for Defensive First Fire purposes the Rider is considered to spend all remaining (but at least one) MF subject to FFNAM."

1) Is that MF expense considered as part of the resolution of the fire that caused the Bailing Out?
1) No.


1a) Is then the residual fire of the shot that made the unit Bail Out placed after the MF expense?
1a) No, before.


1b) Would that mean that other DFF only occurs vs the rider after his Bailing Out, on the expended MFs (minimum 1 MF) of the Bailing Out, using FFNAM vs the unit which now is Infantry?
1b) Follow-up DFF can occur against either the pre-Bail Out MP or against the post-Bail Out MF; the target would still have it's post-Bail Out status though in either case.


2) If hat MF expense is NOT considered as part of the resolution of the fire that caused the Bailing Out, could the Bailing Out riders be attacked by the residual fire that caused the Bailing Out?
2) Yes, if it is subject to more-negative/less-positive DRM (A8.22). Note though that in addition to FFNAM, the target will usually get AFV TEM as well.

2a) Would such an attack by RF only occur if DRM are less than when the Rider was initially fired at, when still a rider?
2a) Yes, a second attack by RFF would require worse DRMbasically.


2c) Would that mean that other Defensive Fire could be taken against the Riders, before they Bail Out?

2c) No, just like if a shot breaks a unit then for all other shots it is in it's broken state.



....Perry
MMP
Perry,
I don't get your point in the 2a) answer due certainly to the wording of the question. In the 1a) answer you explain that when a Rider is attacked the residual FP (if any) created by the attack is placed before the Bail out (if any is due to happen). So we can conclude the Residual FP would attack the bailed out Rider (which is not the case in the ASL Annual 97 Series Replay of Ramsey's Charge - see serial 33 for instance - nor in the A13.6 Example).

In 2a Robin asked if the Residual FP attack of the Residual created by the Defensive Fire (non Residual) that caused a Rider to Bail Out should occur only if DRM are worse (to the target) than those the first (ie non Residual) attack against the still Rider unit got.

Your answer was yes. But it remains to me unclear because you writes "... a second attack by RFF ..." I'am not sure of what is the exact meaning of the answer because the question was about a first attack by RFF (after the previous attack, which was not a Residual FP attack, which caused the Rider to Bail Out and created the RFP.

Your answer would give an explanation to why the 97 Annual SR and the A13.6 example didn't applied a RFP attack. But my unease with the answer is strengthened because, to my knowledge, this is not written in the Rulebook for now. In the Rulebook, the quote mentionning the worsening of DRM are in 8.22, second paragraph, but as it is now only encompasses the case of a possible second Residual FP attack in the same Location " A unit can be attacked by Residual FP only once per Location [EXC : if, since that first Residual FP attack, the Residual FP has ...]. But in the present case there is no second Residual FP attack, there is a FP attack (causing Bail Out and Residual FP marker placement) and then a first and only Residual FP attack. Hope you get my point ?

Writting the true, I'am not at all at ease with your 1 and 1a answers, which sounds strange to me : I don't see why the MF expense caused by a Bail Out shouldn't be part of the resolution of the fire that caused the Bailing Out, since if this fire had not been, the Bail out would'nt have taken place ! And I feel unnecessarily harsh to let the Residual FP be placed before the Bail out caused by the very same attack that created the Residual FP !

Please also consider that with your current answer, we have motorcycle Riders vulnerable to many more numerous attacks than other kind of Riders (Tank mounted or Cavalry). Examples, all taking place in Open Ground :
Cavalry attacked with - 2 DRM, bails out as a result, no Residual FP attack since the DRM would also be - 2 (FFNAM, FFMO).
Tank Rider attacked with 0 DRM, bails out as a result, no Residual FP attack since the DRM would also be 0 (AFV TEM compensating FFMO).
Motorcycle Rider attacked with - 1 DRM, bails out as a result, attacked by Residual FP since the DRM becomes - 2 (FFNAM, FFMO).

I dont' want to Ride my Bicycle, don't want to ride my Bike ... Bicycle Race !
 

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,624
Reaction score
2,991
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Perry won't answer and won't develop his answer anyway.
I advise you to send him better questions than mine (I reckon I put some badly).
Courage!;)
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Thanks Robin. I wonder why.

Yet I notice that in the Unofficial Perry Sez Collection section there is only one post threads (hope this is the right word). So it could mean this is not the way to do to post a reply (actually a second question) here, as I have done.

So how should I do to get the further explanations I need ?
 

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,624
Reaction score
2,991
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Thanks Robin. I wonder why.

Yet I notice that in the Unofficial Perry Sez Collection section there is only one post threads (hope this is the right word). So it could mean this is not the way to do to post a reply (actually a second question) here, as I have done.

So how should I do to get the further explanations I need ?
Since Av Hill, only questions which ask a yes/no answer are answered.
The Perry Sez subforum has Perry's email answers copy-pasted there.
Perry doesn't go into that subforum.
If you want to ask Perry a rules question, use the MMP site to do it.
It allways has worked that way.
 

DM Doug

Recruit
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Glenrothes
Country
ll
I sent questions on this to MMP. This is the reply that I got from Perry Cocke.

> Rule:A8.22, D6.24
> Question:If a MMC is attacked during DFF/SFF/FPF and a residual FP counter is placed, does that unit get attacked by the residual FP upon further >MP expenditure eg placing DC, smoke grenade?



Yes, since it has not yet been attacked by that RF; A8.2.


>
> Does it make a difference whether the additional MF expenditure subjects the MMC to more negative-DRM/less positive DRM as would be the case if >the first attack on the MMC had been by a RFP counter as opposed to a DFF shot?
>

No; A8.22 multiple-attack-restriction doesn't come into play until the unit has been attacked by that RF at least once.

> Does a unit that bails out after being pinned/broken suffer a residual FP attack from the RFP counter that was placed as a result of the original attack on its vehicle/horse/cycle?

Yes.


I interpret this to meant that a bailing out unit is attacked by RFP regardless of whether there is any change to its DRM modifier. This is certainly how I read the rules but it is a different answer from the one that was previously given to question 2a.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
> Does a unit that bails out after being pinned/broken suffer a residual FP attack from the RFP counter that was placed as a result of the original attack on its vehicle/horse/cycle?

Yes.


I interpret this to meant that a bailing out unit is attacked by RFP regardless of whether there is any change to its DRM modifier. This is certainly how I read the rules but it is a different answer from the one that was previously given to question 2a.
The answer is different because the question/situation is different. In question 2a it was an already existing RFP that causes the pin/break of rider and forcing it to Bail Out.

In your question/situation it was a non-RFP attack that caused the pin/break/bail-out.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Thank you DM Doug.
I can't see the reason why Perry states that a unit bailing out due to an attack is attacked once more by the residual FP placed after this attack, since the "MPhase lasting DFire attack " (my words) represented by the RFP counter already made its effect in the resolution of the original Fire.

Moreover, a RFP is placed only after resolution of an attack. So the RFP counter in this example should only be placed once the Rider already bailed out - so the Rider should be not subject to this peculiar RFP attack, regardless of its MP expense to acomplish the bailing out.

This Perry's answer is strange and quite disappointing to me (I want to ride my Bicycle, I want to Ride my Bike ...) ! It would need explanations to be accepted.
 

DM Doug

Recruit
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Glenrothes
Country
ll
Thank you DM Doug.
I can't see the reason why Perry states that a unit bailing out due to an attack is attacked once more by the residual FP placed after this attack, since the "MPhase lasting DFire attack " (my words) represented by the RFP counter already made its effect in the resolution of the original Fire.

Moreover, a RFP is placed only after resolution of an attack. So the RFP counter in this example should only be placed once the Rider already bailed out - so the Rider should be not subject to this peculiar RFP attack, regardless of its MP expense to acomplish the bailing out.

This Perry's answer is strange and quite disappointing to me (I want to ride my Bicycle, I want to Ride my Bike ...) ! It would need explanations to be accepted.


I think that the answer is correct according to the rules since bailing out is additional MF expenditure after the original attack. In that sense it is no different from a squad moving and then placing a DC or smoke grenade. In both cases a RFP attack would occur. I do however think that it makes cavalry charges etc even less attractive than the might be otherwise. Imagine if your cavalry unit gets shot at in open ground and fails its MC. First it takes a bailing out NMC and then it faces a RFP attack with a -2 modifier for FFMO and FFNAM. That's effectively three attacks from one shot. Don't fancy those odds much!
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,005
Reaction score
738
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
How about this for a multiple bailout Residual attack:

1. CE tank with rider moves initial two MP in Brush takes a HMG 6 shot, does no damage, leaves 2 residual.
2. HMG retains rate, fires again, breaks riders, they bailout and take the 2 residual fire as they use three MF to bailout.
3. An ATR fires at tank, destroys tank, thus no more TEM cover until Advance Fire phase for bailed out riders.
4. Bailed riders become more vulnerable, take second residual attack.

Rich
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Since when does becoming more vulnerable fire off another residual attack. That term comes from OBA, unless I've forgotten another part of the rules for resid.

Also, once the bailing out "move" is done, they aren't expending more MF, so shouldn't get attacked again during the MPh.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Since when does becoming more vulnerable fire off another residual attack. That term comes from OBA, unless I've forgotten another part of the rules for resid.
Rule A8.22:
"..A unit can be attacked by Residual FP only once per Location [EXC: if, since that first Residual FP attack, the Residual FP has increased in strength or the unit is subject to more-negative-DRM/less-positive-DRM, it will be attacked again by that Residual FP upon further MF/MP expenditure]."
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
How about this for a multiple bailout Residual attack:

1. CE tank with rider moves initial two MP in Brush takes a HMG 6 shot, does no damage, leaves 2 residual.
2. HMG retains rate, fires again, breaks riders, they bailout and take the 2 residual fire as they use three MF to bailout.
Of course if the HMG retained rate it wouldn't have placed any Residual FP. But perhaps the 2 residual came from some other weapon.

3. An ATR fires at tank, destroys tank, thus no more TEM cover until Advance Fire phase for bailed out riders.
4. Bailed riders become more vulnerable, take second residual attack.
Don't think they take another residual fp attack, since even if they become more vul. they never expende any MF after the 1 MF it spent bailing out.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,005
Reaction score
738
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
You are right on the second residual attack, no MP spent. Oh Well! Still can't figure out the second residual possibility part of the Perry Sez.

Rich
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
You are right on the second residual attack, no MP spent. Oh Well! Still can't figure out the second residual possibility part of the Perry Sez.
I think the 2nd part is about a situation where a Rider breaks/pins due to already existing Residual FP counter. Then, when it expends 1 MF to Bail Out it would be attacked again by that same Residual FP counter if it is now more vul. than it was as a Rider.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
11
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Klas' explanation is correct, which I know because I have discussed this with Perry too.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
I think the 2nd part is about a situation where a Rider breaks/pins due to already existing Residual FP counter. Then, when it expends 1 MF to Bail Out it would be attacked again by that same Residual FP counter if it is now more vul. than it was as a Rider.
Yes but what are we supposed to do if the former rider bails out whithout expending any MP in the cases when it already expended all of them before being succesfully shooted at ?

More fundamental, Ole, what are Perry thoughts concerning something very bothering for me : Rider forced to Bailed Out attacked by the residual placed by the same attack (no residual Fire but any Defensive Fire) which just forced this Bail Out. My concern is that the RFP is placed after the resolution of the attack (it is in the Rulebook), and as the bail out is a direct consequence of the same attack which will place the RFP after the resolution of the attack (resolution which normally encompasses the bailing out process because this is a obvious consequence of the attack so this bailing out is part of the resolution of the attack), the former Rider should in no way be "freely" attacked once again this way, because the RFP should still not be there at all before finishing the bailing out !
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Yes but what are we supposed to do if the former rider bails out whithout expending any MP in the cases when it already expended all of them before being succesfully shooted at ?
If the Rider doesn't have any MF left when Bailing Out, it is still considered to expend one MF, D6.24:
"...Bailing Out never costs the transport any MP but for Defensive First Fire purposes the Rider is considered to spend all remaining (but at least one) MF subject to FFNAM...."

My concern is that the RFP is placed after the resolution of the attack (it is in the Rulebook), and as the bail out is a direct consequence of the same attack which will place the RFP after the resolution of the attack (resolution which normally encompasses the bailing out process because this is a obvious consequence of the attack so this bailing out is part of the resolution of the attack), the former Rider should in no way be "freely" attacked once again this way, because the RFP should still not be there at all before finishing the bailing out !
What rule says that a Residual FP counter it placed after the resolution of the attack ?

A8.2 only says that a Residual FP is placed in a Location where a attack is resolved. Not exactly when it is resolved as far as I can see at least.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
What rule says that a Residual FP counter it placed after the resolution of the attack ?

A8.2 only says that a Residual FP is placed in a Location where a attack is resolved. Not exactly when it is resolved as far as I can see at least.

No Rulebook at hand, sorry.
Hope I haven't overinterpreted.
I will come back on the matter tomorrow.


Nevertheless is quite logical ; first you fully resolve the attack, then you place the Residual. Whitout this you could I guess for instance have the following happening :

A MMC assault moves somewhere. It is fired at and Broken. As Broken it is no more considered having been assault moving and becomes more vulnerable - 1 DRM FFNAM, so should be attacked by the residual created by the same attack that broke him, if the RFP wasn't placed after full resolution of the original attack it is derived of !
 
Top