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

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Right Ole, it is not written.

Nevertheless, Robin wrote on the french forum :

8.2 Residual Firepower: When a unit is attacked by Defensive First Fire/Subsequent First Fire/FPF, the target Location in which the attack is resolved (even if in Bypass) is marked with a Residual FP counter [...]. Thereafter, any unit entering (or expending MF/MP in) that same Location in the same MPh is attacked on the IFT with the FP represented by that Residual FP counter, a new IFT DR, and any applicable FFMO/FFNAM DRM.

What is underscored is what would show that the RF counter is placed after resolving the Fire which created the residual.

Furthermore, if we should consider that a RFP is not placed after the resolution of an attack, when is it placed ? Before or after, we have to choose. And if it is placed before, the RFP attack should be resolved (Riders or not) even before the attack creating it, because the Rule Book states RFP attacks always take place first. That is happilly not the way it works !

So the issue revolves around : do we understand the MF expense for the bailing out as a consequence of the fire, or is the Bail out a movement not related to the fire which forced the Rider to Bail out !

So the RFP has to be placed after the Bailing Out, and a bailing out Rider should'nt be hurted by any RFP placed by the same attack that forced it to Bail out !

A solution consistent with what Residual FP is done for, and not over punishing for those audacious Riders.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Other points militating for placing of RFP counters after resolution of the attack : the very amount of RFP depends from the Fire Resolution DR. If double and cowering is possible : RFP weaker. If ROF kept, RFP not placed at all is the Firer decides to keep ROF. Nowhere is written you place the RFP counter just after rolling the DR but before seeing the effects of the attack on its targets, so you have to place the RFP counter after resolving the atack, including its effects on its targets (and possible Bail out).
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Other points militating for placing of RFP counters after resolution of the attack : the very amount of RFP depends from the Fire Resolution DR. If double and cowering is possible : RFP weaker. If ROF kept, RFP not placed at all is the Firer decides to keep ROF. Nowhere is written you place the RFP counter just after rolling the DR but before seeing the effects of the attack on its targets, so you have to place the RFP counter after resolving the atack, including its effects on its targets (and possible Bail out).
I agree that the RFP is/should be placed after the attack.

But I'm not sure I agree that the Bailing Out is part of the initial attack resolution (and I guess that is what Perry/MMP didn't think as well).
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
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 !
Residual is placed as part of the fire resolution. The MMC in this example does not expend any more MF once broken, and is therefore not eligible for the follow-up residual attack.

Declare shot, roll dice, place residual; roll dice for the effects on the target, resolve effect results.

Sometimes this means follow-up attack DR if the unit is forced to use more MF as in bailing out. (Or some other example where more MF are actually forced to be spent in the location containing residual.)
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Residual is placed as part of the fire resolution. The MMC in this example does not expend any more MF once broken, and is therefore not eligible for the follow-up residual attack.
Yes you are right here, this example wasn't of any help since there is no MF expenditure.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
But I'm not sure I agree that the Bailing Out is part of the initial attack resolution (and I guess that is what Perry/MMP didn't think as well).
How could it be otherwise since without this attack there wouldn't be any Bail out ? I don't agree with pward proposed sequencing since nowhere in the Rulebok is detailled that you have to place the RF counter before resolving effects of the initial attack on the target.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,730
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
How could it be otherwise since without this attack there wouldn't be any Bail out ?
I see it more as if the Bail Out is something that happens after the attack is resolved, due the Rider breaking/pinning.

Sort of like a Heat Of Battle DR is something that happens due to a 1,1 on a NMC - it is not part of the attack resolution itself.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Reading the A13.6 example, we don't see such RFP attack occuring.
This is consistent with my understanding that the RFP counter is placed after the Bailing Out happening.

Same process in an AAR in one of the annuals.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Reading the A13.6 example, we don't see such RFP attack occuring.
This is consistent with my understanding that the RFP counter is placed after the Bailing Out happening.

Same process in an AAR in one of the annuals.
The example didn't place any residual counters (So A.2?). I would assume that this example omitted those for brevity. Either that or the example is just for a Charge, not a complete example of how Cavalry works. Unfortunately, it also means there is some resulting confusion.

What about the AAR in the annual, did they actually place the residual? Not to mention, just because it's a review in a magazine, doesn't mean they played it correctly.

I think the problem is the definition of "resolution" of the attack? (Defined in this instance by me as seeing what the result is [NMC/PTC/etc.], not necessarily what the result did to the targets after their MC/TC rolls.)

To be brutally honest, even the ASOP (the timing chain of ASL) isn't really clear on when the residual is placed relative to the complete (either definition) resolution of the attack.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
AAR contained in the ASL annual 97 - G28 Ramsey's Charge
Serial 32 - Page 13

Your question is good : the players placed the RFP counter just after the DR on the IFT (Point for your view pward), but, even if the Rider bailed out, didn't apply the RFP attack on the just bailed out Rider (Point for me).

Actually, we haven't learnt something of any value with this AAR example ...

Concerning the A13.6 example nevertheless, my bet is that if something of such consequence than a RFP attack on the just bailed out Rider should happen, it would have been included there. On the contrary, the mere placement of the RFP counter after the bailing out was no new at this point of the Rulebook and so there was no need to include it there.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Concerning the A13.6 example nevertheless, my bet is that if something of such consequence than a RFP attack on the just bailed out Rider should happen, it would have been included there. On the contrary, the mere placement of the RFP counter after the bailing out was no new at this point of the Rulebook and so there was no need to include it there.
I don't have that annual, so I can't read along. Either way it's not officially part of the rules or examples. Human players are still subject to lapses or complete misunderstandings when playing for posterity in a Journal.

I still don't recall a concrete rule stating when to place the residual counter. To be in agreement with he Perry Sez, you would have to place it before the bail-out, which could be assumed to take place either after the DR and RFP is determined and before the MC is rolled, or after the MC is rolled and before the bail-out MF is expended.

Is there still confusion on your part about the second residual attack from the original Q2a?
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Is there still confusion on your part about the second residual attack from the original Q2a?
Not at all. 2a deals about a possible second residual FP attack (if DRM less protective), if a first RFP attack caused a Bail Out.

This is not the same question as allowing a residual FP attack by the very same FP (non residual) that caused the Bailed Out.
 

JérômeREY

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Marseille, FRANCE
Country
llFrance
I still don't recall a concrete rule stating when to place the residual counter. To be in agreement with he Perry Sez, you would have to place it before the bail-out, which could be assumed to take place either after the DR and RFP is determined and before the MC is rolled, or after the MC is rolled and before the bail-out MF is expended.

Yes and both sound quite odd to me (my point is that the whole attack resolution includes even the Bailing out, since it wouldn't have happened if the attack hadn't been made !). That's why I don't feel at ease with this peculiar Perry Sez.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Yes and both sound quite odd to me (my point is that the whole attack resolution includes even the Bailing out, since it wouldn't have happened if the attack hadn't been made !). That's why I don't feel at ease with this peculiar Perry Sez.
Bailing out can be caused by a few other things than being broken. Think of it as the mechanic that enforces "you may not be a rider when broken" rule.

By that same token (stretched quite a bit I admit) a unit broken by an FFE shouldn't be subject to that same FFE when it routs through it. It wouldn't be routing if not for the FFE...
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
674
Reaction score
15
Location
New York
Hello

I have a related question that has been bugging me, and one that if a relatable answer can be found perhaps might help understanding the one in this thread. Admittedly, this question could be posed in a separate thread and may need to be done so at some point, depending on how it goes.

Suppose a infantry unit is assault moving into terrain whose entry cost is => 2MF. For example, a wooded rubble hex, normally requiring 3MF to enter. Now upon expending its first MF in the rubble hex it is Defensive First Fired upon, for example, by a now adjacent enemy infantry unit, say with 8FP and a TEM and DRM of +2. Say the moving unit survives the attack with no detrimental effects. A 4 FP Residual Firepower chit is placed in the rubble as a result of the attack. Now A8.2 says "a unit entering (or expending MF/MP in) the same Location in the same MPh is attacked on the IFT with the FP represented by that Residual FP counter..."

Thusly, the moving unit should be attacked in its 2nd MF used in entering the rubble? A strict read says so; however I have never played it this way nor heard of anyone playing it this way.

Of course this moving unit is not to be attacked upon its 3rd MF expenditure used in entering the rubble, as A8.22 says "a unit can be attacked by Residual FP only once per Location...).

Except.....furthermore...

if the above is true, suppose that upon the RFP attack in its 2nd MF expenditure, the moving unit breaks. Per A4.61 the unit is no longer assault moving, and therefore no longer immune to the -1 FFNAM DRM. Therefore it is more vulnerable, per the exception in A8.22, and therefore subject to a new attack by the same 4 RFP in its 3rd MF expenditure entering the rubble (now with a +1 instead of a +2 DRM).

My rulebook version is 2nd edition, the pages are copyright 2000 and the most relevant pages in it are A9 and A18.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,166
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Suppose a infantry unit is assault moving into terrain whose entry cost is => 2MF. For example, a wooded rubble hex, normally requiring 3MF to enter. Now upon expending its first MF in the rubble hex it is Defensive First Fired upon, for example, by a now adjacent enemy infantry unit, say with 8FP and a TEM and DRM of +2. Say the moving unit survives the attack with no detrimental effects. A 4 FP Residual Firepower chit is placed in the rubble as a result of the attack. Now A8.2 says "a unit entering (or expending MF/MP in) the same Location in the same MPh is attacked on the IFT with the FP represented by that Residual FP counter..."

Thusly, the moving unit should be attacked in its 2nd MF used in entering the rubble? A strict read says so; however I have never played it this way nor heard of anyone playing it this way.
Movement expenditures are a lump. When a unit is required to make an expenditure of three MF to do one particular thing, it does not make three separate one MF expenditures. When the unit enters the rubble, it makes a three MF expenditure in a Location without a residual FP counter. It is attacked (on the first MF, for example) and the residual FP counter is placed. The residual counter is now present, and if the unit makes another expenditure (e.g. recover a SW, search, throw a smoke grenade), the residual will attack. Note that for DFF purposes a unit may be attacked once on each MF spent within the expenditure [A8.14], but residual FP attack is only made on the declaration of an expenditure.

JR
 
Top