D7.221 and Street Fighting Ambush -1

[Michael R]

Opponent's tank comes adjacent to my stack of leader, squad, LMG in a building. Tank is Pz1, so I have the leader direct the LMG as ordnance. LMG hits, but does not stop the tank. Tank enters the stack's hex using VBM. I pass the PAATC for a CC Reaction Fire Attack.

I tell my opponent my stack receives the Street Fighting Ambush -1 DRM because his tank is in bypass of my stack.

He says they do not get it because they have a First Fired SW.

I say that only applies to the type of Street Fighting that takes place against a tank on a road between two buildings, when the attacking infantry actually leaves its hex to CC the tank.

Carl's excellent article didn't give me the answer.
Who is correct?

 

[TMike]

NRBH, but I believe your opponent is correct. Since you're marked with a first fire counter you can no longer do Street Fighting and are not able to get the -1 DRM for it.

 

[Ralph Malf]

Note h on the overrun Flowchart says there is Automatic Ambush vs. a Bypassing vehicle UNLESS the defender possesses a SW/Gun that is marked with a First/Final First.

I penciled "Street Fighting" before Automatic Ambush, so I must have found out that this is what the term Automatic Ambush is referring to.

So I say no Street Fighting Ambush because your itchy trigger finger guys fired the MG at the tank.

Rick

 

[Bob Miller]

But once CC phase rolls around you will receive that -1 modifier for your attack in that phase. No further TC required as well to conduct that attack. Right? I still get myself crossed up on this.

 

[Jazz]

...and for the record, this is in the rules at....

D7.211 STREET FIGHTING: CC Reaction Fire may use Street Fighting (A11.8—including the Street Fighting Ambush -1 CC DRM) vs an ADJACENT vehicle if the units involved meet all the requirements for both. However, Street Fighting CC Reaction Fire may not be attempted by a unit that is, and/or possesses a SW—(including Inherent)/Gun that is, already marked with a First/Final/Intensive/No Fire counter.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

But once CC phase rolls around you will receive that -1 modifier for your attack in that phase. No further TC required as well to conduct that attack. Right? I still get myself crossed up on this.

Correct on both accounts. You never (I'm pretty sure) have take a PAATC to attack a AFV in the CCPh if that AFV entered your Location during its MPh.

 

[Vinnie]

I don't think so soince the PAATC is required to advance into a location that contains an AFV and the AFV is already in your location...disagreeing with Klas...I'm going to get slapped down again (albeit very politely) aren't I?






11.6 CC vs AN AFV: In order for a MMC to advance into a Location containing a manned Known enemy AFV, it must first pass a PAATC (failure of which causes the unit to become pinned). SMC, Fanatic, and Berserk units are exempt from PAATC. A leader may use his leadership modifier to aid any units in the same Location with their respective PAATC even if he does not advance into the Location himself. All Inexperienced Infantry most take a 1TC rather than a NTC in order to advance into a manned enemy AFV's Location. Once in the same Location with an enemy AFV during the CCPh, no further PAATC is necessary in order to attack it during CC.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I don't think so soince the PAATC is required to advance into a location that contains an AFV and the AFV is already in your location...disagreeing with Klas...I'm going to get slapped down again (albeit very politely) aren't I?

Unless I'm missing something, I think we are both saying that a PAATC in the CCPh is not needed, as it was the AFV that drove into the Location during its MPh.

 

[Vinnie]

Yup, here ity is the very gentle smack-down. Okay so this time it was because I failed in my reading of Klas' post.
(Note to self. Do NOT try and correct Klas. He'll be right. You'll be wrong. Even if you are right it's because you read HIS post wrongly.)

 

[SamB]

And just to add a point...

Street Fighting (-1) and Ambush (-1) are different modifiers and can be cumulative.

Right?

A couple of the posts above made it sound as if "street fighting" and "automatic ambush" were the same thing. I don't think they are.

 

[James Taylor]

And just to add a point...

Street Fighting (-1) and Ambush (-1) are different modifiers and can be cumulative.

Right?

A couple of the posts above made it sound as if "street fighting" and "automatic ambush" were the same thing. I don't think they are.

Different things but mods are not cumulative.

11.8 STREET FIGHTING: Any vehicle in a road hex and ADJACENT to a building hex on both sides of that road is especially vulnerable to CC in that hex.17 All Infantry advancing into that road Location from ground level of one or more of those adjacent building hexes qualify for a Streetfighting Ambush -1/+1 DRM in CC vs the vehicle (not cumulative with the normal -1/+1 CC DRM for Ambush) unless actual Ambush occurs even if the vehicle is accompanied by escorting Personnel.​

 

[Vinnie]

They are different but not Stackable. The advantage of ambush lies mainly in the withdrawal. Street fighting allows you to withdraw into adjacent buildings (the old out into the street and back on again). The ambush allows withdrawal anywhere. Of course you don't get ambush unless there is an afvance included in the CC.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Street fighting allows you to withdraw into adjacent buildings (the old out into the street and back on again).

But only the building Location you advance into the street from I believe.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Ignore (errornous reply to post #11 deleted) (I read the rule more carefully).

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Ignore (I read the rule more carefully).

Hmmm...What are you implying here? You seem to be indicating that they can return to a different location from whence they came (note just talking a vehicle actually in a "street" and not those in bypass). Is that assumption correct?

A11.8 seems clear with "... returned to the same Locations they came from..." with exceptions to stay in hex voluntarily or stuck on wire or via mine attack etc.

Hopefully I'm reading too much into your extraneous comment, but if not enlighten me on what you read where please, if not.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Hmmm...What are you implying here? You seem to be indicating that they can return to a different location from whence they came (note just talking a vehicle actually in a "street" and not those in bypass). Is that assumption correct?

No, I just made an errornous reply/comment to post #11, that I later realized was, so I deleted it.

I didn't want to look like a fool, but now I remember that, that ship has sailed a long time ago. :clown::clown:

 

[Bret Hildebran]

No, I just made an errornous reply/comment to post #11, that I later realized was, so I deleted it.

Ah, OK - sequentially it made me think you were recanting your views in post #13 rather than a post I never saw. That confused me as I agreed with post #13...

I didn't want to look like a fool, but now I remember that, that ship has sailed a long time ago. :clown::clown:

It's an occupational hazard - offer your opinion enough & you're bound to sound foolish on occasion. Don't worry - you've got at least 99 spot on comments for every foolish one. The rest of us are jealous by your "anti-fool" ratio!