Defensive fire vs DC Placement (and smoke placement).

[Pyth]

In the RB example for A23 DC placement -- a german unit enters an open ground road hex between buildings and places a DC charge in a building hex occupied by a soviet 5-2-7 -- 1 MF expended moving, 2 MF expended in the road placing charge.

The executive summary of my question is: Do the MF incurred by DC placement suffer NAM penalty as if expended in normal Movement? Are the 2 MF incurred by DC placement a simultaneous expenditure, triggering a single DFF opportunity, or treated as 2 MF triggering two separate DFF opportunities.

Below this is broken down into specifics from the RB example, with a third question involving an added leader and a smoke placement.

Is all of the following correct and if not, what would be correct:

1. The german unit can AM into the road-hex and place the DC at a cost of 3MF which is also treated as AM. The (as yet unfired) 5-2-7 can DFF with 10FP-1 (for ffmo), then SFF 5FP-1, and finally FPF 5FP-1

2. The german unit can NAM into the road-hex and suffer the same amount of DFF/SFF/FPF but all at FP-2 for FFMO and FFNAM... and if it survives unpinned continue its move including declaring a late CX.

Finally:

3. An accompanying leader is added to the german stack. The stack AMs into the road. 1MF... and withstands DFF at 10-1... announces smoke grenade placement in its own hex. Success. 1MF and SFF 5FP+2. DC Placement, 2MF and 2 FPF opportunities at 5FP+2.

 

[jrv]

In the RB example for A23 DC placement -- a german unit enters an open ground road hex between buildings and places a DC charge in a building hex occupied by a soviet 5-2-7 -- 1 MF expended moving, 2 MF expended in the road placing charge.

The executive summary of my question is: Do the MF incurred by DC placement suffer NAM penalty as if expended in normal Movement? Are the 2 MF incurred by DC placement a simultaneous expenditure, triggering a single DFF opportunity, or treated as 2 MF triggering two separate DFF opportunities.

If the unit declared assault movement, it does not suffer FFNAM. Otherwise it does for all kinds of MF expenditures.

The two MF for placement are a single expenditure. They are not "simultaneous"; I'm not sure what a simultaneous expenditure of MF/MP is, except in the context of movement multiple units in a stack where the different units expend MF/MP simultaneously, as part of an impulse in the case of a multi-hex stack. A single expenditure of two or more MF/MP can be targeted by DFF as many times as MF/MP expended (FRD) [A8.14]

Below this is broken down into specifics from the RB example, with a third question involving an added leader and a smoke placement.

Is all of the following correct and if not, what would be correct:

1. The german unit can AM into the road-hex and place the DC at a cost of 3MF which is also treated as AM. The (as yet unfired) 5-2-7 can DFF with 10FP-1 (for ffmo), then SFF 5FP-1, and finally FPF 5FP-1

In order for the Soviet unit to fire three times, it would have to fire on both expenditures, in which case there would probably be four attacks, one residual. The German would move into the street in one expenditure for one MF. The Soviet would fire and leave residual. The German could then announce another expenditure of two MF to place the DC. It would be attacked by the residual, then the Soviet unit could attack twice.

2. The german unit can NAM into the road-hex and suffer the same amount of DFF/SFF/FPF but all at FP-2 for FFMO and FFNAM... and if it survives unpinned continue its move including declaring a late CX.

Sounds good.

Finally:

3. An accompanying leader is added to the german stack. The stack AMs into the road. 1MF... and withstands DFF at 10-1... announces smoke grenade placement in its own hex. Success. 1MF and SFF 5FP+2. DC Placement, 2MF and 2 FPF opportunities at 5FP+2.

Again there is a residual from the first attack, and that residual attacks the Germans on the second expenditure.

JR

 

[Pyth]

The two MF for placement are a single expenditure. They are not "simultaneous"; I'm not sure what a simultaneous expenditure of MF/MP is, except in the context of movement multiple units in a stack where the different units expend MF/MP simultaneously, as part of an impulse in the case of a multi-hex stack. A single expenditure of two or more MF/MP can be targeted by DFF as many times as MF/MP expended (FRD) [A8.14]

My use of "simultaneous" is what you call a 'single expenditure' of more than one MF/MP. My use comes from the RB --:

• MF/MP expended "simultaneously" (e.g., two MF to enter a building, two MF to cross a wall and enter Open Ground, eight MP for a truck to ascend a Crest Line, etc.) do not cause multiple Residual FP attacks. Expending MF/MP for separate activities (e.g., one MF to enter a hex plus one MF to place SMOKE grenades) is never considered a "simultaneous" expenditure (8.1).

but frankly I find your "single expenditure" terminology easier to parse!

Apparently I have forgotten an important detail in how residual fire works?

You seem to be saying that residual is placed after the initial IFT attack and that the residual placed will attack a subsequent MF expenditure. But it does not attack further subsequent expenditures unless certain conditions are met.

I thought residual FP does not attack a unit(s) that was subject to the original FP placing residual unless those certain conditions were met:

A) it became more vulnerable to FP, or B) left the residual location and re-entered it.

But you seem to be saying the residual FP will attack the unit if makes another expenditure in the location. The more conditional stuff only applies to generating a second residual attack. Right?

So, I'm still learning core rules? (goddammit!)

 

[Pyth]

By the way, regarding "simultaneous" -- I see now why you wondered about it -- in my original question I used simultaneous in the context of DFF -- which just doesn't make sense. DFF can be taken against all the MF whether a single expenditur/simultaneous or not. Clearly some portion of my subconscious ASL Lizard brain was groping blindly for the residual fire rules without my being aware.

 

[jrv]

Apparently I have forgotten an important detail in how residual fire works?

You seem to be saying that residual is placed after the initial IFT attack and that the residual placed will attack a subsequent MF expenditure. But it does not attack further subsequent expenditures unless certain conditions are met.

I thought residual FP does not attack a unit(s) that was subject to the original FP placing residual unless those certain conditions were met:

A) it became more vulnerable to FP, or B) left the residual location and re-entered it.

No. Residual attacks are not dependent on whether the unit was attacked by the original attack.

But you seem to be saying the residual FP will attack the unit if makes another expenditure in the location. The more conditional stuff only applies to generating a second residual attack. Right?

Yes. The rules say that residual attacks on any MF/MP expenditure [A8.2] but only once per Location unless becoming more vulnerable [A8.22].

JR

 

[jrv]

By the way, regarding "simultaneous" -- I see now why you wondered about it -- in my original question I used simultaneous in the context of DFF -- which just doesn't make sense. DFF can be taken against all the MF whether a single expenditur/simultaneous or not. Clearly some portion of my subconscious ASL Lizard brain was groping blindly for the residual fire rules without my being aware.

In A8.1 the rule says that different expenditures cannot be combined into one "simultaneous" expenditure. That is different than "simultaneous MF," and although you wrote about a simultaneous expenditure, you said it about a single expenditure (the two MF for placing a DC), and I took it as trying to treat the two MF in the single expenditure as simultaneous. That last makes no sense. If you had tried to combine the two expenditures (entering the street, placing the DC) into one, that is what A8.1 disallows.

JR

 

[Larry]

MF expenditures are not simultaneous unless the rule says they are. Entering/exiting entrenchments while moving in/out of the hex are not simultaneous except in rout, when the rule allows the player to treat them that way to avoid interdiction. A10.531:

may pay combined entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes containing entrenchments or a pillbox

Combining the MF expenditures makes is simultaneous. Placing a DC is never simultaneous with entry into the hex. As JR describes, a unit moving into a location is subject to first fire, placing the DC causes the RFP to attack, and placing permits SFF and FPF.