Did we do this correctly?

[MajorDomo]

See above picture.

A. The Dukw moved to Y20, expending 1/2 MP in hex Y20 for a total of 13 of the Dukw's 27MP.

B. The German 467/HMG, previously HIP, decloaks and takes a 20 flat shot.

C. The shot is resolved on the IFT using the 20 column, *vehicle line (ten to immobilize)

D. The roll is "3,3", which cowers to the *vehicle line of 16, {nine to immobilize)

E. Dukw is destroyed and passengers each take survival rolls of seven, 8-0/648 make it, other 648 breaks.

The German 467/HMG would now like to FPF on the surviving passengers. We played that the FPF shot is not possible because the Dukw only spent 1/2 MP in hex Y20. I contended that the FPF shot should be allowed as the Dukw had expended 13 of its 27 MP, so the passengers still had 2 MP left.

We could find no ASLRB support for my attempted FPF shot.

What does the hive think?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[von Marwitz]

"A8.31 FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRE (FPF): FPF is a Subsequent First Fire option available only to DEFENDING Infantry already marked with a Final Fire counter which wish to use their Small Arms [EXC: MOL]/MG/IFE to attack ADJACENT or same-hex moving ground units in the ATTACKER's MPh."

"ADJACENT (Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance [B.10] and NVR [E1.101] as factors): A.8 [Building hexes: B23.25] [Caves: G11.6] [DM Cause: A10.62] [NA Examples: A6.8]"

"B11.432 APh: Climbing may not be attempted during the APh. "

The Germans are firing down across a Cliff hexside, I believe. Then it seems FPF is N/A, though for other reasons than you have considered.

von Marwitz

 

[Doug Leslie]

View attachment 21806

See above picture.

A. The Dukw moved to Y20, expending 1/2 MP in hex Y20 for a total of 13 of the Dukw's 27MP.

B. The German 467/HMG, previously HIP, decloaks and takes a 20 flat shot.

C. The shot is resolved on the IFT using the 20 column, *vehicle line (ten to immobilize)

D. The roll is "3,3", which cowers to the *vehicle line of 16, {nine to immobilize)

E. Dukw is destroyed and passengers each take survival rolls of seven, 8-0/648 make it, other 648 breaks.

The German 467/HMG would now like to FPF on the surviving passengers. We played that the FPF shot is not possible because the Dukw only spent 1/2 MP in hex Y20. I contended that the FPF shot should be allowed as the Dukw had expended 13 of its 27 MP, so the passengers still had 2 MP left.

We could find no ASLRB support for my attempted FPF shot.

What does the hive think?

Thanks,
Rich

The passenger that failed its crew survival roll should be eliminated as opposed to broken. If the cliff did not exist and the opposing units were ADJACENT, you were correct. The surviving 8-0/648 spent their remaining 2 MF when they escaped from the vehicle (vehicle had half its MP allotment remaining when it was destroyed). They would be subject to defensive first fire accordingly.

 

[apbills]

The surviving 8/0/648 spent their remaining 2 MF when they escaped from the vehicle (vehicle had half its MP allotment remaining when it was destroyed). They would be subject to defensive first fire accordingly.

I completely botched this answer and deleted it. Below are the rules references supporting the SFF shot.

6.9 SURVIVAL: The effects of Crew Survival (5.6) also apply to any Passenger/Rider of a vehicle destroyed by other than CC or burning.
5.6 CREW SURVIVAL (CS): On the wreck side of each vehicle is a CS# representing an abstracted calculation of the crew size and its chance to escape its vehicle sufficiently intact to still represent a viable unit on the battlefield. If, after its elimination, the vehicle's owner makes a Final DR ≤ its CS#, a vehicle-crew counter is placed beneath the wreck (expending all remaining MF) and is subject to the effects of Hazardous Movement (see also 9.3) vs all subsequent attacks during that phase

 

[Gamer72]

The original attack Cowered, so I don’t think there can be any SFF.

 

[Stewart]

The original attack Cowered, so I don’t think there can be any SFF.

But there can be FPF.

 

[Larry]

But there can be FPF.

Only if ADJACENT. Von Marwitz has this right.

 

[Carln0130]

Nobody seems to be mentioning the residual that the original attack left. Eight FP factors. Those get to spank the survivors as they get off I believe. So the 8-0 and the 6-4-8 will get off into an 8-2. OTOH, there is this,
Surviving PRC (see
6.9) are not subject to any Collateral Attack from the shot/FP that destroyed
their vehicle, and can be subject to Residual FP attack during that
phase only if the Residual FP was not the cause/result of their vehicle’s
destruction.
Well, the residual was not the cause of the destruction of the vehicle and was not technically the result of the destruction of their vehicle. It would have been there had the vehicle been destroyed or not. I THINK though that means that the residual does not hit them. I believe that is the intent, but the wording is shaky. Any thoughts?

 

[apbills]

The residual is not technically there when the PRC survive the original attack that created the residual. The survival roll and subsequent action from that is part of the resolution of the original attack. Once resolved, the residual is placed, and "thereafter" units can be attacked if they expend MF/MP in that Location. The IFT shot is taken, the attack is resolved, and then residual is placed.

 

[Larry]

The residual is not technically there when the PRC survive the original attack that created the residual. The survival roll and subsequent action from that is part of the resolution of the original attack. Once resolved, the residual is placed, and "thereafter" units can be attacked if they expend MF/MP in that Location. The IFT shot is taken, the attack is resolved, and then residual is placed.

The crew "expend(s) all remaining MF." D5.6. The same applies to the PR. D6.9.

I originally thought that RFP would attack on the exit from the vehicle. I talked myself out of it using AP's logic. But Carl has convinced me that the better view is that RFP does not get to attack twice in this circumstance. But the RFP has not attacked at all in the question presented.

 

[apbills]

The original question presented has the vehicle destroyed by the initial IFT shot. No residual is there to attack the survivors.

1. IFT shot. Resolve shot - DUKW is destroyed, PRC roll for survival, survivors placed in hex, spending all remaining MF in hex, RFP from IFT shot is placed in hex.
2. RFP is now in hex and any additional MF/MP in hex will get attacked by the RFP.

RFP never gets to attack twice for the same MF/MP expenditure. It also can not attack until any original shot which creates the residual is resolved.

 

[Stewart]

The residual is not technically there when the PRC survive the original attack that created the residual. The survival roll and subsequent action from that is part of the resolution of the original attack. Once resolved, the residual is placed, and "thereafter" units can be attacked if they expend MF/MP in that Location. The IFT shot is taken, the attack is resolved, and then residual is placed.

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...

The Res FP is placed as the shot is made.
It doesn't state "the target Location is which the attack WAS resolved."
You fire. Place 8FP Res. We simply have, by convention, waited to place resid as we are interested in the result first. But the rule pretty much says place it when you fire..

 

[Wayne]

8.2 RESIDUAL FIREPOWER:
The Res FP is placed as the shot is made.
It doesn't state "the target Location is which the attack WAS resolved."
You fire. Place 8FP Res. We simply have, by convention, waited to place resid as we are interested in the result first. But the rule pretty much says place it when you fire..

Agreed.

Re Crew Survival though, we have this rule:

D5.6 CREW SURVIVAL (CS): On the wreck side of each vehicle is a CS# representing an abstracted calculation of the crew size and its chance to escape its vehicle sufficiently intact to still represent a viable unit on the battlefield. If, after its elimination, the vehicle’s owner makes a Final DR ≤ its CS#, a vehicle-crew counter is placed beneath the wreck (expending all remaining MF) and is subject to the effects of Hazardous Movement (see also 9.3) vs all subsequent attacks during that phase [EXC: A CS DR is NA if that vehicle was eliminated in CC or turned into a Burning Wreck]. Surviving PRC (see 6.9) are not subject to any Collateral Attack from the shot/FP that destroyed their vehicle, and can be subject to Residual FP attack during that phase only if the Residual FP was not the cause/result of their vehicle’s destruction. There is a +1 DRM to the CS DR if the crew had been broken or under the effects of Shock/Stun at the time of the vehicle elimination. If the CS# is printed in lower case letters (cs); that vehicle has no crew survival possibilities; the cs# can only be used to resolve the survival chances of any Passengers/Riders (6.9).

Given that in this case the Resid chit was an immediate result of the attack destroying the vehicle, the CS surviors are not subject to attack from that Resid chit.

 

[johnl]

Residual FP being placed after (fully?) resolving an attack seems to be supported by a sentence in A8.23.

The decision to forfeit possible remaining First Fire capability in order to leave Residual FP
must be made immediately after resolving its attack.

 

[Larry]

Given that in this case the Resid chit was an immediate result of the attack destroying the vehicle, the CS surviors are not subject to attack from that Resid chit.

Carl's point was that the RFP did not cause the vehicle's elim. It was the original non-RFP shot.

An infantry unit moves into a location, fired upon and resid left, the unit places the DC and takes the RFP shot.
An infantry unit moves into a location and takes the RFP already there. The unit places the DC and does not take another RFP shot in that location.

RFP hits once. In the unit surviving a vehicle wreck that was not caused by RFP, the newly placed RFP attacks just once on the exit.

 

[apbills]

Example of Play from A7.308 does not mention RFP attacking survivors. That is the only example I have been able to find that even covers the situation. It is not definitive, but then again, neither is the interpretation that RFP from an attack is placed before resolution of the attack, and can attack units after the original attack, based on the results of that attack. D5.6 is not well worded, however, the interpretation of "cause/result" leads me to the conclusion that survivors are not attacked. It is also clear to me that the D5.6 rule regarding "is placed beneath the wreck (expending all remaining MF) and is subject to the effects of Hazardous Movement (see also 9.3) vs all subsequent attacks during that phase" does two things: a) it lets us know that the survivors can not move any further on their own, and b) and are subject to HazMo vs "subsequent" attacks - which means after they have been placed under the wreck, expending all remaining MF. Given multiple cases of "circumstantial" evidence for no RFP attack, and no language indicating the survivors would be attacked by the RFP left by the original attack, I find it hard to go through the gyrations necessary to support the position that RFP from the original attack which caused the destruction of the vehicle would also attack any survivors. At the very least, in the below example which walks through multiple outcomes, including potential general collateral attacks, why does it not even mention the 4 RFP left by the attack at all?

EX: A 4-4-7 squad, an 8-0 leader and a MMG form a FG during the PFPh to attack a shellhole hex containing a squad and a truck that is transporting a HS Passenger. The Original IFT DR is a 7. The 8 FP attack is resolved against the truck with no DRM because the TEM of a shellhole applies only to Infantry. The Final DR of 7 immobilizes the truck, and the HS Passenger suffers a 1MC in the General Collateral Attack. In addition, the squad suffers a NMC because the shellhole +1 TEM has adjusted the IFT DR to an 8. If the Original DR had been a 3, the truck would have been turned into a burning wreck, eliminating the HS Passenger, and causing a 2MC to the squad in the shellhole. If the Original DR had been a 6, the truck would have been eliminated and its HS Passenger would have had to pass a Survival Check to not be eliminated (and if it passed it would be otherwise unaffected by this attack). The squad would have suffered a 1MC.

 

[Wayne]

... the RFP did not cause the vehicle's elim...

Agreed. But is was placed as a result of the attack which did.

...the newly placed RFP attacks ... on the exit.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the red-highlighted text of D5.6 (please see my post prior) contradicts your assertion.

... Surviving PRC ... can be subject to Residual FP attack ... only if the Residual FP was not the ... result of their vehicle’s destruction ...

Because the RFP chit was placed as a result of the vehicle's destruction, CS survivors are ruled immune to attack by that RPF attack while "(expending all remaining MF)"

 

[Larry]

Does the first fire attack meet the condition: only if the Residual FP was not the cause/result of their vehicle’s destruction?

That the RFP counter was placed as a result of the ITF attack that caused the vehicles destruction does not mean that the RFP caused or resulted in anything. I think that this is a fair characterization of Carl's point.

 

[Larry]

EX: A 4-4-7 squad, an 8-0 leader and a MMG form a FG during the PFPh to attack a shellhole hex containing a squad and a truck that is transporting a HS Passenger. The Original IFT DR is a 7. The 8 FP attack is resolved against the truck with no DRM because the TEM of a shellhole applies only to Infantry. The Final DR of 7 immobilizes the truck, and the HS Passenger suffers a 1MC in the General Collateral Attack. In addition, the squad suffers a NMC because the shellhole +1 TEM has adjusted the IFT DR to an 8. If the Original DR had been a 3, the truck would have been turned into a burning wreck, eliminating the HS Passenger, and causing a 2MC to the squad in the shellhole. If the Original DR had been a 6, the truck would have been eliminated and its HS Passenger would have had to pass a Survival Check to not be eliminated (and if it passed it would be otherwise unaffected by this attack). The squad would have suffered a 1MC.

Prep fire examples do not inform defensive fire mechanics during the MPh.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Does the first fire attack meet the condition: only if the Residual FP was not the cause/result of their vehicle’s destruction?

That the RFP counter was placed as a result of the ITF attack that caused the vehicles destruction does not mean that the RFP caused or resulted in anything. I think that this is a fair characterization of Carl's point.

There is no doubt that the rule is poorly worded but what other meaning can “result” have in this instance? RFP can never be the result of a vehicle’s destruction so I that the only inference that we can draw is that the words “the attack that caused” should be interposed between “of” and “their”.