Does fire on the 1 FP table with a +1 TEM by a unit that could cower cause the target to become DM?

[John Fedoriw]

Hi gents,

Per A10.62 DESPERATION MORALE (DM): "DM is a condition which afflicts any unit during the Player Turn it breaks (even if it breaks voluntarily) or any already broken unit which is subsequently attacked by CC/WP, or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target."

This wording is kinda confusing IMO. So if a unit (which could POSSIBLY cower) fires 1 FP with a +1 TEM can it DM a broken unit? My opponent thinks so....he says if he rolls a 3 he would get a MC so its OK it would DM the brokie. I disagree and maintain that it doesn't matter what he actually rolls that fact that he COULD cower to the 0 table means that his attack won't cause DM.

Can the ASL list please help us resolve this - we are both pretty sure of our side so I need some input from other players to convince him/me.

Thanks,
John

 

[PS NJ]

John, your opponent is correct.
The rule of thumb is... would a DR of 3 plus the DRM's added still get to a NMC. In the case of a 1 FP attack, as your opponent says, a DR of 3 +1 would be a NMC, so it qualifies for re-DM'ing the stack. That would also apply even for an inexperienced unit which could double-cower.
-Paul

 

[PS NJ]

For units that don't cower (leader-directed, british 1st line/elite, fanatic, etc...) use a DR of 2 plus the DRM for this purpose.

 

[Larry]

1+2, 2+3, 4+4, etc. -- the only DR that can cause a NMC is 2. If the unit can cower, that attack cannot cause DM.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Tips From The Trenches

ASL Journal 7, page 44.
A 1 FP attack with +1 DRM inflicts DM on a broken unit and is potentially eligible to inflict encirclement. Both rules (A10.62 and A7.7) require “enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC.” On such an attack, an Original 3 DR could inflict a NMC. In contrast, a 2 FP attack with a +3 DRM could qualify only if the attacking unit were exempt from Cowering (e.g., Fanatic, Elite British, leader directed, etc.) since an Original 2 DR would Cower.

 

[EJ1]

Hi Klas,

Thanks for your reply. The rule has always seemed awkwardly written to me as I never understand/remember the meaning of "taking the possibility of Cowering into account." So, I have a 2FP/+3 shot against a broken unit and the attacking unit is not exempt from cowering; therefore, is the possibility of cowering a condition applied before or after the attacking dice roll? If the condition is applied before the roll, then there's no possibility of DMing the broken unit, and if the condition is applied after the roll, then the unit will DM the broken unit if the attacker doesn't cower. Before or after the roll?

Cheers,

 

[ScottRomanowski]

So, I have a 2FP/+3 shot against a broken unit and the attacking unit is not exempt from cowering; therefore, is the possibility of cowering a condition applied before or after the attacking dice roll? If the condition is applied before the roll, then there's no possibility of DMing the broken unit, and if the condition is applied after the roll, then the unit will DM the broken unit if the attacker doesn't cower. Before or after the roll?

Apply it to all possible rolls. So 2FP+3 with the possibility of cowering
If I roll a 2, the attacker cowers and a 5 on the 1FP column is only a PTC
If I roll a 3, a 6 on the 2FP column is only a PTC
If I roll a 4 (1,3 or 3,1), a 7 on the 2FP column is no effect
If I roll a 4 (2,2), a 7 on the 1FP column is no effect
and so on
There is no possible roll that would result in a NMC.
As @PS NJ wrote, you usually only have to check for Original DRs of 2 and 3.


For the original 1FP+1 question,
If I roll a 2, the attacker cowers and 0FP has no effect
If I roll a 3, a 4 on the 1FP column is a NMC
This attack would impose DM.

Another way of phrasing it would be "if there is any DR that could have resulted in a NMC or better, then this attack imposes DM", with the implication that all the normal ASL rules apply (TEM, leadership, hindrances, cowering, etc.).

ETA: by "DR" in the alternate phrasing above, I mean all 36 possible cdr, wdr combinations that make up all possible Original DR.

 

[semenza]

Hi Klas,

Thanks for your reply. The rule has always seemed awkwardly written to me as I never understand/remember the meaning of "taking the possibility of Cowering into account." So, I have a 2FP/+3 shot against a broken unit and the attacking unit is not exempt from cowering; therefore, is the possibility of cowering a condition applied before or after the attacking dice roll? If the condition is applied before the roll, then there's no possibility of DMing the broken unit, and if the condition is applied after the roll, then the unit will DM the broken unit if the attacker doesn't cower. Before or after the roll?

Cheers,

The actual DR does not matter. IOW it does not matter if cowering actually occurs. Only matters if cowering is possible.

So in thinking of it the way you have written, the cowering possibility is applied before the roll.

I have seen people apply both for DM purposes ...... cowering is possible (cower once), then roll and get doubles (cower twice). Which is not correct either.

Seth

 

[John Fedoriw]

Thanks everyone for chiming in on this....I hate the way that rule is worded...ugh.

 

[John Fedoriw]

Another way of phrasing it would be "if there is any DR that could have resulted in a NMC or better, then this attack imposes DM", with the implication that all the normal ASL rules apply (TEM, leadership, hindrances, cowering, etc.).

I think you should have written the rulebook Scott. This is much clearer.

 

[Jwil2020]

The wording of this rule puzzled me as well when I first tried to digest it. I scribbled a note in my RB from an old Klas post on BGG that helped me keep it straight:

"One way of looking at it is by asking oneself :
would a DR of 3 (for an attack that can cower) cause (at least) an NMC?
would a DR of 2 (for an attack that can NOT cower) cause (at least) an NMC?"

Klas M.

Obviously, the "attack" is assuming all relevant DRMs are applied.

Granted, the quote is simply saying what others above have already said in other words.

 

[Matt Book]

You don't need to check for 2 or 3's assuming the attack only cowers one column to the left. Easiest way to remember whether an attack causes DM/Encirclement on the IFT is start any attack on the 1 FP <=+1 DRM and then add +1 DRM for each IFT column to the right. (EX 1 FP <=+1 DRM, 2 FP <=+2 DRM, 4 FP <=+ 3 DRM, etc)