Fire Group Cowering and Fire Lane

[sfcmikej]

A multi hex fire group shoots and a MMG in the group lays a fire lane. The IFT DR is doubles so the FG attack cowers. However, random selection determines what unit(s) are marked with a Final Fire Counter. The RS doesn't select the unit with the MMG so that unit is not marked with a final fire counter. Is the fire lane valid? A7.9 has this line: In addition, any unit that cowers (as well as all of its SW regardless of whether it was using its inherent FP) is automatically marked with a Final or Prep Fire counter as appropriate.

My logic says that since the unit with the MMG isn't marked with a FF counter they did not cower and the fire lane is legit. What do you think?

Mike

 

[Robin Reeve]

I would play it the way you understand.
The unit manning the MG isn't selected as having cowered, so the FL is still allowed to be placed.

 

[Larry]

the rule -- any unit that cowers -- requires that the unit in question cower to get the final fire counter, cancelling the firelane.

Interesting that a unit laying a firelane without using the IFP that later cowers does not cancel the firelane. Have seen that played wrong before.

 

[Houtje]

I'm not so sure about this; Cowering has two distinct effects: (1) the affected attack is resolved on the next lower column and (2) any unit that cowers is marked FFed or PFed. When there's a FG, RS determines which units get marked, but the first effect (resolve attack on next lower column) still affects the attack as a whole, so in that sense all units involved (whether selected by RS or not) Cowered on the shot. Now, A9.22 has "EXC: no Fire Lane is placed if the MG’s manning Infantry Cowered". So, if all units Cowered (but only some were marked FFed or PFed), the Fire Lane is not placed. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You don't seem to have noticed that A7.9 clearly says that the units that cower are marked by a Prep Fire/Final Fire.
They are designated by RS.
Here is a screenshot of the rule, where I underlined the relevant parts:

 

[Vinnie]

A9.22

EXC: no Fire Lane is placed if the MG's manning Infantry Cowered, and/or used Subsequent-First-Fire (8.3-.31)/FPF, during that initial First Fire attack].

Although the attack covers, what affects the fireplace is this exception. Since the manning infantry did not cower, the fireplace is placed.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Although the attack covers, what affects the fireplace is this exception. Since the manning infantry did not cower, the fireplace is placed.

What about the hearth and the kindling wood?

 

[Houtje]

"You don't seem to have noticed that A7.9 clearly says that the units that cower are marked by a Prep Fire/Final Fire."
No, I didn't miss that. But it is not as clear-cut to me as it seems to be to you or others. E.g., if some units supposedly did not Cower (since not selected by RS), then why would the entire attack be on a lower column?

It may well be that the rule was intended the way you interpret it, but as written, it is not clear.

 

[Larry]

Intent is a useful tool in resolving ambiguity.

 

[Robin Reeve]

E.g., if some units supposedly did not Cower (since not selected by RS), then why would the entire attack be on a lower column?

Because lowering the effect of the attack is not cowering in itself. It is the consequence of some units cowering.
In short lowered column is not equal to cowering.
The rule is clear about only RSelected units in a FG actually cowering and being marked by the appropriate Prep/Final Fire counters.

 

[Houtje]

Intent is a useful tool in resolving ambiguity.

True, but only if one knows what the intent is.

 

[Houtje]

Because lowering the effect of the attack is not cowering in itself. It is the consequence of some units cowering.
In short lowered column is not equal to cowering.
The rule is clear about only RSelected units in a FG actually cowering and being marked by the appropriate Prep/Final Fire counters.

I agree it is clear about marking, but not so much about what 'Cowering' involves (and what not); i.e. we don't really know that "lowering the effect of the attack is not cowering in itself".

 

[Robin Reeve]

I beg to disagree.
Units that cower are differenciated from the whole FG by being marked with a Final/Prep Fire counter :

A7.9 ... any unit that cowers (as well as all of its SW regardless of whether it was using its inherent FP) is automatically marked with a Final or Prep Fire counter as appropriate.

So a FG doesn't cower as a whole, even though its attack is reduced by 1 or 2 columns.

 

[sfcmikej]

I agree that some rules, as written, as difficult to discern. Sometimes it takes a knowledge of other rules for complete understanding of a particular rule. I think the writers of the rulebook did an outstanding job of trying to keep the verbiage down to a minimum and that is important in a 500 page rulebook. So you have to extrapolate the answer. Any unit that cowers is marked with a prep fire or final fire counter therefore an unmarked unit has not cowered. When a fire group of multiple units cowers use random selection to determine which units are marked as prep fired or final fired and therefore they have cowered and the unmarked units have not.

To respond to Houtje's comment about everyone cowered in the FG since the attack cowered I would suggest thinking about it a bit differently. Cower is what a unit does, not what an attack does. The column shift is the penalty that is paid for a unit cowering since the attack would not be as effective if everyone is not engaging the enemy. It is a relatively simple protocol to follow. There is no way in that simple process to "partially" cower when there are multiple units involved in the attack. If you wanted to, I guess you could do RS before resolving the attack and based on the number of cowering units adjust for more or less column shifts but that becomes unwieldy compared to the simple, elegant, penalty for a unit, or units, not engaging the enemy as expected. Is the same penalty for one unit or all the units cowering unrealistic? Perhaps, but for playability purposes and simulated effects it work perfectly. There is no need to know how many soldiers cowered just that some of them did and it was enough to effect the attack. Works for me.

At the level that ASL portrays, these type of random events are part of what makes the game so engaging. There is always something that could go wrong. In most war games I can add up the numbers, look at the chart, and calculate the probability of success. Even the most powerful attack you can muster can come back and bite you with a sniper taking out an important asset.

Mike

 

[Houtje]

I beg to disagree.
Units that cower are differenciated from the whole FG by being marked with a Final/Prep Fire counter :

So a FG doesn't cower as a whole, even though its attack is reduced by 1 or 2 columns.

But rule A7.9 is, in its entirety, about Cowering. Therefore I think the FG does actually cower as a whole (even when not all participants are marked FFed or PFed); in fact A7.9 says so literally, in the last line: "If a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) that becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter."Also, A8.224 indicates that 'Cowering' is not linked to being marked thusly in itself, but linked to the lowering of the attack's effect: "However, the amount of Residual FP formed by a Cowering attack is usually reduced since Cowering reduces the IFT FP used for the attack." So, when A9.22 says "EXC: no Fire Lane is placed if the MG’s manning Infantry Cowered", I'd say that since the whole FG Cowered, no Fire Lane is placed.

In reply to Mike: Cowering is said both of attacks and of units, which is where I think much of the unclarity comes from. And I have no problem with the lowering of the attack regardless of which units get marked: but the very fact that the attack as a whole Cowers suggests, again, that the whole FG Cowered (even when only some units are marked).

 

[Robin Reeve]

How do you then explain that RS singles out the units that cower?

 

[Houtje]

It doesn't; it singles out units that get marked: "If a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) that becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter." So the whole FG cowers (literally what the rule says), and some or all of the units that cower get marked.

 

[Robin Reeve]

It doesn't; it singles out units that get marked: "If a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) that becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter." So the whole FG cowers (literally what the rule says), and some or all of the units that cower get marked.

As the units that cower are marked with Prep/Final fire counters - see lines 6-8 of the rule paragraph - the units which are RSelected to be marked with Prep/Final fire are the units that cowered.
You cannot deny that logic.

In addition, the rule doesn't say that the FG cowers, but that "the attack" cowers.
"Attack" is an effect.
When it comes to units, only the RSelected ones actually cower.

 

[Houtje]

In addition, the rule doesn't say that the FG cowers, but that "the attack" cowers.
"Attack" is an effect.
When it comes to units, only the RSelected ones actually cower.

Sorry, the rule (last sentence) does say this: "If a FG cowers, ..." (so not the attack, the FG)

 

[Robin Reeve]

Ah yes. My bad.
So, in your eyes, selecting the units that cower is an absurdity, and non selected units still have cowered?
For the FL cancellation, the firing unit must have cowered: after you it did cower even if not selected as such.
I cannot follow your strange logics.