First fire and machineguns question

[glasper]

A newbie question:

A beserk American half-squad three hexes away is charging a German squad equipped with a MMG. (Doesn't matter for the example, but that's what happened.)

The German squad wants to First Fire the Machinegun alone after the 1st MP. If the Machinegun fires and retains rate of fire, there's no problem. But if the Machinegun doesn't retain ROF, on the other hand, (and doesn't break the half-squad) it gives rise to the following:

The next MP the American half-squad moves adjacent to the German squad. Can the German squad first fire its inherent firepower and add the Machinegun's Subsequent First Fire? Can you combine First Fire attacks this way? Or must the entire attack be a Subsequent First Fire attack?

Now if a second American unit moves adjacent, may the German Squad now Subsequent First Fire using its inherent Firepower against that unit, since it only First Fired previously? Or, since it has made one Subsequent First Fire attack (a combined First Fire with inherent firepower/SFF with its SW) is the whole combination marked with Final Fire, and thus can only make a FPF attack?

 

[bprobst]

A beserk American half-squad three hexes away is charging a German squad equipped with a MMG. (Doesn't matter for the example, but that's what happened.)

The German squad wants to First Fire the Machinegun alone after the 1st MP. If the Machinegun fires and retains rate of fire, there's no problem. But if the Machinegun doesn't retain ROF, on the other hand, (and doesn't break the half-squad) it gives rise to the following:

The next MP the American half-squad moves adjacent to the German squad. Can the German squad first fire its inherent firepower and add the Machinegun's Subsequent First Fire? Can you combine First Fire attacks this way? Or must the entire attack be a Subsequent First Fire attack?

It can, but the entire stack will be marked with Final Fire (because the MG is so marked; A8.3); IOW, you're giving up the squad's ability to use Final Fire by doing so. You would almost certainly be better off using the squad's inherent FP (only) in which case the squad + MG will each only be marked as First Fire (and thus both still have Subsequent First Fire/Final Fire as an option). Of course, if the squad cowers you're in trouble, but you don't want to be marked Final Fire when a berserker is about to enter your Location if you can help it.

Now if a second American unit moves adjacent, may the German Squad now Subsequent First Fire using its inherent Firepower against that unit, since it only First Fired previously? Or, since it has made one Subsequent First Fire attack (a combined First Fire with inherent firepower/SFF with its SW) is the whole combination marked with Final Fire, and thus can only make a FPF attack?

Er ... what happened to the berserker? If it's been eliminated, and you did so by using the squad + MG as you describe above (thus leaving the entire stack marked Final Fire), the German squad may only fire at the second American unit by using Final Protective Fire (A8.31) -- because the entire stack has been marked Final Fire.

Basically, if either the squad or its MG (or both) use Final Fire, then both are so marked. This is probably not very clear in the printed rules (indeed, there's an error in the A8.41 EX), but errata in Journal 6 makes it explicit (and fixes the EX).

 

[Corporal Kindel]

First Fire & MG question

Hello:

"A berserk American half-squad three hexes away is charging
a German squad equipped with a MMG. (Doesn't matter for the
example, but that's what happened.)

The German squad wants to First Fire the Machine gun alone
after the 1st MP. If the Machine gun fires and retains rate
of fire, there's no problem. But if the Machine gun doesn't
retain ROF, on the other hand, (and doesn't break the half-
squad) it gives rise to the following:

The next MP the American half-squad moves adjacent to the
German squad. Can the German squad first fire its inherent
firepower and add the Machine gun's Subsequent First Fire?
Can you combine First Fire attacks this way? Or must the
entire attack be a Subsequent First Fire attack?"

Note that the Defending player could've laid down a fire lane down after the 1st MF (also infantry use MF, vehicles use MP) with the mmg as per A9.22 (2nd ed ASLRB):

"Whenever the DEFENDER declares a Defensive First Fire
attack with a Good order SW MG that is manned by unpinned
Infantry (even as ordnance or as part of a FG), he may also
declare a Fire Lane with that MG if it not already marked
with a First/Final Fire counter ..."

In this situation a Firelane would probably be a good idea since the berserker must continue charging the nearest keu as per A15.43 (obviously in this case the German Sqd & MMG). Note that declaring a MG firelane would've caused a First Fire marker to be placed on the MG (since the MMG lost ROF anyway it wouldn't have hurt it in that case). Also note, however, that you would've had to declare a Fire Lane as part of the original shot as per the previously quoted rule (you can't decide, for example, to lay a Fire Lane down after-the-fact, in order to see if the MMG retained ROF first). Had you declared a mmg fire lane you would've then placed a Fire Lane residual counter as per A9.22/A9.221 (depending on whether it was a Hex grain or Alternate Hex grain). With a Fire lane residual counter in place, and assuming the berserk half-squad survived its first MF DFF attack, the half-squad then moves using its second MF expenditure (bringing it ADJACENT to the MMG & manning squad, as per the example). I guess there were several options available depending on what the defender had done or what had happened.

If a MG Fire Lane was not placed & the MG lost its ROF, then the MG could fire as SFF combining with the squads FP (the MG fire would be considered sustained since it is marked with a First Fire counter as per A9.3) for an 13 + whatever DRM IFT attack [assuming a 4 IFP squad]{both squad & mmg would now be marked Final Fire as per A8.3}. However, as bprobst noted above if you shoot the mmg by itself {5 + whatever DRM attack: doubled and halved} both would be marked Final Fire as per A8.3 in this case too. Note also: 6 factor residual fire or 2 factor residual fire counters would be left in the hex (case A/case B) assuming no hindrances or wall/hedge tem reduced it.

If you had placed a MG fire lane during the first MF expenditure, the moving half-squad would now be attacked by fire lane residual fire (assuming it entered a hex of the MG's fire lane--more than likely considering a berserker's limited movement options). This residual attack would occur separate from other attacks & occur second in the case of MG firelane residual & normal residual FP counters hypothetically existing simultaneously in the same hex as per A9.222:

"If residual FP from a source other than another Fire Lane
exists in a Location of a Fire Lane, it must be resolved
separately prior to the Fire Lane Residual FP."

So, what would happen in this case is that the Fire Lane residual would attack the berserk half squad on its second MF and then you could shoot the squad's inherent FP (8+ IFT attack, leaving a 4 factor residual FP counter in the hex {along with the overlapping Fire Lane residual}). Both squad and mmg are now marked First Fire.

If the berserk half squad still lived at this point, it would enter the squad & mmg's hex, forcing a TPBF situation on the DEFENDERS who would have to attack as per A8.312:

"An armed unbroken Infantry defender not in Melee must
after all residual-FP/minefield/OBA attacks then
immediately attack any Infantry/Cavalry MMC unit that
enters its location during the Mph whether it uses
Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF ..."

If the squad & mmg are marked Final Fire then the attack would be a case of FPF (A8.31). If the squad & mmg have only First Fired then it would be a regular SFF attack (A8.3), however in the case of the squad having laid a MG firelane the firelane would be cancelled as per A9.223.

"The next MP the American half-squad moves adjacent to the
German squad. Can the German squad first fire its inherent
firepower and add the Machinegun's Subsequent First Fire?
Can you combine First Fire attacks this way? Or must the
entire attack be a Subsequent First Fire attack?"

Assuming the berserk half squad dies at some point during these attacks & another American unit moves adjacent, the squad's & mmg's fire options would be limited as befitted their fire status (per above). Note that if the original berserker died & the DEFENDERs were marked Final Fire they can choose to fire at the adjacent unit using FPF as per A8.31, but this is not mandatory as it is during a TPBF situation (A8.312).

There is also a Q&A on this same case, not sure of the Q&A's source:

A8.3 Subsequent First Fire (March 2003)
(Q) It is player A's movement phase. Player B has a squad
possessing a mmg. Player A moves a unit, and player B fires
the mmg only, at the enemy unit, but does not maintain ROF.
The mmg is marked with a First Fire counter. Player A moves
another unit into the LOS of this position. Player B
subsequent fires, again mmg only, at this unit. The mmg is
now marked with a Final Fire counter. Can player B's squad
still fire its inherent FP as First Fire and Subsequent Fire?
(A) No. A8.3 "... a squad may not split its usable inherent
FP from that of its MG/IFE during Subsequent First Fire
unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all." In
this example, the squad has "opted" not to use its inherent
FP at all.

One last thing to keep in mind: if the MMG was in a woods/building/rubble location its field of fire would be ‘fixed' as per A9.21 {and in your case, if the second U.S ATTACKING unit moved in on the squad & mmg from outside this now fixed CA, the MMG could not fire on it}.

Take it easy,
rk

 

[Brian W]

It can, but the entire stack will be marked with Final Fire (because the MG is so marked; A8.3);

Absolutly wrong as is made clear in the A8.41 example. The MG would be using sustained fire and marked final fire while the squad would then be marked first fire.

 

[Ole Boe]

Absolutly wrong as is made clear in the A8.41 example. The MG would be using sustained fire and marked final fire while the squad would then be marked first fire.

I understand you don't have Journal 6 yet, Brian?

Unless changed from the final proof version, one of the new errata says:

A8.3: add at the end “If a unit, or any SW/Gun it possesses, uses Subsequent First Fire (or Intensive Fire) then that unit and all its SW/Guns are marked with a Final Fire counter.”

Note that this doesn't really change much, and is mostly a clarification (IMHO), since A8.3 already said: "a squad may not split its usable inherent FP from that of its MG/IFE during Subsequent First Fire unless it opts to not use the remaining FP/SW at all.". The effect of this sentence is that FPF was the only option after having fired the MG as SFF, even though the squad was only marked with First Fire - even before the errata.


The A8.41 example is also changed accordingly in the J6 debriefing.

 

[Brian W]

I understand you don't have Journal 6 yet, Brian?

No I do not. That is a HUGE piece of errata, changing the mechanics of first fire. Is it available anywhere besides J6 yet?

 

[Brian W]

The effect of this sentence is that FPF was the only option after having fired the MG as SFF, even though the squad was only marked with First Fire - even before the errata.

I used to play it that way many years ago until perry et al on the ASLML convinced me that I was wrong. I wonder when perry changed his mind on that one. IIRC, this even came up when ASLRBv2 came out and the example was said to be correct (again).

The distinction in the rule was so specifically changed in the example that it is hard for me to believe that the original intent was anything but what is in the example. Still, I am glad for the change as it simplifies the rules.

 

[da priest]

No I do not. That is a HUGE piece of errata, changing the mechanics of first fire. Is it available anywhere besides J6 yet?

Wonder how many such are in J6 and planned for J7?

Sigh. It begins, again.

 

[Ole Boe]

Wonder how many such are in J6 and planned for J7?

Sigh. It begins, again.

You are of course aware that it changes nothing in actual play, only makes it more obvious that the only option for a squad manning a SW marked with Final Fire, is FPF?

This wasn't obvious before the J6 errata, but the rule was there, as per the sentence I quoted above. Also check Tom Repettis Defensive Fire Flowchart from 95 or so.

And before you continue, this errata was not suggested by me :halo:

 

[Brian W]

You are of course aware that it changes nothing in actual play, only makes it more obvious that the only option for a squad manning a SW marked with Final Fire, is FPF?

I am not condoning ron's constant complaining, but I do not think it obvious at all. I can easily make a case against your interpretation of A8.3 (starting with the first sentence) but there is no way to misinterpret the (oft-erraticised) example.

And whatever your view, this has been discussed numerous times on the ASLML for the past 10 years, and never has AH/MMP said that the example was wrong--just the opposite.

So it does change actual play if you were following that part of the ASLRB that follows the earlier rule, if not as intuitive. As I was. Because perry told me so.

 

[bprobst]

And whatever your view, this has been discussed numerous times on the ASLML for the past 10 years, and never has AH/MMP said that the example was wrong--just the opposite.

You remember your ASLML history differently than I do, then. You're correct that it's been discussed numerous times, and I can't remember anyone ever claiming that marking either MMC or SW as Final Fire doesn't mark them both, except in reference to the A8.41 EX which was identified as being in error very shortly after 2nd ed. came out. The most recent discussion about it (which IIRC started out as a discussion about PF) was a couple of years ago and was the one which finally convinced Perry that errata and clarification was required; not because he changed his mind about the way the rule worked, but because he had previously been of the opinion that the rule was clear enough already.

I happened to be reviewing my old e-mail about it to Perry only the other day. I'm not going to claim "ownership" of this particular item of errata because I was only one of several individuals who suggested to Perry that clarifying (not changing!) A8.3 would be a good idea, and that fixing the error in the A8.41 EX was essential. A little belatedly, Perry agreed and hence the errata in J6.

I have never seen or heard of anyone playing as if the A8.41 EX was the correct way to play, and that's because the A8.3 text did describe (poorly) the correct way to play.

 

[Brian W]

A little belatedly, Perry agreed and hence the errata in J6.

I have never seen or heard of anyone playing as if the A8.41 EX was the correct way to play, and that's because the A8.3 text did describe (poorly) the correct way to play.

You mean that Perry, after years of knowledge that the example was in conflict with the rules, despite on numerous occasions saying that the examples were as authoritative as the rest of the rules, only changed the example belatedly? It is hard to see a situation in the ASLRB where two rules are so much at odds with another, assuming your interpretation of A8.3.

I certainly do not remember MMP ever recognizing publicly that the example was in error, so my memory of the issue is indeed at odds with yours. It makes me wonder why, despite being changed at least twice, the example was allowed to remain so egregiously wrong--where were the proofreaders to miss such an obvious error? And in fact, based on the ASLML discussions, I changed the way I played to match the example (over seven years ago I would guess). I will gladly switch back.

 

[zgrose]

FWIW, the Starter Kit also said, if you performed SFF (with Inherent FP or a SW): "After the attack is resolved, flip the First Fire counter over to its Final Fire side for the unit and all of its SW (regardless of whether or not they fired).

 

[Ole Boe]

I am not condoning ron's constant complaining, but I do not think it obvious at all. I can easily make a case against your interpretation of A8.3 (starting with the first sentence) but there is no way to misinterpret the (oft-erraticised) example.

I agree that it wasn't obvious before this errata. But I still maintain that the errata didn't change the defender's options in any way, only how it is marked by counters.

As for the example, I agree that it (before the J6 errata) told us that after SFF with MG and D1F with squad, the MG is marked with Final Fire, and the squad only with First Fire. There's no doubt about that. BUT, the sentence I quoted above, limits the squad to using FPF.

There is an old Q&A clarifying this:

A8.3 If an Infantry unit fires either its inherent FP or a SW as Subsequent First Fire, can it later in that MPh fire any other SW/inherent FP without using FPF? (i.e., can a unit which has itself or a SW marked with Final Fire, use Defensive First Fire/Subsequent First Fire with a weapon which has not fired)?
A. No. (No.) [Compil3]

and a newer saying the same:

A8.31 If a unit fires as Subsequent First Fire its inherent FP and/or a SW, can it Defensive Fire any weapon/inherent FP later that turn, barring FPF?
A. No. [Compil5]

Also check Tom Repetti's old First Fire Flowchart. It's from 99, and shows that after exactly this situation, only FPF is legal.

And whatever your view, this has been discussed numerous times on the ASLML for the past 10 years, and never has AH/MMP said that the example was wrong--just the opposite.

The example was correct before this errata, but it was highly misleading, since the example stops after the MG fires SFF.

If the example had continued, it would shown that the First Fire-marked squad only had FPF left, due to its Final Fire-marked MG.

So it does change actual play if you were following that part of the ASLRB that follows the earlier rule, if not as intuitive. As I was. Because perry told me so.

I don't know what Perry told you, but as you see, there have existed Q&A all the time showing that the squad was limited to FPF. I assume from your next post that Perry told you the example was correct. Yes it was, but it was misleading.

 

[Brian W]

If the example had continued, it would shown that the First Fire-marked squad only had FPF left, due to its Final Fire-marked MG.

That makes sense; thank you Ole. I did do a search of the q&a but missed the one you quoted. I am not sure why I never caught on to this nuance as it has come up so many times in the last 10 years.

But isn't the example still wrong? If A8.3 governs and the squad is using SFF both the squad and LMG should both have their firepower halved. At least I think so from the first line of A8.3 . . .? Or is it that the squad, even though it is using SFF, because it is not marked with first fire is not penalized?

 

[Ole Boe]

But isn't the example still wrong? If A8.3 governs and the squad is using SFF both the squad and LMG should both have their firepower halved. At least I think so from the first line of A8.3 . . .?

No, the example is correct, only the MG already marked with First Fire is penalized as using SFF - this is not simple, so your question makes sense, but I'll try to explain...

First, read the following two A8.3 sentences

"A DEFENDING Infantry unit already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again during that MPh as Area Fire by flipping its First Fire counter over to the Final Fire side. Such fire can leave Residual FP but if using a MG/IFE is treated as Sustained Fire and penalized accordingly"

"Whenever a unit uses Subsequent First Fire, it must use all MG/IFE in its possession (up to the unit's normal operation capabilities; 7.35-.353) as Subsequent First Fire"

Note that both says that an unmarked MG is treated as using SFF if firing with a squad that's using SFF - but none of them says that an unmarked squad is treated as using SFF if firing with a MG that's using SFF :crosseye:

So, assume the two following squads:

A) Squad already marked with First Fire, and MG not yet marked.

B) MG already maked with First Fire, and squad not yet marked.

If twose two squads fire their Inherent FP together with their MG, they are treated differently.

In case A), the two sentences of A8.3 penalizes the MG, so that it is treated as using SFF for all purposes (halved FP, B#).

In case B), which essentially is the A8.41 example, only the MG is treated as using SFF. The squad is still allowed to use normal D1F (with full FP) together with the MG.

Or is it that the squad, even though it is using SFF, because it is not marked with first fire is not penalized?

Yes... I don't know why there is such a distinction between whether the squad or the MG is marked with First Fire, but there is.

To make it complete, note that if the squad that is marked with First Fire, chooses to fire its inherent FP and the MG together, but waits until the DFPh, then the MG is not penalized - it's only during the MPh. :nuts:

 

[Brian W]

Note that both says that an unmarked MG is treated as using SFF if firing with a squad that's using SFF - but none of them says that an unmarked squad is treated as using SFF if firing with a MG that's using SFF :crosseye:

But by that logic, how can a MG use SFF without the infantry firing it use SFF? On the one hand you are saying that the MG is using SFF because it is marked with First Fire, but that the infantry is not using SFF because it is not marked First Fire. But the rule says that only infantry marked with First Fire can use SFF. And in fact,the rule also says that you cannot split MG/inherent FP when using SFF; or are you saying that even though they are not both using SFF, they are not "splitting their fire during SFF"? Seems convoluted to me.

 

[Ole Boe]

But by that logic, how can a MG use SFF without the infantry firing it use SFF? On the one hand you are saying that the MG is using SFF because it is marked with First Fire, but that the infantry is not using SFF because it is not marked First Fire. But the rule says that only infantry marked with First Fire can use SFF.

You're correct that read literally, only Infantry marked with First Fire can use SFF, but this is also meant to include an MG marked with First Fire. A8.3 says "Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire." So both MG and IFE can use SFF if the MG or the IFE capable weapon is marked by First Fire. The A8.41 example shows this too, since the MG uses SFF when the squad was not marked with First Fire.

So it looks like the first sentence of A8.3 should say something like: "A DEFENDING Infantry unit/MG/IFE capable weapon already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again during that MPh as Area Fire by flipping its First Fire counter over to the Final Fire side."
(My addition is in bold).

And in fact,the rule also says that you cannot split MG/inherent FP when using SFF; or are you saying that even though they are not both using SFF, they are not "splitting their fire during SFF"?

Yes, I'm saying that they are not both using SFF, but they would only be splitting their fire during SFF if the squad later used SFF - which the squad therefore was not allowed, even before the new errata.

Seems convoluted to me.

Now that's a true statement. A8 is actually my personal favourite candidate for new replacement pages, and I hope to get green light from MMP some time. I believe the rule could benefit greatly from a total rewrite. (Yes Ron, you can start complaining now)

 

[Brian W]

The A8.41 example shows this too, since the MG uses SFF when the squad was not marked with First Fire.

I think it is very unclear that a MG can use SFF while its infantry is still using first fire. Perhaps you can suggest an added sentence or a change to the sentence describing the sustained fire penalties of an unmarked MG to indicate that inherent firepower is treated in just the opposite manner.

 

[Ole Boe]

Wonder how many such are in J6 and planned for J7?

Much less than there used to be in the old Annuals.

Sigh. It begins, again.

What begins again? Your exaggerated complaining hasn't really stopped, so it wouldn't be right to say that it begins again (although there has been a couple of days since last time)...

But if you were thinking about the errata, yes there are errata in this Journal, as it has been in every Annual and Journal. Big surprise. There are less of it than it used to be though...

So what's your point actually