Fortified Building amp; Residual FP

[morrigu]

Fortified Building & Residual FP

Hi.

Hex "A" contains a Residual FP counter. A squad in "A" tries to enter a Fortified Building Location in hex "B", that contains a (HIP/Concealed) enemy unit. Consequently the squad is repulsed to hex "A". Must it undergo a RFP in that returned-to hex (as with Factory quasi-Loactions) or not? The rules are a bit fuzzy on this.
B.23.9.2.2. merely states: "The MF expended (not lost) in an unsuccessful entry attempt are considered expended in its present hex for purposes of Residual FP (A.12.1.5), Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF."

What the heck?

Bye ... ollo

 

[Ole Boe]

Must it undergo a RFP in that returned-to hex (as with Factory quasi-Loactions) or not?

It depends. Has it already been attacked by that RFP? If yes, then it will not be attacked again (A8.22 says: "A unit can be attacked by Residual FP only once per Location.")

But if the unit has not already been attacked by that RFP (either because it started its MPh in that Location or because the RFP was placed due to an attack against the unit when it entered the Location), then it will be attacked by the RFP now, as per A8.2: "any unit entering (or expending MF/MP in) that same Location in the same MPh is attacked on the IFT..."

B.23.9.2.2. merely states: "The MF expended (not lost) in an unsuccessful entry attempt are considered expended in its present hex for purposes of Residual FP (A.12.1.5), Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF."

This menas that the unit never really left its old Location, but rather spent the MF there for most purposes, including DFF/SFF/FPF, but more importantly (for this discussion) RFP.

So it is treated just as any other MF expenditure in that hex (placement of DC etc.)

 

[morrigu]

So this is unlike an "A12.1.5. Detection" repulsion, which WOULD attack the unit with RFP, even if it was attacked by that RFP already in that MPh?

 

[Ole Boe]

So this is unlike an "A12.1.5. Detection" repulsion, which WOULD attack the unit with RFP, even if it was attacked by that RFP already in that MPh?

I didn't consider A12.15, but I guess I should. If you move a unit that can normally not enter an enemy-occupied Location during the MPh (e.g. most everyone except berserk, HW or Banzai units), then I guess A12.15 applies thereby making the unit being attacked a second time by the RFP - contrary to what A8.22 says.

But if the unit in question is berserk, or using HW/Banzai, then A12.15 with its exception to A8.22 doesn't apply, and there is no second RFP attack.

Not consistent at all, and I even doubt such difference was the intent, but A8.22 is quite clear in restricting the RFP to one attack per Location (per unit), and only A12.15 overrides that.

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi


For me this could appear to be a conflicting situation between the two rules that decide if the unit is going to be attacked by RFP or not when repulsed from the fort buliding hex. If that is the case the Fortified buliding repulsion rule should be used and hence no RFP attack. Is this a way to look at it?



Regards
Bjørnar

 

[Larry]

I read A12.15 with interest because it didn't sound right. The rule states that

the DEFENDER must immediately reveal at least one concealed unit that that Location and thereby force the moving unit back ...

This needs to go on the list of errata to correct. That A12.121 concealment loss/gain table has as case A:

is in a Location that enemy Infantry/Cavalry attempt to enter during the MPh/RtPh ...

Seems like A12.15 creates a tension (as the higher numbered rule) that was unintended when the table was changed. A12.15 should say something to the effect of:

the DEFENDER immediately loses all concealment/HIP if the ATTACKER reveals at least one non-Dummy unit in the moving/routing stack.

The rules are interwoven and dispersed and should undergo a thorough check for internal consistency!

:devious:

 

[Ole Boe]

Seems like A12.15 creates a tension (as the higher numbered rule) that was unintended when the table was changed. A12.15 should say something to the effect of:

"the DEFENDER immediately loses all concealment/HIP if the ATTACKER reveals at least one non-Dummy unit in the moving/routing stack."

The rules are interwoven and dispersed and should undergo a thorough check for internal consistency!

I don't disgaree with your last statement, but in this case I don't think A12.15 should be changed. In this case, the table is just not as detailed as the rule, but the rule makes it clear that it is only one unit that must be revealed to stop the ATTACKER.

So this is an instance where the table is a overview of the rule while A12.15 has the (correct) details.

 

[Larry]

A12.121:

The Concealment Table always takes precedence over the body of the rules (e.g., an uncommon cause of "?" loss might be mentioned in the Concealment Table even though it is omitted from the rules proper for the sake of brevity).

The table says everyone. I find it difficult to square ? loss on the table with partial permanent loss in A12.15. If the table says that a unit loses concealment when it causes the bump back, the rules would be reconcilable. However, the table does not speak in terms of causing the bump back but instead describes the ? loss when a real unit attempts to enter its location in the movement or rout phase.

I assumed that the changes to the concealment table trumped the provisions of A12.15 because A12.121 said so.

 

[Ole Boe]

The table says everyone. I find it difficult to square ? loss on the table with partial permanent loss in A12.15. If the table says that a unit loses concealment when it causes the bump back, the rules would be reconcilable. However, the table does not speak in terms of causing the bump back but instead describes the ? loss when a real unit attempts to enter its location in the movement or rout phase.

I agree that the table doesn't say that only one unit looses "?", but neither does it say "everyone". It says "is in Location that enemy Infantry/Cavalry attempt to enter during the MPh/RtPh". While I agree that this generally includes everyone, and also that the table takes precedence over the rules, I think this is a case of the table being brief, and the rule body giving the details, explaining that "...the DEFENDER must immediately reveal at least one concealed unit in that Location...", and not necessarily all units.

I assumed that the changes to the concealment table trumped the provisions of A12.15 because A12.121 said so.

I don't follow you here. What changes are you thinking of

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi


I would like to comment one more time since I think I have made up my mind. There are two kinds of “repulsions†the unit experiences in this case, the Detection repulsion and the Fortified building repulsion. As a consequence I think that the highest numbered rule should be used to evaluate if an existing RFP should attack or not, since there is a conflict on a possible outcome (RFP attack or not) on what kind of repulsion that is used.

Note the following also:
B23.922. Last sentence: Loss of concealment rules (A12.15) apply even though the Fortified Location cannot be entered.

I think this means that rule B23.922 is the one to follow except that one may also loose concealment according to A12.15 but that’s the only part of that rule that is used.



Regards
Bjørnar

 

[Ole Boe]

I just read the relevant rules... for the first time during this discussion, and I just noticed that B23.922 references A12.15 not only for concealment loss, but more importantly, for purposes of Residual FP. (I'm a bit ashamed by this, as I see that morrigu mentioned the reference already in the first post.)


Anyway when B23.922 says "The MF expended (not lost) in an unsuccessful entry attempt are considered expended in its present hex for purposes of Residual FP (A12.15) ... ", I see only one sensible interpretation for this, and that is to apply A12.15's residual FP rule for B23.922 as well.

So when a moving unit is blocked due to A12.15 or B23.922, it will be attacked by any Residual FP in its Location again - even if it has already been attacked by the RFP in that Location.


Interesting what one can discover when actually reading the rules instead of discussing them without really looking at them. I should do so more often...

 

[Bjoernar]

Hello


Interesting what one might find out by reading the rules carefully This is not for you Ole. I overlooked the first A12.15 parenthesis when I read through the rules, and I thought A12.15 applied only for the concealment loss.




Bjørnar

 

[Larry]

I don't follow you here. What changes are you thinking of

Ahh, the old mis-remembered amendment to the rules trick. I knew there was a change but it was:

"is forced back to it location via detection (A12.15)."

I knew there was an amendment, just forgot which part it was!

So does this lesson translate to "the concealment loss/gain table controls unless a rule is more specific"?

 

[Ole Boe]

So does this lesson translate to "the concealment loss/gain table controls unless a rule is more specific"?

You don't find any rule saying such a thing, but that's what I think makes sense, and I'd like to think that Perry would answer the same.

 

[morrigu]

Mmmmmh.

After re-re-re-re-reading this thread, B.23.922, and A.12.15, I came to the following (hopefully correct) conclusion:

If a unit tries to enter a Fortified Building Location that contains ?/HIP unit(s), it is repulsed to its "previously occupied Location" and is considered to never have left this "previously occupied Location". The MF/MP it expended in trying to enter the Fortified Building Location are considered to be expended in this "previously occupied Location", too. Although the unit must immediately end its move, MF/MP thus LOST are not relevant for DFF/RFP purposes. IF (for whatever reason) the unit is subject to a more-negative-DRM/less-positive-DRM when "reentering" the "previously occupied Location", it gets attacked by the RFP again, because it spent the MF/MP intended to enter the Fortified Building therein. Otherwise it is not attacked again. Nevertheless, its attempted entry of the Fortified Building Location CAN cause units in there to lose their "?" (as per A.12.15).

Bye ... ollo

 

[Ole Boe]

morrigu, the first half of your conclusion was correct, so I skipped that. There are some problems in the second half though:

IF (for whatever reason) the unit is subject to a more-negative-DRM/less-positive-DRM when "reentering" the "previously occupied Location", it gets attacked by the RFP again, because it spent the MF/MP intended to enter the Fortified Building therein. Otherwise it is not attacked again.

No, it is always attacked by any RFP in its Location regardless of the more-negative-DRM issue. This is an exception to A8.22 found in A12.15, and referred to from B23.922:
"such re-entry causes any already-existing Residual FP in the returned-to Location to attack the returning unit—even if it had already attacked that unit in that phase.".

Nevertheless, its attempted entry of the Fortified Building Location CAN cause units in there to lose their "?" (as per A.12.15).

The unit preventing its entrance must lose "?". So if there is already a Known squad there, other concealed/HIP units remain concealed/HIP, but if all units are concealed/HIP, you must reveal at least one as per A12.15 to prevent the entrance.