Gun Duel Query

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
No mention of the possibility of Gun Duel if the ATTACKER'S DRMs>DEFENDER'S.
Of course there is!
It is implied*, if the conditions of the ATTACKER firing first are not met.
You are mixing up "ATTACKER fires first" with "Gun Duel".
As said, even if he fires second, the ATTACKER can win the Duel: he starts with a handicap, but he can make it.

* Such implications exist for many points of the rule: if you don't hit a target, then you have missed it, for an example.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
C5.33 (IMO) indicates that a Gun Duel can be declared and one might win it - i.e., even one loses it is a Gun Duel. No mention of it not being a Gun Duel it the DEFENDER loses it.

"...If the Bounding First Firer vehicle declares a shot prior to any MP expenditure, a DEFENDER can still declare a Gun Duel (2.2401) that he might win (due to the Bounding First Firer’s use of TH Case C), and thus he could fire before the vehicle expends any MP."
 

Gunner Atkins

Recruit
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Country
ll
C5.33 (IMO) indicates that a Gun Duel can be declared and one might win it - i.e., even one loses it is a Gun Duel. No mention of it not being a Gun Duel it the DEFENDER loses it.

"...If the Bounding First Firer vehicle declares a shot prior to any MP expenditure, a DEFENDER can still declare a Gun Duel (2.2401) that he might win (due to the Bounding First Firer’s use of TH Case C), and thus he could fire before the vehicle expends any MP."


Yes, but this is the reverse case where the DEFENDER would normally get to shoot first. All it seems to mean is that when no MP has been spent he has a chance to sneak a shot in. This would normally be the case had an MP be expended and seems to be there to make this exceptional case potentially fit the normal pattern for this phase.

An important and crucial difference being there couldn't be multiple BFF shots waiting to be resolved but there could well be multiple DFF shots
 
Last edited:

Gunner Atkins

Recruit
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Country
ll
Of course there is!
It is implied*, if the conditions of the ATTACKER firing first are not met.
You are mixing up "ATTACKER fires first" with "Gun Duel".
As said, even if he fires second, the ATTACKER can win the Duel: he starts with a handicap, but he can make it.

* Such implications exist for many points of the rule: if you don't hit a target, then you have missed it, for an example.

But Robin 'implying' some isn't the same as mentioning it at all.

Something we assume is very different from something explicitly stated.

I don't believe I'm mixing the two terms up necessarily, although I may well be wrong.

Point out for me the definition of a Gun Duel if it's not the first sentence or two of C2.2401.

Surely we need to look at what is written rather than what we think or may have always assumed is written?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I believe the principle is the same. Perhaps someone can shoot a Q&A over to MMP for a clarification.
 

Gunner Atkins

Recruit
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Country
ll
I believe the principle is the same. Perhaps someone can shoot a Q&A over to MMP for a clarification.

Perhaps, but an important and crucial difference being there couldn't be multiple BFF shots waiting to be resolved but there could well be multiple DFF shots
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Perhaps, but an important and crucial difference being there couldn't be multiple BFF shots waiting to be resolved but there could well be multiple DFF shots
Then why have a Gun Duel? I know this point has been clarified by Q&A. I would have to look it up, but there was a very long discussion here on GS about this. If you allow anyone to shoot, then it's just D1F and no need for the special rules section. -- jim

Edit to Add: From Klas's Q&A collection:

C2.2401 & C5.33
An AFV wishes to BFF at a stack of broken units the start of its movement phase for 0 MP in accordance with C5.33. Sitting
beside the broken units and in LOS of the BFF AFV is another unit friendly to the broken stack. May the third unit declare a Gun
Duel vs. the BFF vehicle or is the Gun Duel restricted to only the AFV and broken units?
A. Third parties cannot intervene.

Editing one more time to add a link to the thread this took place in. Not as long as I remember it being. -- jim
 
Last edited:

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
566
Reaction score
148
Country
llUnited States
Then why have a Gun Duel? I know this point has been clarified by Q&A. I would have to look it up, but there was a very long discussion here on GS about this. If you allow anyone to shoot, then it's just D1F and no need for the special rules section. -- jim

Edit to Add: From Klas's Q&A collection:

C2.2401 & C5.33
An AFV wishes to BFF at a stack of broken units the start of its movement phase for 0 MP in accordance with C5.33. Sitting
beside the broken units and in LOS of the BFF AFV is another unit friendly to the broken stack. May the third unit declare a Gun
Duel vs. the BFF vehicle or is the Gun Duel restricted to only the AFV and broken units?
A. Third parties cannot intervene.

Editing one more time to add a link to the thread this took place in. Not as long as I remember it being. -- jim
This Q&A asks whether a DEFENDER (the "third party") can declare a Gun Deal to supercede BFF against another DEFENDER. Not at all our question. The best one can say is the response literally says a lot more and therefore might (or might not) respond to our question.

I personally am fine with the answer that seems preferred, even though I don't think it is the inevitable conclusion from the text. But now that you have muddied the waters with the above Q&A, I'll submit the following Q&A:

C2.2401 & C5.33
Q1. A DEFENDER declares a Defensive First Fire attack against a vehicle, which responds by declaring a Gun Duel. However, the ATTACKER is not eligible to fire first in a Gun Duel, for example, because it must change its CA or its TH DRMs (computed in accordance with C2.2401) are greater than those of the DEFENDER. If the ATTACKER survives the DEFENDER'S attack, can another of the DEFENDER's units declare a DFF attack and fire first upon the ATTACKER, subject to the ATTACKER declaring, if eligible, a Gun Duel against that unit?

A. No. The declaration of a Gun Duel, regardless of whether the ATTACKER qualifies to fire first, suspends all DFF opportunities by all of the DEFENDER's other units until the Duel is fully resolved between the ATTACKER and DEFENDER units involved in the Duel.

A. Yes. If the ATTACKER does not qualify for the first shot in the Gun Deal, then the Defender's fire is merely its DFF attack rather than fire in a Gun Duel. Accordingly, any other of the Defender's units may thereafter DFF against the ATTACKER (assuming they otherwise qualify to take such a shot), subject in each instance to the possibility of the ATTACKER again attempting to declare a Gun Duel against that unit.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
C2.2401 & C5.33
Q1. A DEFENDER declares a Defensive First Fire attack against a vehicle, which responds by declaring a Gun Duel. However, the ATTACKER is not eligible to fire first in a Gun Duel, for example, because it must change its CA or its TH DRMs (computed in accordance with C2.2401) are greater than those of the DEFENDER. If the ATTACKER survives the DEFENDER'S attack, can another of the DEFENDER's units declare a DFF attack and fire first upon the ATTACKER, subject to the ATTACKER declaring, if eligible, a Gun Duel against that unit?

A. No. The declaration of a Gun Duel, regardless of whether the ATTACKER qualifies to fire first, suspends all DFF opportunities by all of the DEFENDER's other units until the Duel is fully resolved between the ATTACKER and DEFENDER units involved in the Duel.

A. Yes. If the ATTACKER does not qualify for the first shot in the Gun Deal, then the Defender's fire is merely its DFF attack rather than fire in a Gun Duel. Accordingly, any other of the Defender's units may thereafter DFF against the ATTACKER (assuming they otherwise qualify to take such a shot), subject in each instance to the possibility of the ATTACKER again attempting to declare a Gun Duel against that unit.
By all means, submit a Q&A. But I would edit your question first. IF the ATTACKER must change CA, it may not declare a Gun Duel. That's the exact case I mentioned earlier when I said I try to limit my opponents options. There is no Gun Duel in that case.

The rest of your question is the same as the one I linked to. Why have Gun Duels if all it is is regular D1F? Your interpretation of the rule is nothing more than that. What purpose do Gun Duels play in this alternate world? -- jim
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
If one follows the propagation of the "Gun Duel" rules, you would certainly have to agree that the "Intent" of the rule was to allow one to declare it irregardless of the known (or probably assumed or unknown) modifiers at the time it was announced. The game was played a lot "looser" then. However with the passing of time, in general practice one seldom announces a Gun Duel unless they have figured out the DRMs involved an advance of announcing it anyway and feels fairly certain of attaining the advantage or at least coming out even. Perhaps the rule would have been "better" (I know, pretty subjective) if there had simply been a Dueling Die Roll (low guy fires first), but that's only a could-a, Should-a(?) type thing and certainly not pertinent to the discussion. (Sure would have thinned the Rule book & arguments down some though!). As it stands in general practice, I will have to agree with the stance taken by Jim.
 

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
566
Reaction score
148
Country
llUnited States
By all means, submit a Q&A. But I would edit your question first. IF the ATTACKER must change CA, it may not declare a Gun Duel. That's the exact case I mentioned earlier when I said I try to limit my opponents options. There is no Gun Duel in that case.
Ok guys, you cannot have it both ways. There are four conditions in the first sentence of 2.2401, linked by an "and" and contained in one clause beginning "provided." But you think one is a condition to declaring a Gun Duel (regardless of who will get to fire first), whereas another is not a condition to declaring a Gun Duel, but a condition to the ATTACKER firing first in a Gun Duel?

So now things are even more murky. I will split out the CA change condition into a separate follow-on: If [it's a Gun Duel no matter who shoots first], would the answer be different if the reason the DEFENDER fires first in the declared Gun Duel is that the ATTACKER must change its CA to fire, [is conducting an OVR or any of the other conditions]? A. Yes. In those cases there is no Gun Duel as well as no opportunity for the ATTACKER to fire first. A. No. All of the conditions must be met before there is a Gun Duel which will interfere with the normal order of fire.
 

Gunner Atkins

Recruit
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Country
ll
That is where we disagree. :)

What I was meaning to say is that in the case where the DEFENDER can declare a Gun Duel there can only be one BFF against it possible before expending the next MP whereas in the case when an ATTACKER can declare a Gun Duel there could be many units that can D1F against it before the expenditure of another MP.
 
Last edited:

Gunner Atkins

Recruit
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Country
ll
By all means, submit a Q&A. But I would edit your question first. IF the ATTACKER must change CA, it may not declare a Gun Duel. That's the exact case I mentioned earlier when I said I try to limit my opponents options. There is no Gun Duel in that case.

The rest of your question is the same as the one I linked to. Why have Gun Duels if all it is is regular D1F? Your interpretation of the rule is nothing more than that. What purpose do Gun Duels play in this alternate world? -- jim

I may be missing something but I see that the point of a Gun Duel is to allow the ATTACKER to fire first against an announced D1F shot and thus gain the possibility of avoiding that shot by eliminating/incapacitating the DEFENDER unit.
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
What I was meaning to say is that in the case where the DEFENDER can declare a Gun Duel there can only be one BFF against it possible before expending the next MP whereas in the case when an ATTACKER can declare a Gun Duel there could be many units that can D1F against it before the expenditure of another MP
Not if a Platoon is moving.

JR
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I may be missing something but I see that the point of a Gun Duel is to allow the ATTACKER to fire first against an announced D1F shot and thus gain the possibility of avoiding that shot by eliminating/incapacitating the DEFENDER unit.
What possibility is that? It is a B1F shot and only Firer-Based DRM's apply. Every D1F shot is at least +4 to start. A gun in the woods/building firing on you will get +6. A Fast/Slow Turret in the same circumstances will get you +4. What other conditions do you think you're going to win? The only other one I can think of is some Fast Turret American tanks were the DRM's are halved for Gun Duels when determining who shoots first. -- jim
 
Last edited:

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Ok guys, you cannot have it both ways. There are four conditions in the first sentence of 2.2401, linked by an "and" and contained in one clause beginning "provided." But you think one is a condition to declaring a Gun Duel (regardless of who will get to fire first), whereas another is not a condition to declaring a Gun Duel, but a condition to the ATTACKER firing first in a Gun Duel?

So now things are even more murky. I will split out the CA change condition into a separate follow-on: If [it's a Gun Duel no matter who shoots first], would the answer be different if the reason the DEFENDER fires first in the declared Gun Duel is that the ATTACKER must change its CA to fire, [is conducting an OVR or any of the other conditions]? A. Yes. In those cases there is no Gun Duel as well as no opportunity for the ATTACKER to fire first. A. No. All of the conditions must be met before there is a Gun Duel which will interfere with the normal order of fire.
ASLRB said:
D2.2401 GUN DUELS: Vs a non-concealed, non-Aerial DEFENDER’s declared Defensive First Fire attack on it, a vehicle may attempt to Bounding First Fire (D3.3) its MA (/other-FP, including Passenger FP/SW) at that DEFENDER first, provided the vehicle need not change CA, is not conducting an OVR (D7.1), its total Gun Duel DRM (i.e., its total Firer-Based [5.] and Acquisition [6.5] TH DRM for its potential shot) is < that of the DEFENDER, and the DEFENDER’s attack is not Reaction Fire (D7.2).
That's the first sentence verbatim. That part is pretty clear. You may attempt to fire first, but you may not win. That part isn't the problem as I don't think anyone disputes that.

ASLRB said:
... After the initial Gun Duel has been fully resolved, and if otherwise able and allowed to, that DEFENDER may announce another attack vs that ATTACKER who in turn may declare another Gun Duel ...
The only question you have really boils down to this passage. What does it mean to fully resolve the shot? In context, it means you calculate the DRM's to see who shoots first. Resolve that shot, and if applicable, resolve the second shot. If you tie, it's a "roll-off" to see who shoots first. If the lower DR kill's/breaks/shocks/stuns the higher DR unit, the attack isn't conducted. If it survive, the attack is conducted. That's what it means to fully resolve resolve the Gun Duel. That's what Perry's Q&A is saying. Third parties don't get to intervene. The only thing that matters in the Gun Duel is the ATTACKING Unit (the one that initially declares the fire) and the DEFENDING unit (the target of the initial declaration). The way you read it is just normal D1F. There is no need for the whole section if everything gets to fire before the ATTACKING BFF unit. In fact, as you are stating it, there is NO reason to declare a Gun Duel. The application of the principle is so limited in scope as to be useless.

Submit your Q&A. Maybe its the rest of us who are wrong. -- jim
 
Top