IFT resolution question

[Sparafucil3]

This has been discussed before but I am still not totally sure how this breaks out. Here is the situation: A Panther is armored assaulting with a 8-0 leader toting a flame thrower and a 468 squad. A HIP gun knocks out the Panther but the crew survives. A nearby carrier now opens up on the stack with a 6FP MG. The attack is -2(vs the crew), -1 (vs the leader), and even vs the squad. The carrier attack is a 1,2 DR. The effect is a 2KIA vs the crew, a 1KIA, vs the leader, and a K/2 vs the squad. How is this all resolved? A7.301 says in part "... at least as many units in the targeted Locations as the number indicated are eliminated..." Does this mean at least 3 units are KIA, effectively eliminating the stack? -- jim

 

[Mike Owens]

This has been discussed before but I am still not totally sure how this breaks out. Here is the situation: A Panther is armored assaulting with a 8-0 leader toting a flame thrower and a 468 squad. A HIP gun knocks out the Panther but the crew survives. A nearby carrier now opens up on the stack with a 6FP MG. The attack is -2(vs the crew), -1 (vs the leader), and even vs the squad. The carrier attack is a 1,2 DR. The effect is a 2KIA vs the crew, a 1KIA, vs the leader, and a K/2 vs the squad. How is this all resolved? A7.301 says in part "... at least as many units in the targeted Locations as the number indicated are eliminated..." Does this mean at least 3 units are KIA, effectively eliminating the stack? -- jim

There are 3 different Final DR [A.5] due to the various different modifiers, and so there are 3 different Target Units.

The Final DR vs the Crew was a 1, yielding a 2KIA vs the one unit -- the crew is eliminated.

The Final DR vs the leader was a 2, yielding a 1KIA -- the leader is eliminated.

The Final DR vs the squad was a 3, yielding a K/2 -- the squad is Reduced to a HS, which has to take a 2MC.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Thanks for the pointer to A.5. Now how does this settle for the K/2 with the KIA results which automatically break all other units in the target Location? My belief is that the unit is first reduced, the resulting HS takes a 2mc. If it passed the 2mc it is automatically broken for the KIA result. If it fails the 2mc, it will be eliminated for CR when the KIA result breaks it again. Should the leader's morale have exceeded his, he would be further subject to a LLMC if he survived all of that. That sound correct? -- jim

 

[Mike Owens]

Thanks for the pointer to A.5. Now how does this settle for the K/2 with the KIA results which automatically break all other units in the target Location? My belief is that the unit is first reduced, the resulting HS takes a 2mc. If it passed the 2mc it is automatically broken for the KIA result. If it fails the 2mc, it will be eliminated for CR when the KIA result breaks it again. Should the leader's morale have exceeded his, he would be further subject to a LLMC if he survived all of that. That sound correct? -- jim

The squad is not affected at all by either KIA result. It just takes the k/2 result. The only effect the KIA would have on the squad is indirect -- the LLMC for the KIA'ed leader if the leader's morale was higher than the squad's/remaining half squad's.

Note that the phrasing in A7.301 is "target units", not just units. The squad becomes a different "target unit" due to having different modifiers, and therefore a different Final DR.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

This looks very, very familiar Could it have been my ATG in the SP76 scenario I was just playing vasl? ... come to think of it, now that you mention it, I think we completely forgot to resolve the result against the 468 and Ldr+FT after the SAN result distracted me .. oh well, didn't much matter anyway.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Subsidiary question : the surviving crew does suffer the Haz Mov -2 DRM, but doesn't it have the +1 DRM of the now wrecked tank to protect it?

 

[Corporal Kindel]

Yes, the crew was subject to a -2 bailing out because it passed a CS roll .. I'm about 75% sure that the AFV TEM doesn't apply to bailing out crews, but does to unloading crews/passengers.

But, I was just thinking about this situation this morning. Originally the Ldr+FT and 468 squad were armor-assaulting up to the point when their tank got whacked by the ATG. Now, for the attack immediately after this, when I fired the Carrier(B) AAMG for 6 even/-1/-2:

1) are the leader+FT and sqd still considered to be armor assaulting under a (now) wrecked tank? (in other words would the +1 vehicle TEM still be applicable?). If not, the subsequent aamg attack would've been 6 -3/-2/-2 (ffmo and ffnam now factored in) And,

2) If yes to 1, is the entire group (Ldr+FT, sqd, and bailing-out crew) actually an eligible group (stack) target? or must the carrier designate its shot separately between bailing-out crew *or* the Ldr+FT & sqd? Without checking the rule book, I would think the crew is still part of the tank while bailing out and the Ldr+FT & sqd are still armor assaulting, thus one eligible group target of 3 units. After all, if the hex was fired on later in the Defensive Fire phase for Final Fire then all 3 units in the location would be affected .. Now, I do recollect somewhere that vehicles/wrecks are not considered TEM during a turn in which they moved or were in motion until after the ADVph in which they stopped. So, for fire against those three targets in the DEF fire phase, the +1 AFV TEM would not apply (they are no longer armor-assaulting). Of course they aren't inhibited by FFNM either, so it all comes out in the wash.

If anyone knows for sure, I'd appreciate rules references, so I can double-check on my own later on tonight when I have more time.

 

[Ole Boe]

Yes, the crew was subject to a -2 bailing out because it passed a CS roll .. I'm about 75% sure that the AFV TEM doesn't apply to bailing out crews, but does to unloading crews/passengers.

I'm 85% sure that you're 75% wrong

D9.3 even says that "units Abandoning/Surviving/unloading/Bailing-Out from an AFV" are subject to the +1 TEM even if the AFV is a moving target, and points to D5.6. So the TEM seems to apply even vs surviving crew.

1) are the leader+FT and sqd still considered to be armor assaulting under a (now) wrecked tank? (in other words would the +1 vehicle TEM still be applicable?). If not, the subsequent aamg attack would've been 6 -3/-2/-2 (ffmo and ffnam now factored in) And,

Yes, I see no reason why not. D9.3 says: "All Infantry in the same Location with a wreck/friendly-AFV/abandoned-enemy-AFV are entitled to a +1 TEM unless ... that AFV would be subject to TH Case J ... [EXC: Armored Assault (9.31)..."

2) If yes to 1, is the entire group (Ldr+FT, sqd, and bailing-out crew) actually an eligible group (stack) target? or must the carrier designate its shot separately between bailing-out crew *or* the Ldr+FT & sqd?

Yes, because they spent the same MF/MP together as a stack.

Now, I do recollect somewhere that vehicles/wrecks are not considered TEM during a turn in which they moved or were in motion until after the ADVph in which they stopped. So, for fire against those three targets in the DEF fire phase, the +1 AFV TEM would not apply (they are no longer armor-assaulting).

You only recollect half of it. D9.31 says: "A Stopped AFV continues to provide the +1 TEM during the DFPh to the units that moved with it."

This sentence applies here (IMHO), to both the crew and Infantry since they all moved with the AFV.

 

[Sparafucil3]

This looks very, very familiar Could it have been my ATG in the SP76 scenario I was just playing vasl? ... come to think of it, now that you mention it, I think we completely forgot to resolve the result against the 468 and Ldr+FT after the SAN result distracted me .. oh well, didn't much matter anyway.

Yes this was your game and no you did not resolve the attack vs the rest of the hex.

Note that the phrasing in A7.301 is "target units", not just units. The squad becomes a different "target unit" due to having different modifiers, and therefore a different Final DR.

A7.301 #KIA: At least as many target units in each specifically targeted Location (e.g., Spraying Fire or Canister, but not Area Target Type, attacks) as the number indicated (#) are eliminated (as determined by Random Selection); all remaining target units are automatically broken.

The reason I continue to question is the matter of Location. All units in question occupy the same Location, otherwise they could not be attacked with the same DR [EXCEPTIONS: Spraying fire and Canister]. A7.301 does not create seperate locations for targets based on DRM's, it only applies different DRM's for targets behaving differently in the same location. I recall this being debated at length before but I can not find that old thread nor can I recall the concensus opinion on the matter.

 

[Ole Boe]

The reason I continue to question is the matter of Location. All units in question occupy the same Location, otherwise they could not be attacked with the same DR [EXCEPTIONS: Spraying fire and Canister]. A7.301 does not create seperate locations for targets based on DRM's, it only applies different DRM's for targets behaving differently in the same location. I recall this being debated at length before but I can not find that old thread nor can I recall the concensus opinion on the matter.

I was part of the previous debate, and the consensus was that Mike Owen's answer is correct, although "unfair" to the targets. But war is not always fair :dead:

 

[Sparafucil3]

I was part of the previous debate, and the consensus was that Mike Owen's answer is correct, although "unfair" to the targets. But war is not always fair :dead:

I remember you were central to the debate. I also seem to remember you positing the same argument as I am here. Thanks for chiming in. I guess you and I will have to settle for knowing that great minds think alike. :laugh: -- jim