J7 Errata about the use of Intensive Fire during DFPh

[Sparafucil3]

Ole,
After a quick perusal of the J7 errata, I do not think that the issue of Intensive Fire in the Final Fire Phase has been addressed in this issue. Would that be correct? If not, any idea on when it will be? Thanks for the sticky -- jim

 

[Ole Boe]

Ole,
After a quick perusal of the J7 errata, I do not think that the issue of Intensive Fire in the Final Fire Phase has been addressed in this issue. Would that be correct?

The TftT that Alan mentions says:
"Don’t let your opponent Intensive Fire his Gun if it is marked with a Final Fire counter (whether from firing in the MPh or in the DFPh). The ASOP and A8.4 are pretty clear that units marked Final Fire cannot fire in the DFPh. This is even clearer with the errata to C5.6 that we are publishing in this issue."

But there is also the following errata (as menioned in the TftT):

C5.6: line 3, replace “or stunned” with “stunned, or marked with a Final/Intensive Fire counter”.

With this errata, C5.6 now says "Intensive Fire ... can be used only if the crew of the Gun is not ... marked with a Final/Intensive Fire counter."

That should make it clear...

 

[Robin Reeve]

That should make it clear...

There was a debate about being marked at the beginning of the DFPh or during it (i.e. because the Gun lost ROF while firing during the DFPh).
Do these errata mean that, when a Gun loses ROF during DFPh, it cannot Intensive Fire ?
That would equate the fact that IF cannot be used during DFPh at all.

Sorry about being off topic... If the debate grows longer, I'll copy/paste the posts in the "Rules & Errata" section.

 

[Ole Boe]

There was a debate about being marked at the beginning of the DFPh or during it (i.e. because the Gun lost ROF while firing during the DFPh).

Yes, due to the fact that A8.4 says: "A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire." - and quite a few meant that "already" referred to the start of the phase.

But now, with the fixed C5.6, the IF rules themselves say that IF cannot be used if marked with Final Fire. And without any "already" to confuse the issue.

Do these errata mean that, when a Gun loses ROF during DFPh, it cannot Intensive Fire ?

Yes - just as a MG that loses ROF during DFPh cannot fire again once as Area Fire.

That would equate the fact that IF cannot be used during DFPh at all.

No. Again, just as a MG that lost ROF during the enemy MPh can fire once at an adjacent target during the DFPh, a Gun can do the same, using IF, per A8.4.

Sorry about being off topic... If the debate grows longer, I'll copy/paste the posts in the "Rules & Errata" section.

That may be smart, as I except that there will be some controversy around the C5.6 errata (and possibly the B6.3 errata).

 

[Robin Reeve]

No. Again, just as a MG that lost ROF during the enemy MPh can fire once at an adjacent target during the DFPh, a Gun can do the same, using IF, per A8.4.

Ah yes - and in this case the weapon only has a "First Fire" marker on it...

BTW, I moved the posts to this place, as they were off topic.:smoke:

 

[Sparafucil3]

Great. I get to start another thread on Intensive Fire I have not seen the Tip's From the Trech yet, but I think the errata in C5.6 does clear up the debate. I am glad if it does. -- jim

 

[Treadhead]

What a bunch of crap!

Sorry, but that's how I really feel.

A Gun that starts the DFPh Hidden, cannot use Intensive Fire during the DFPh?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I'm through with this subject.

 

[Faded 8-1]

So, if I understand this correctly (don't have J7), ordnance may IF in Prep or Defensive First, but never in Final?

What is the logic behind it? Assuming the rule is not simply a casualty of poor wording, there must be some reason behind it? Seems odd as DF is generally more desirable (to the firer) than Prep...

 

[McFinn]

[Essentially,

A unit marked with a Final Fire Counter may not use Intensive Fire.

Any unit that fires in the Defensive Fire Phase (unless it keeps ROF) is marked with a Final Fire Counter thus cannot use Intensive Fire.

This is how the version 2 rules have read for a long time (not sure on V1). So it's more of a clarification than errata. The prohibition on (any fire by a unit marked with a Final Fire Counter) is now repeated in the intensive fire rules section the errata (as well as still in the original rules section on Final Fire).

Faded 8-1 says: "What is the logic behind it?....Seems odd as DF is generally more desirable (to the firer) than Prep..."

My guess (delving in to the murky realm of figuring out the designers intent) to the logic is that it is more consistent with the rest of the rules where....
Units fired on during the Movement Phase (First Fire) are generally more vulnerable (-1 FFMO, -1 FFNAM, You can Subsequent First Fire, Final Protective Fire, and Intensive fire on them, etc)
Units fired on during the Defensive Fire Phase are generally less vulnerable (no -1 mods, no Subsequent First Fire, no Intensive Fire)

I guess is this represents 2 things, #1 units that move are making themselves more vulnerable. #2 If you as the Defensive player wait until you see the results of all moves (DFPh) before shooting, you will not get as many opportunities to shoot (no Intensive Fire)

Any who, hope that helps.

 

[Larry]

I agree with Keith, this is a clarification. The split among players, whether an unmarked unit could fire (gaining a final fire counter) and then (a) not IF; (b) IF at adjacent targets only; or (c) IF at any target at any range, cried for resolution. No matter which resolution MMP picked, a substantial number of players would share Bruce's angst.

I remember a recent game where my opponent flanked a gun's position in the woods. Under (b) or (c), I could wait and see if anything else rolled my way. Under the (a) resolution, I have to make a decision to pivot the gun, take the first fire shot with the +6 CA modifier, and then hit the infantry adjacent at open ground with the IF shot in the DFPh. That is the decision that we will have to make from now on, leaving behind the luxury of delaying the decision to another phase.

Now the decision to include a -1 for units caught on the bridge ... didn't see that coming!!!

Direct Fire (and Direct Fire interdiction) against a target on a bridge which is traced only through the road depiction of that bridge hex (or against any pontoon bridge, regardless of LOF) is considered to take place in Open Ground (1.15).

is now replaced with:

Direct Fire (and Direct Fire Interdiction) against a target on a bridge which is traced only through the road depiction of that bridge hex (or against any pontoon bridge, regardless of LOF) and Residual FP attacks are considered to take place in Open Ground (1.15) with a TEM of -1 which is cumulative with other TEM (e.g., AFV/Wreck) and FFMO/FFNAM.

I guess this brings the bridge in line with the runways/boulevards and the trailbreaks in FF for danger.

 

[Beseler]

well....the opening scenario of Pegasus Bridge just got a little tougher for the Brits....Not to mention Lovatt's arrival later.

 

[Sparafucil3]

So, if I understand this correctly (don't have J7), ordnance may IF in Prep or Defensive First, but never in Final?

What is the logic behind it? Assuming the rule is not simply a casualty of poor wording, there must be some reason behind it? Seems odd as DF is generally more desirable (to the firer) than Prep...

Remove the gun from the equation. What are the units options to fire? It may First Fire in First Fire. It may SFF in First Fire against units no further away then the closest unit and be marked Final Fired. In Final Fire, it may Final Fire without limitation and be Marked Final Fired if unmarked or it may Final Fire against ADJACENT targets if marked First Fired and then be marked Final Fired. It also has some FPF options as well which I am ignoring for the moment. The new C5.6 means that your gun now behaves the exact same way as all other infantry in the game EXCEPT that it may SFF (called Intensive Fire) in First Fire without regards to target limitation. If it is marked First Fired, it may Intensive Fire against ADJACENT units as Intensive Fire and be marked Final Fired. You do have one extra shot you can claim with an OVR Prevention (C5.64, which is an FPF option for the gun) and of course your manning Infantry my FPF with small arms to their hearts content should they still need to fire. In my opinion, this makes guns work the same way as the underlying Infantry which make complete and total sense (to me).

A Gun that starts the DFPh Hidden, cannot use Intensive Fire during the DFPh?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Why is it stupid? Name one other unit in the game that can fire in Final Fire AFTER being marked Final Fired. The thing that always bothered me about this was the the gun was manned by Infantry and in my opinion it should be bound by the same rules as Infantry which man it. Allowing them to shoot again after being marked as Final Fired was broken in my opinion and I would add not supported by the Pre-errat C5.6 which awarded you another "shot" (which is a noun) and not the right to shoot (which is a verb). Just my opinion, but I think they got this one right. -- jim

 

[Ole Boe]

Now the decision to include a -1 for units caught on the bridge ... didn't see that coming!!!

...and still it has been there all the time since ASL was released in 1985

Go look at your Chapter B Terrain Chart, and there the -1 DRM is, as it has silently been (and pretty much overlooked) all the time.

 

[Reepicheep]

You're absolutely right, Ole! Wow! The things we have never noticed before and learn each day!

 

[Larry]

You're absolutely right, Ole! Wow! The things we have never noticed before and learn each day!

And that is why we have Ole, to remind us that we have been playing wrong ... for years.

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi guys


The bridge -1 TEM was interesting news. I think I have never used it since I started with ASL back in 89 .



Bjørnar

 

[Ole Boe]

The bridge -1 TEM was interesting news. I think I have never used it since I started with ASL back in 89 .

Me neither. I discovered it when I made an electronic version of the terrain chart half a year ago or so. I think this has been overlooked by most players, the only trace of it I've seen, is a Q&A for B:RV where it is asked whether they playtested it with 0 or -1 TEM (and the answer was 0 FWIW).

But after having noticed the -1 TEM, I look forward to playing Ramsey's Charge again. A scenario that is great fun, but damned hard to keep the Japanese from crossing the bridge in the last turn. Maybe it was playtested with the -1 TEM, as it may be balanced that way.

 

[alanp]

I sympathize with Bruce B's feelings on the issue. Partially, because I played it incorrectly for years; partly because IF has always been more dangerous to my own Guns than my opponent's units; partly because I always had a fuzzy feeling about how the 'one shot(TH/TK DR) actually represents many shots' vs. the specific wording of the IF rule ('a Gun may always try one more shot unless. . . ') [this seems to be a non-abstraction and mean each DR does represent one shot the Gun is taking.]

I am very glad this has been officially cleared up, however. There is no further room for debate now without claiming that the offical line shouldn't be what it is. (which is a separate debate!)

 

[CHERDE]

Applause for this two clarifications / errata.

 

[Ole Boe]

I sympathize with Bruce B's feelings on the issue.

I do so too actually. This is complicated matters, and though I provided Perry with many arguments, I'm still more than happy that the burden of decision is his. The Tips For the Trenches was also written by Perrry, showing that Perry was quite clear that the rules didn't allow IF when marked by Final Fire even before this errata.

I believe the decisive argument for not allowing unrestricted IF by a Gun who started the DFPh without a Final Fire counter, was how it worked in comparision with a First Fire marked Gun. The latter is allowed IF vs adjacent targets only, but its crew could always use its Inherent FP vs an (even empty) adjacent hex to deliberately get marked with a Final Fire counter, thus eliminating the adjacency restriction - if a Final Fire-marked Gun was unrestricted. That pretty much shows that restricting a First Fire-marked Gun more than a Final Fire-marked Gun, makes no sense.

As Larry points out, this clarification makes it clear that the DEFENDER has a though choise when it expects more than one enemy AFV to close in. It pop its HIP status during the enemy MPh to be sure of an unrestricted IF shot, but lose some of its surprise factor, or it can keep hidden until the DFPh, but lose the IF capability. That's a though choice, and though choices is (part of) what makes ASL a great game.