Leader CC availability - Did we do it correctly.

[MajorDomo]

I had a question from my VASL League game.

A Russian 8-1 leader is stacked with a 447 squad manning a HMG in a stone building.

The leader directs the HMG only in First Fire, the HMG retains rate, so no First Fire placed.

A Stug then crashes into the stone building hex, bogs, but doesn't fall into the cellar.

The Russians want to CC Reaction the now bogged Stug.

A. Can the leader help the 447 with its PAATC?
B. Can the leader now participate in the CC attack with the 447?

We played yes to the above, did we do it correctly?

Rich

 

[Larry]

Just because the unit is not marked doesn't mean the leader didn't "fire" for purposes of leadership limitations of one weapon or FG per phase. I would think no.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I had a question from my VASL League game.

A Russian 8-1 leader is stacked with a 447 squad manning a HMG in a stone building.

The leader directs the HMG only in First Fire, the HMG retains rate, so no First Fire placed.

A Stug then crashes into the stone building hex, bogs, but doesn't fall into the cellar.

The Russians want to CC Reaction the now bogged Stug.

A. Can the leader help the 447 with its PAATC?
B. Can the leader now participate in the CC attack with the 447?

We played yes to the above, did we do it correctly?

Rich

A. Yes. A11.6 CC vs AN AFV: ...A leader may use his leadership modifier to aid any units in the same Location with their respective PAATC...
B. Yes. D7.2 REACTION FIRE: ...a DEFENDER may use Reaction Fire as often as it is able to use the various forms of First/Final Fire. & D7.213 ...CC Reaction Fire conducted by a unit marked with a First/Final Fire counter (including its SW) has its CCV reduced by one...

Did you do it correctly? Yes. [EXC: unless you did not reduce the Ldr's CCV by one].

 

[MajorDomo]

A. Yes. A11.6 CC vs AN AFV: ...A leader may use his leadership modifier to aid any units in the same Location with their respective PAATC...
B. Yes. D7.2 REACTION FIRE: ...a DEFENDER may use Reaction Fire as often as it is able to use the various forms of First/Final Fire. & D7.213 ...CC Reaction Fire conducted by a unit marked with a First/Final Fire counter (including its SW) has its CCV reduced by one...

Did you do it correctly? Yes. [EXC: unless you did not reduce the Ldr's CCV by one].

We did not reduce leader's CC value by one.

In our game it did not matter as the Russian CC number was "8" and he rolled a six.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I had a question from my VASL League game.

A Russian 8-1 leader is stacked with a 447 squad manning a HMG in a stone building.

The leader directs the HMG only in First Fire, the HMG retains rate, so no First Fire placed.

A Stug then crashes into the stone building hex, bogs, but doesn't fall into the cellar.

The Russians want to CC Reaction the now bogged Stug.

A. Can the leader help the 447 with its PAATC?
B. Can the leader now participate in the CC attack with the 447?

Pretty sure A is correct.

Not sure about B - since the leader has already directed the MG - and joining/directing the squad in a CC Reaction Fire attack seems likes forming a new FG.

 

[Philippe R]

How did you obtain a CC number of 8 with a single Squad ?
Don't add CCV value with inverted CC DRM or while you generate wrong Blaze (or miss some).
In your case, the CCV is 5 (MMC) +1 (Leader) -1 (First Fire of Leader) for a Final CCV = 5
The Stug is Immob (-1), with no Manned-MG (-1), you have a total of -3 DRM (-1 Leader).
So your Stug would be Blazed with a Original DR=5... not only a 4.

 

[MajorDomo]

How did you obtain a CC number of 8 with a single Squad ?
Don't add CCV value with inverted CC DRM or while you generate wrong Blaze (or miss some).
In your case, the CCV is 5 (MMC) +1 (Leader) -1 (First Fire of Leader) for a Final CCV = 5
The Stug is Immob (-1), with no Manned-MG (-1), you have a total of -3 DRM (-1 Leader).
So your Stug would be Blazed with a Original DR=5... not only a 4.

We actually allowed the leader to participate without restrictions and arrived at 9 to immobilize.

Squad CCV 5 + leader 1 + leadership modifier (-1) + 1 immobile Stug + 1 no usable MG = 9

My doubts are based upon Klaus' point. The leader had already directed the HMG fire without the squad. So how could he now direct or even participate in the CC attack in a different firegroup?

The rules are clear that he can help with the PAATC.

 

[jrv]

Not sure about B - since the leader has already directed the MG - and joining/directing the squad in a CC Reaction Fire attack seems likes forming a new FG.

The CC-Reaction Fire rules don't speak about fire groups or the attack being a fire attack. They say that the DEFENDERs may make as many CC-RF attacks as DFF attacks, but otherwise do not suggest their equivalence. Per A7.5, "Two or more units/weapons joining together to make a combined fire attack are a FG." I think a "fire attack" is an attack on the IFT. Unfortunately it is not formally defined, but my reading would be that a CC attack, even made during the MPh as CC-RF, is not a fire attack. All units may participate regardless of fire group restrictions. Firegroup restrictions would apply normally to non-CC Reaction Fire.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

The CC-Reaction Fire rules don't speak about fire groups or the attack being a fire attack. They say that the DEFENDERs may make as many CC-RF attacks as DFF attacks, but otherwise do not suggest their equivalence. Per A7.5, "Two or more units/weapons joining together to make a combined fire attack are a FG." I think a "fire attack" is an attack on the IFT. Unfortunately it is not formally defined, but my reading would be that a CC attack, even made during the MPh as CC-RF, is not a fire attack. All units may participate regardless of fire group restrictions. Firegroup restrictions would apply normally to non-CC Reaction Fire.

JR

I did have some doubt to the veracity of employing the leader but like you I feel the higher numbered rules do not seem to indicate that the limiting factor of an IFT fire FG is relevant, simply that a leader be present in the location of the DEFENDING infantry stack (both for PAATC & CCRF). In as much as the CCV is reduced for the ldr because he had essentially 1st fired, it seems as if it would be perfectly OK to also employ him in the CCRF with the MMC where a unit (in this case the AFV) cannot be attacked multiple times by different units during the same CC as the ldr must attack the unit entering its location.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...as the ldr must attack the unit entering its location.

The leader and squad does not have to attack to StuG entering their Location.

 

[jrv]

the ldr must attack the unit entering its location.

I assume you are thinking of A8.312 here. Attack is mandatory only if Infantry/Cavalry enter. Infantry are not required to attack vehicles/vehicular PRC that enter their Location.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

I assume you are thinking of A8.312 here. Attack is mandatory only if Infantry/Cavalry enter. Infantry are not required to attack vehicles/vehicular PRC that enter their Location.

JR

Duhhh, yup!

 

[fanatic+1]

Applying the leadership modifier to the MG in DFF and again to the CCRF violates A10.7.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Applying the leadership modifier to the MG in DFF and again to the CCRF violates A10.7.

It is overruled by "A11.1 CC is a form of attack which can occur only during the CCPh [EXC: vs Unarmed units (20.54), Reaction Fire (D7.2) ...]...," which is a higher numbered rule as is D7.2*, both acting as an EXC. to normally occurring sequencing of the turn. Thus though A10.7covers most instances such as the RPh, PFPh, etc., CCRF suspends normal procedures and moves (at least temporarily) to action as they would be determined during CC. During CC a Leader can apply his modifier to any CC attack vs the AFV as long as he's in the same Location. Per D7.213 the only thing limiting him is the reduction of his CCV because he 1st Fired (at least in the original Q) {See also the OVERRUN FLOW Chart}.