Linking FG with no LOS units

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,573
Reaction score
529
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Not sure I would want to do this in this particular case, but I'd like to make sure I understand the rule correctly.

ASLSK 3.2 said:
A multi-hex FG that discovers that part of the FG does not have a valid LOS to the target forfeits the participation of that unit. The FG with valid LOS may still attack the target but as a smaller FG or as separate attacks at the firer's option.


As I understand this, M4, L3, K4 (stone buildings in all of theses hexes) may form a FG to attack I5. L3 is clearly blocked LOS but the FG can remain intact allowing for a 13 FP attack, correct?

(edit) corrected hex reference L5 to L3
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
1,158
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
zgrose said:
As I understand this, M4, L5, K4 (stone buildings in all of theses hexes) may form a FG to attack I5. L5 is clearly blocked LOS but the FG can remain intact allowing for a 13 FP attack, correct?
I think you meant L3, not L5. It sounds like you are correct based on the quote provided. ASL used to be the same way, but that was changed in ASLRBv2 (and earlier by official Q&A I believe).
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,573
Reaction score
529
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
OK, thanks. I assume it was removed for the obvious cheese factor.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
I may be missing something, but I don't think there is a "fire group" if the only unit in the middle has no LOS. You'd have to make seperate attacks - no 13 FP attack as a fire group because the members of the group are not adjacent to each other.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
10
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
I think its safe to assume that ASLSK 3.2 is to be interpreted to mean that the units with LOS may only fire as a FG if they otherwise fulfills the rules for a FG (i.e. are ADJACENT). If not, it is no longer a "...FG with valid LOS...", and therefore must attack separately.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
1,158
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
I think its safe to assume that ASLSK 3.2 is to be interpreted to mean that the units with LOS may only fire as a FG if they otherwise fulfills the rules for a FG (i.e. are ADJACENT). If not, it is no longer a "...FG with valid LOS...", and therefore must attack separately.
Hmm, maybe, but I think it is a stretch. Also, the phrase about an option makes me think that is not what was intended. I guess it is one for MMP to answer, although maybe there is something else in the ASLSK that clears it up (don't own it).
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
10
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
I think its much more of a stretch to allow two non-adjacent units, possibly with no LOS, to fire as a FG. A FG is simply not allowed in such a situation.
I'm pretty sure that the option of retaining the FG was meant to only be available when the remaining units still was able to form a FG, e.g. in the example given, if it was the unit in K4 or M4 that lacked LOS.
 

pzkfw5g

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
Idaho
Country
llUnited States
SamB said:
I may be missing something, but I don't think there is a "fire group" if the only unit in the middle has no LOS. You'd have to make seperate attacks - no 13 FP attack as a fire group because the members of the group are not adjacent to each other.
Sam is right.
 
Top