Multiple DF shots at a unit that picks up a SW

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Folks,

There are exactly two squads in play: Friendly squad A and enemy squad X.

Enemy squad X assault moves into an OG location that contains a MG, expending 1MF.

Friendly squad A is in normal range and chooses not to DFF on the 1MF.

Squad X spends 1MF and succeeds in picking up MG.

Squad A now uses DFF (and does not cower). Can Squad A use SFF? Note that X has used 2MF in the same location.

I think A can use SFF by A8.14 (or with a MG that keeps rate by A9.2).

What picks up a FT instead of an MG? Can A fire twice on X (since X used 2MF?). Would the -1 FT modifier apply to both shots? Note that A22.4 talks about _any_ attack against a FT possessing unit (emphasis added).

I know we are not talking about vehicles. For those interested, C6.17 talks about different modifiers verses vehicles, and is the only similar situation I could find.

I looked through the Q and A and did not find anything.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

indy
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
No. Since you opted not to fire on the first MF expended, that MF is over once they expend another MF to pick up the SW. So one shot from that unit. If you retained ROF you could shoot at them again in final fire.
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
As for the FT example, again no. You could have fired on them on the first MF but with no mod for the FT. You can fire on them again with SFF or rate when they pick up the FT this time with the mod.
 

volgaG68

Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
1,549
Location
La Crosse, KS
First name
Chris
Country
llUnited States
No. Since you opted not to fire on the first MF expended, that MF is over once they expend another MF to pick up the SW. So one shot from that unit. If you retained ROF you could shoot at them again in final fire.
Rightly or wrongly, this is how I've always interpreted and played it as well. Two separate MF expenditures in my eyes, not like 2MF (consolidated) to enter woods.
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
Yeah it's not 2, it's 1 and 1. Just like assault moving into a building and then placing smoke in your own hex. That's 2 and 1.
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
VolgaG68 and clubby,

Thanks for the quick replies. That's the way I have played it as well. However, I am not certain that is what A8.14 (or A9.2) say.

indy
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Movement is broken down into expenditures, each for a particular action. One a unit has begun another expenditure, it can't be fired on for previous expenditures. Although this is more-or-less assumed as obvious in A8.1, there is a Q&A that shows that it is indeed the correct interpretation:

q&a said:
A8.1, A8.14, & C6.17 A vehicular unit is moving. That unit performs an action that is a 2 MP expenditure in a hex. The defender does not announce any defensive fire shot on the completion of that 2 MP expenditure. The moving unit performs another action in the same hex/location that is (for the sake of discussion) a 3 MP expenditure. The defender does not announce any defensive fire shot on the completion of that 3 MP expenditure. The moving unit expends its€™ last remaining 1 MP to stop in the same hex. The defender announces he will DFF a ROF weapon on the completion of the stop 1 MP expenditure. Assuming that ROF is maintained, how many times can the defender fire the same ROF weapon at the moving unit in the target hex as DFF during the movement phase? 6 times (based on 6 MP expended in the target hex)? 1 time (based on single MP expended in the last action)? Something else?
A. 1 time (based on single MP expended in the last action)?
Is the answer the same if the moving unit is an infantry unit expending MF (with no stop expenditure of course)?
A. Yes.
If the unit spends multiple MF (/MP) within an expenditure, things are more loosey-goosey. If a unit spends three MF in one expenditure, one defender unit may fire on the first and second MF spent, then a second defender on the first MF spent, then the first defender may fire on the third MF, etc.

JR
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
JR,

Thanks for that. I'm relieved, as it's the way I've played it.

Sorry for not finding it on my own.

indy
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Note however, that any RFP left in the Location should the unit have been fired upon on the 1st MF expenditure would have attacked the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure as he attempted to pick up the SW and would be applicable along with any incumbent FFNAM/FFMO penalties as well as any TEM benefits/penalties [EXC: Smoke].
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
Great point and a great use of resid.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Note however, that any RFP left in the Location should the unit have been fired upon on the 1st MF expenditure would have attacked the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure as he attempted to pick up the SW and would be applicable along with any incumbent FFNAM/FFMO penalties as well as any TEM benefits/penalties [EXC: Smoke].
SMOKE Hindrance also affects Residual FP attacks [EXC: Fire Lane, but still cancel FFMO for Fire Lanes].
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Note however, that any RFP left in the Location should the unit have been fired upon on the 1st MF expenditure would have attacked the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure as he attempted to pick up the SW and would be applicable along with any incumbent FFNAM/FFMO penalties as well as any TEM benefits/penalties [EXC: Smoke].
Imagine a unit assault moving into an orchard hex. You shoot with 4 FP. The shot is 4+0. Now the enemy picks up a FT. The residual attack is 2-1.

The residual attack is slightly more dangerous than the original shot.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Imagine a unit assault moving into an orchard hex. You shoot with 4 FP. The shot is 4+0. Now the enemy picks up a FT. The residual attack is 2-1.

The residual attack is slightly more dangerous than the original shot.
In his hypothetical, the first attack on the first expenditure was a real attack. The residual left from that first attack would attack on any subsequent expenditure, regardless of whether the unit became more, less or the same vulnerable. If the first attack had been by residual, only then would the unit have to become more vulnerable.

JR
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
In his hypothetical, the first attack on the first expenditure was a real attack. The residual left from that first attack would attack on any subsequent expenditure, regardless of whether the unit became more, less or the same vulnerable. If the first attack had been by residual, only then would the unit have to become more vulnerable.

JR
Yes, of course. Typically, in my experience, a residual attack is not more dangerous than the initial attack.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Note however, that any RFP left in the Location should the unit have been fired upon on the 1st MF expenditure would have attacked the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure as he attempted to pick up the SW and would be applicable along with any incumbent FFNAM/FFMO penalties as well as any TEM benefits/penalties [EXC: Smoke].
Correct.

Such a 1 FP @ 0 Resid-attack just recently cost me a life of a Hero who was caught by a fateful stray bullet (rolled boxcars on his MC) in the act of placing a DC. The adjacent enemy never new what didn't hit them in the upcoming AFPh... :mad:

von Marwitz
 

WuWei

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
915
Location
Germany
First name
Tobias
Country
llGermany
Note however, that any RFP left in the Location should the unit have been fired upon on the 1st MF expenditure would have attacked the unit on the 2nd MF expenditure as he attempted to pick up the SW and would be applicable along with any incumbent FFNAM/FFMO penalties as well as any TEM benefits/penalties [EXC: Smoke].
Oh, thanks! I always played that wrong, assuming that there can be only one attack per Location. But re-reading A8.22, that applies only to Residual attacks.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Oh, thanks! I always played that wrong, assuming that there can be only one attack per Location. But re-reading A8.22, that applies only to Residual attacks.
It's even different than that. A unit may be attacked multiple times per Location by residual if the residual becomes stronger or if the DRM become worst for the moving unit.

JR
 

WuWei

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
915
Location
Germany
First name
Tobias
Country
llGermany
It's even different than that. A unit may be attacked multiple times per Location by residual if the residual becomes stronger or if the DRM become worst for the moving unit.

JR
That I knew, but I thought this also applies to the residual itself. So the way I played it was:
A unit moves into a location and gets attacked by defensive fire. Residual FP is placed. Unit spends another MF in that location, but isn't attacked by the Residual FP, unless it has worse DRM than before. It made sense, somehow. But it is WRONG. The correct way is that the unit is simply attacked by the Residual FP.

Now I have to update everyone I taught. Luckily, this is a situation that doesn't occur too often.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Luckily, this is a situation that doesn't occur too often.
The time it occurs where it's important is placing DCs. The unit with the DC moves adjacent; the defender DFFs; the unit with the DC attempts to place the DC and is attacked by the residual from the previous real attack; then possibly the defender SFFs as well. If any of those attacks succeed the DC is not placed. It can also occur if the moving unit follows moves into a location and then performs some activity like placing smoke grenades or searching.

JR
 
Top