Night question: E1.91 INITIAL USE

[bennyb]

hi guys.

The situation:
NVR is zero and my Cloaked squad has just sucessfully Searched an adjacent hex and suffered a CR as a result. According to the rules this means a Gunflash is then placed in the hexes just searched.
That's all fine and good, my question is does this satisfy the third condition of 1.91 for initial use of starshells? Is a CR resulting from a Search attempt regarded as an "attack"? What is the definition of an attack? The chapter divider states just "Friendly Gunflash", so the conditions on the divider seem to be satisfied but possibly not E1.91.

thanks in advance.

Ben

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi



I find the starshell usage rules in the text quite difficult to understand, especially for initial usage, but the dividers are very useful. As long as the conditions on the dividers are fulfilled it is definitively ok to fire a starshell in my opinion. I also think that the attack they write about is just a general term to include all possible reasons for gunflashes.


Bjørnar

 

[bennyb]

The ASOP divider states that the sequence of play listed on the divider supercedes the rules but this isn't necessarily the case for the Chapter E divider.. At least not that I can see.
I'm interested to hear the legality arguments though

Ben

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi


The ASOP states the moment you may perform a certain action. However, the initial starshell can be fired at the moment one of the three specific cases is fulfilled. Hence the initial starshell usage is not included in the ASOP (as far as I have seen). The ASOP only says when to fire a starshell after the player turn a starshell was first fired.

In my opinion there is no counteracting rules in this case as the initial usage is not included in the ASOP, only in the chap E rules.

I hope I understood you correct.


Bjørnar

 

[Ole Boe]

The ASOP states the moment you may perform a certain action. However, the initial starshell can be fired at the moment one of the three specific cases is fulfilled. Hence the initial starshell usage is not included in the ASOP (as far as I have seen). The ASOP only says when to fire a starshell after the player turn a starshell was first fired.

The initial starshell usage is included in the ASOP, ex: step 3.35D (During ITS MPh) says: "Leader(s) (/MMC/CE AFV, if a Starshell/IR has been fired in no previous Player Turn) may attempt to fire Starshell(s) (E1.921).".

But it doesn't help us here, since the ASOP doesn't explain exactly what makes it legal to do this initial placement.

As for whether the chapter E divider or the rules take precedence, there's no official rule about this. In this case though, it looks to me as if the rules are more detailed, and thus should be the final word.

 

[bennyb]

As for whether the chapter E divider or the rules take precedence, there's no official rule about this. In this case though, it looks to me as if the rules are more detailed, and thus should be the final word.

Yes that was my thought too.

If the rule does indeed have precedence over the Chapter Divider it still leaves the question: is a Search CR the result of an "attack"?

Ben

 

[Jeff Leslie]

Not really sure what the ASOP has to do with the original question, but I am assuming that your searching friendly unit got CR'd due to an adjacent enemy unit. According to E1.86, Searching/Mopping Up causes a Gunflash in all of the affected concealed/broken DEFENDER's Locations, provided the Searcher suffers Casualty Reduction (A12.154). With that in mind, the adjacent enemy unit now wears a gunflash counter, thus fulfilling the 3rd condition for initial starshell use in E1.91. A gunflash is a gunflash is a gunflash, regardless of whether it is on a First Fire counter or due to the E1.86 mandated gunflash placement. Even though the adjacent enemy unit present that caused the CR on your unit didn't actually make a DFF attack, it still gets a generic gunflash counter due to E1.86.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Ole Boe]

According to E1.86, Searching/Mopping Up causes a Gunflash in all of the affected concealed/broken DEFENDER's Locations, provided the Searcher suffers Casualty Reduction (A12.154). With that in mind, the adjacent enemy unit now wears a gunflash counter, thus fulfilling the 3rd condition for initial starshell use in E1.91

No it doesn't unless you consider this "an attack vs an enemy unit.".

A gunflash is a gunflash is a gunflash, regardless of whether it is on a First Fire counter or due to the E1.86 mandated gunflash placement. Even though the adjacent enemy unit present that caused the CR on your unit didn't actually make a DFF attack, it still gets a generic gunflash counter due to E1.86.

Yes it does, but E1.91's 3rd condition requires one of two specific types of Gunflashes: It must be from "enemy FFE or an attack vs an enemy unit". If any Gunflash had been sufficient, then E1.91 wouldn't have had those requirements.

So the question is if a Search casualty dr is considered "an attack vs an enemy unit"...

 

[Jeff Leslie]

Good point Ole, I suppose that doesn't qualify as an attack vs an enemy unit. Sometimes in ASL you just don't get something until somebody else points it out to you. The bad thing about playing night rules is if you do something wrong chances are your opponent isn't any better than you at night rules and won't catch the error either....

I suppose in this situation then with the NVR being 0, the only thing the friendly player could hope for is that a friendly unit has LOS to the gunflashes on the enemy unit and could shoot in the AFPh, which would then meet the 3rd criteria, although not until the following DFPh would he be able to fire a SS (assuming the enemy didn't fire a SS first).

 

[bennyb]

Perry's answer.

> E1.91 states "a Gunflash is placed due to an enemy FFE or an attack vs an enemy
> unit."
> But the Chapter E divider states only a "Friendly Gunflash" is required.
>
> e.g. A Searching attacker suffers a Search CR so a Gunflash is placed in the
> Defender's hex. If the Chapter E divider has precedence then it doesn't matter
> and no further clarification is needed. But if rule E1.91 has precedence then
> the definition of "attack" matters. Is a Search CR an "attack"?



Yes; place a Gunflash.



.....Perry

 

[bennyb]

It looks like the chapter E. divider is the one to follow. A Search CR is considered to be an attack.

Thanks for your help Perry and those who responded.

Ben

 

[Jeff Leslie]

> E1.91 states "a Gunflash is placed due to an enemy FFE or an attack vs an enemy
> unit."
> But the Chapter E divider states only a "Friendly Gunflash" is required.
>
> e.g. A Searching attacker suffers a Search CR so a Gunflash is placed in the
> Defender's hex. If the Chapter E divider has precedence then it doesn't matter
> and no further clarification is needed. But if rule E1.91 has precedence then
> the definition of "attack" matters. Is a Search CR an "attack"?



Yes; place a Gunflash.



.....Perry

Ok, I'll buy it that search casualties are an attack, but an attack by whom? Here is a direct quote from the rules:

1.86 Searching/Mopping Up: Searching/Mopping Up causes a Gunflash in all of the affected concealed/broken DEFENDER's Locations, provided the Searcher suffers Casualty Reduction (A12.154).

This tells me that the ATTACKER, i.e. the one who searched/got CR'd, does NOT get a gunflash marker. With that in mind, E1.91 states FRIENDLY gunflash is required for first SS use, whether you get that through assumption from the rules section or verbatim off the chapter E divider.

I don't think the question to Perry addresses whether gunflashes placed on the DEFENDER from search casualties against the ATTACKER actually qualify the ATTACKER for SS first use - I think it just asks Perry whether search casualties are considered an attack.

Seems to me that the attacker still doesn't qualify for first SS use just from gunflashes placed on the DEFENDER due to search casualties against the ATTACKER, at least from the friendly gunflash condition in E1.91.

I still say that in this situation, the best thing the ATTACKER could hope for is that somebody could fire at the DEFENDER's gunflashes in the AFPh, which would qualify the current ATTACKER to fire the first SS in his following DFPh (when he is actually the DEFENDER). The current DEFENDER, however, could fire the first SS now in the ATTACKER's MPh or in his own DFPh since he has friendly gunflashes on his unit that caused the search casualties on the ATTACKER.

 

[bennyb]

Ok, I'll buy it that search casualties are an attack, but an attack by whom? Here is a direct quote from the rules:

This tells me that the ATTACKER, i.e. the one who searched/got CR'd, does NOT get a gunflash marker. With that in mind, E1.91 states FRIENDLY gunflash is required for first SS use, whether you get that through assumption from the rules section or verbatim off the chapter E divider.

I don't think the question to Perry addresses whether gunflashes placed on the DEFENDER from search casualties against the ATTACKER actually qualify the ATTACKER for SS first use - I think it just asks Perry whether search casualties are considered an attack.

Seems to me that the attacker still doesn't qualify for first SS use just from gunflashes placed on the DEFENDER due to search casualties against the ATTACKER, at least from the friendly gunflash condition in E1.91.

I still say that in this situation, the best thing the ATTACKER could hope for is that somebody could fire at the DEFENDER's gunflashes in the AFPh, which would qualify the current ATTACKER to fire the first SS in his following DFPh (when he is actually the DEFENDER). The current DEFENDER, however, could fire the first SS now in the ATTACKER's MPh or in his own DFPh since he has friendly gunflashes on his unit that caused the search casualties on the ATTACKER.

Search casualties are of course an attack by the unit in the location being searched, against the unit doing the searching. And because there is now a Gunflash caused by a friendly attack, Starshells may be placed freely. It seems pretty clear to me unless I'm missing something.
It's not the guy doing the searching who is attempting Starshells in this case Jeff, it's the scenario Defender so the condition is satisfied.

Ben