SFF vs Final Fire

[Kijug]

Reference rules A8.31 and 8.4:

8.3 SUBSEQUENT FIRST FIRE: A DEFENDING Infantry unit/(its MG/IFE-weapon) already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again during that MPh as Area Fire by flipping its First Fire counter over to the Final Fire side. Such fire can leave Residual FP but if using a MG/IFE is treated as Sustained Fire and penalized accordingly. Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire.

8.4 FINAL FIRE: That portion of Defensive Fire which occurs during the DFPh is called Final Fire. During Final Fire any of the DEFENDER'S units/weapons that are not marked with a First, Final, Intensive, or No Fire counter may fire. Any such units/weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, therefore also possibly benefiting from PBF (or TPBF). A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire.

Situation A: The ENEMY is moving into Woods, spending 2 MF. The FRIENDLY unit First Fires at the ENEMY unit. Now the FRIENDLY unit decides to SFF and must use its Inherent FP + MG (A8.31) with the MG as Sustained Fire. To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but must use all available MG/IFE.

Situation B: Two ENEMY units are ADJACENT to a FRIENDLY unit in two different Locations. It is the DFPh. The FRIENDLY unit and its MG are marked as First Fired. The FRIENDLY unit Final Fires its Inherent FP at ENEMY #1 (1/2 FP) and then Final Fires its SW at ENEMY #2 (1/2 FP as Sustained Fire). To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but does not have to use all available MG/IFE.

Then again, does the underline 8.4 rule imply that, in Situation B, after the FRIENDLY unit Final Fires its Inherent FP and is marked with a Final Fire marker...it cannot Final Fire its MG. This implies a pro/con during SFF whereby you get to fire again (1/2 FP) but with the "penalty" of having to fire everything and including Sustained Fire.

 

[buser333]

Reference rules A8.31 and 8.4:

8.3 SUBSEQUENT FIRST FIRE: A DEFENDING Infantry unit/(its MG/IFE-weapon) already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again during that MPh as Area Fire by flipping its First Fire counter over to the Final Fire side. Such fire can leave Residual FP but if using a MG/IFE is treated as Sustained Fire and penalized accordingly. Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire.

8.4 FINAL FIRE: That portion of Defensive Fire which occurs during the DFPh is called Final Fire. During Final Fire any of the DEFENDER'S units/weapons that are not marked with a First, Final, Intensive, or No Fire counter may fire. Any such units/weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, therefore also possibly benefiting from PBF (or TPBF). A unit/weapon already marked with a Final Fire counter cannot fire during Final Fire.

Situation A: The ENEMY is moving into Woods, spending 2 MF. The FRIENDLY unit First Fires at the ENEMY unit. Now the FRIENDLY unit decides to SFF and must use its Inherent FP + MG (A8.31) with the MG as Sustained Fire. To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but must use all available MG/IFE.

Situation B: Two ENEMY units are ADJACENT to a FRIENDLY unit in two different Locations. It is the DFPh. The FRIENDLY unit and its MG are marked as First Fired. The FRIENDLY unit Final Fires its Inherent FP at ENEMY #1 (1/2 FP) and then Final Fires its SW at ENEMY #2 (1/2 FP as Sustained Fire). To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but does not have to use all available MG/IFE.

Then again, does the underline 8.4 rule imply that, in Situation B, after the FRIENDLY unit Final Fires its Inherent FP and is marked with a Final Fire marker...it cannot Final Fire its MG. This implies a pro/con during SFF whereby you get to fire again (1/2 FP) but with the "penalty" of having to fire everything and including Sustained Fire.

In Situation A the unit does not need to use its MG, but if not used it cannot use it again that Player Turn (except in cases of FPF).

Situation B is a bit intriguing to me as I have never seen it applied that way. Which leads me to suspect that once any first fired unit/weapon uses Final Fire they are all marked with Final Fire. But I am not sure about this...

 

[jrv]

8.3 SUBSEQUENT FIRST FIRE: A DEFENDING Infantry unit/(its MG/IFE-weapon) already marked with a First Fire counter may Defensive First Fire again during that MPh as Area Fire by flipping its First Fire counter over to the Final Fire side. Such fire can leave Residual FP but if using a MG/IFE is treated as Sustained Fire and penalized accordingly. Only Small Arms [EXC: MOL], MG, and IFE can be used as Subsequent First Fire.

Situation A: The ENEMY is moving into Woods, spending 2 MF. The FRIENDLY unit First Fires at the ENEMY unit. Now the FRIENDLY unit decides to SFF and must use its Inherent FP + MG (A8.31) with the MG as Sustained Fire. To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but must use all available MG/IFE.

Situation B: Two ENEMY units are ADJACENT to a FRIENDLY unit in two different Locations. It is the DFPh. The FRIENDLY unit and its MG are marked as First Fired. The FRIENDLY unit Final Fires its Inherent FP at ENEMY #1 (1/2 FP) and then Final Fires its SW at ENEMY #2 (1/2 FP as Sustained Fire). To put another way, the FRIENDLY gets a "second 1/2 FP shot" but does not have to use all available MG/IFE.

A8.3 "Whenever a unit uses Subsequent First Fire, it must use all MG/IFE in its possession (up to the unit's normal operation capabilities; 7.35-.353) as Subsequent First Fire or forfeit their use for the remainder of that Player Turn (barring FPF)"

The unit has the option to decline to use its MG/IFE as SFF, but can't use its inherent as SFF at one target and its MG/IFE at another. The unit and all weapons are marked with Final Fire.

During DFPh a unit marked with First Fire could fire its inherent alone at an adjacent target. I am not sure it could fire its MGs alone, but it could be possible. However, once a unit or its weapon fires, the unit and all its weapons are marked with a Final Fire counter and may no longer attack.

JR

 

[Kijug]

Ahhh...dang. Errr! I got FPF mixed up with SFF. Humph! I knew something wasn't right.

Ya know when you read the rules for the zillionth time and something goes "Oh, I never played that way." Well, there's probably a reason! LOL!

Thanks, y'all.

 

[jrv]

Ahhh...dang. Errr! I got FPF mixed up with SFF. Humph! I knew something wasn't right.

Ya know when you read the rules for the zillionth time and something goes "Oh, I never played that way." Well, there's probably a reason! LOL!

Yes, with FPF you have no choice: you must use MGs/IFE.

JR

 

[geezer]

I must say i have had a problem with A8.4 and am still not sure on how to play it correctly.

For one, I am not totally convinced that situation B is illegal (although 8.4 seems to go that way).

If it is illegal, then it seems that one could argue that a squad and mg can never fire at different targets in the defensive fire phase, regardless if they are marked first fire or not ( for same reasons as above, as-soon as one fires, both are marked final). Is that correct? Ive never played it that way.

What if squad is marked first fire and mg is not marked? Can mg fire at non-adjacent unit and then squad final fire at adjacent?

I remember reading a similar topic on here but cant remember what the ruling was. Regardless, i think a little rewording or 8.4 would be beneficial.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I must say i have had a problem with A8.4 and am still not sure on how to play it correctly.

For one, I am not totally convinced that situation B is illegal (although 8.4 seems to go that way).

If it is illegal, then it seems that one could argue that a squad and mg can never fire at different targets in the defensive fire phase, regardless if they are marked first fire or not ( for same reasons as above, as-soon as one fires, both are marked final). Is that correct? Ive never played it that way.

What if squad is marked first fire and mg is not marked? Can mg fire at non-adjacent unit and then squad final fire at adjacent?

I remember reading a similar topic on here but cant remember what the ruling was. Regardless, i think a little rewording or 8.4 would be beneficial.

I believe that A8.4 certainly alludes to a singular hex (target location) situation, "... but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, ...". As jrv has pointed out once either the Sqd or the SW (or both together) attack a single target location that element is marked Final Fired including its SW even if they didn't fire, and the Sqd even though they may have not fired. That attack is now complete and neither the Sqd or its possessed SW may fire at a non-adjacent non-moving target, which means neither may fire once the combined Sqd/SW is marked Final Fired during the DFPh. Once either the SW or the Sqd is marked First Fired prior to the DFPh, during the DFPh if either takes a shot both are marked as Final Fired and no further shots may be taken by either.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

However, once a unit or its weapon fires, the unit and all its weapons are marked with a Final Fire counter and may no longer attack.

That's certainly true when using SFF - per A8.3:
"... If a unit, or any SW/Gun it possesses, uses Subsequent First Fire (or Intensive Fire) then that unit and all its SW/Guns are marked with a Final Fire counter."

But I am not sure that is the case in DFPh though. Wouldn't it mean that an AFV that first fires its CMG would be marked Final Fire and then it could not fire its MA? (Don't think that's the intention).

 

[Eagle4ty]

That's certainly true when using SFF - per A8.3:
"... If a unit, or any SW/Gun it possesses, uses Subsequent First Fire (or Intensive Fire) then that unit and all its SW/Guns are marked with a Final Fire counter."

But I am not sure that is the case in DFPh though. Wouldn't it mean that an AFV that first fires its CMG would be marked Final Fire and then it could not fire its MA? (Don't think that's the intention).

Now that is an interesting perspective I had not considered previously.?

From most everything published earlier [EX: First/Final Fire flow chart] and a literal interpretation of the rules (as I see it), once a unit fires a weapon in the DFPh (Inherent or SW) or as you have rightly pointed out a vehicle's MG(s) or MA) that unit is marked with a Final Fire counter and shouldn't be allowed another attack. However, I doubt if I've EVER seen this applied to a vehicle as usually one fires its MG(s)/MA and follows up with an attack from the system(s) that have yet not fired. It would certainly be a point of discussion and more than likely a clarification/ruling/pronouncement from on higher.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Now that is an interesting perspective I had not considered previously.?

From most everything published earlier [EX: First/Final Fire flow chart] and a literal interpretation of the rules (as I see it), once a unit fires a weapon in the DFPh (Inherent or SW) or as you have rightly pointed out a vehicle's MG(s) or MA) that unit is marked with a Final Fire counter and shouldn't be allowed another attack. However, I doubt if I've EVER seen this applied to a vehicle as usually one fires its MG(s)/MA and follows up with an attack from the system(s) that have yet not fired. It would certainly be a point of discussion and more than likely a clarification/ruling/pronouncement from on higher.

Another odd situation that would happen if a Final Fire is placed on everything would be when e.g., an unmarked squad with an unmarked HMG fires (combining inherent FP with the HMG) in the DFPh. The squad would be marked Final Fire now, but if the HMG would as well, then ROF goes out the window. Another thing I don't believe is the intention.

I.e., in the DFPh, I think that Final Fire counters are placed individually on units/weapons that fire.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Another odd situation that would happen if a Final Fire is placed on everything would be when e.g., an unmarked squad with an unmarked HMG fires (combining inherent FP with the HMG) in the DFPh. The squad would be marked Final Fire now, but if the HMG would as well, then ROF goes out the window. Another thing I don't believe is the intention.

I.e., in the DFPh, I think that Final Fire counters are placed individually on units/weapons that fire.

That certainly makes a valid point and I would venture a SWAG that would change several player's game play. In all the years I've been playing, including tournaments, I don't seem to conscientiously recall an instance where an opponent has used or complained that he was unable to use this application of the rule except as I have intimated, for vehicle fire during the DFPh. I'm quite sure it would somewhat change my game play style.

 

[geezer]

I.e., in the DFPh, I think that Final Fire counters are placed individually on units/weapons that fire.

I think i agree with you, especially when it comes to units that have no fire counters at start of phase. Playing it otherwise would lead to some Inconsistencies as you have pointed out.

But to be consistent, you’d have to apply that rule to units/weapons that are already marked with a first fire counter.

Example: During defensive fire phase squad (not marked by fire counter) could chose to fire at non-adjacent unit and, unless he cowered, could then fire its mg (which is marked by first fire counter) at an adjacent unit.

Seems like not many play this way. This is a pretty common situation and im surprised its still not too clear. Maybe someone can find a q&a that address this? Ive searched without success.

 

[Larry]

That certainly makes a valid point and I would venture a SWAG that would change several player's game play. In all the years I've been playing, including tournaments, I don't seem to conscientiously recall an instance where an opponent has used or complained that he was unable to use this application of the rule except as I have intimated, for vehicle fire during the DFPh. I'm quite sure it would somewhat change my game play style.

A8.4 -- Any such units/weapons that are marked with a First Fire counter may also fire again (by flipping their First Fire marker over to the Final Fire side), but as Area Fire and only at units in an adjacent (or same) hex, therefore also possibly benefiting from PBF (or TPBF)

/ = and/or from the index. The unit and its weapons may fire independently at adjacent or same hex targets. {deleted, found answer in A9.3)

 

[Eagle4ty]

/ = and/or from the index. The unit and its weapons may fire independently at adjacent or same hex targets. {deleted, found answer in A9.3)

Thanks Larry, after reviewing A8.3 with that mindset I do see how it could, and probably should, be interpreted that way. Boy have I missed out on a lot of shots over the years!??

 

[geezer]

This one had been bothering me for a while and potentially occurs frequently, so I sent an email to mmp.


During the defensive fire phase, a squad&mmg want to make fire attacks. The squad (only) is marked with a def first fire counter.The wording of the rule A8.4 does not make clear the process of making fire attacks and placing counters when sw are in play.

Is it legal for the squad to fire his mmg at full fp vs a non-ADJACENT unit and then (provided it didn’t cower) have the squad use final fire at an ADJACENT unit? Would the answer be different if the situation was reversed? ( Mmg only is marked with a first fire counter, squad fires at non adjacent unit and then mmg final fires @ adjacent unit.


Yes to both.

....Perry
MMP

Interesting that first situation is allowed, but not the second.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Interesting that first situation is allowed, but not the second.

Believe the second question was misunderstood....stand by...

 

[Russ Isaia]

Believe the second question was misunderstood....stand by...

Your signature ("There is no spoon") is certainly apt here.

There was no second question. Just one question, asked in two contexts (the situation, and the situation in reserve). And the answer to the first question in both contexts was "yes to both."

Anyway, the way I understand it.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There was no second question. Just one question, asked in two contexts (the situation, and the situation in reserve). And the answer to the first question in both contexts was "yes to both."

well, I see two questions:

Is it legal for the squad to fire his mmg at full fp vs a non-ADJACENT unit and then (provided it didn’t cower) have the squad use final fire at an ADJACENT unit? Would the answer be different if the situation was reversed? ( Mmg only is marked with a first fire counter, squad fires at non adjacent unit and then mmg final fires @ adjacent unit.

Red and blue. The answer to the blue is not "Yes" - i.e., the answer would "not be any different". Hence "Yes to both" is incorrect.

 

[geezer]

Klas is correct, Perry revised his answer to:

Yes, no.

will add this to the Q&A section but will post the revised answer only to (hopefully) avoid confusion

 

[Russ Isaia]

well, I see two questions:



Red and blue. The answer to the blue is not "Yes" - i.e., the answer would "not be any different". Hence "Yes to both" is incorrect.

Klas is correct, Perry revised his answer to:

Yes, no.

will add this to the Q&A section but will post the revised answer only to (hopefully) avoid confusion

Literalists.