SMCs in Vehicular CC

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
23977
In the above diagram, it is the start of the CCPh. The 457 will obviously attack the AFV in conjuction with the 9-1 leader. What about the 7-0 though? Can it stack with the 457 and 9-1for defensive purposes if the initial CC attack fails or will it be forced to defend alone if the AFV decides to attack it?
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Good question, I think a strict reading would prevent it (A11.14, "A SMC defends in CC as part of the group it attacks with"; A11.5, "No more than two units may combine"), but it may have been an oversight as A11.14 also mentions "a SMC must attack with the MMC it is stacked on top of if it is to combine FP with any MMC". I couldn't find anything in Klas's or my compilations, and "CCV" and "SMC" are too short to use in searches here. This odd case might be worthy of asking Perry.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I think he's on his own when attacking/defending vs an AFV like that, as only one SMC can combine with an MMC vs vehicles....
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Okay. Having read this thread, the French commander decides that it isn't a good idea to stack two SMCs with his MMCs when there is armour about. Instead, he decides to stack a 10-3 leader with a CX HS because he likes to live dangerously.

23979

This time the CC DR is a 1,1. "Happy Days! Caloo Calay!" says the French player. "...CCV of 4 less 3 for leadership which is cancelled out by motion and CX so that is a burning wreck, n'est ce pas?

"Perhaps" says his German opponent, "but don't forget to do your leader creation dr".

"Why, what a sporting chap you are to remind me. I must confess that I had clean forgotten about that. Let's roll one die...6... so take one off for being against an AFV for a final dr of 5 and that is a freebie 7-0 leader. Formidable! Now where are those blaze counters?"

"Not so fast. Can I direct you to the terms of A18.12? This says, "Anytime a MMC attacking in CC rolls an Original 2 DR, the player makes an immediate dr on the Leader Creation Table. If this results in the creation of a leader, that leader must add his leadership to the Original 2 CC DR that created him (even if the modifier is a +1)..."
Regrettably this means that the 7-0 must participate in the attack and the 10-3 cannot since, as you know, only one SMC can join an MMC when attacking an AFV in close combat. So that is a DR of 2 adding 2 for motion and 1 for being CX which makes a total of 5 for no effect."

"But I can still roll for a possible kill under A11.501, no? One dr...merde! I rolled a six! So no effect."

"Genau. And now it is my Panzer's turn to attack and, yes, I think that I will attack that 10-3 leader who is now on his own since he did not participate in the CC attack. Now let's see...2,1 at odds of 4 to 2...Mr 10-3 is now dead. How sad for him."

Was this played correctly?
 
Last edited:

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
In the OP if the French player wanted to, he could declare that the 7-0 is attacking/defending with the squad (A11.14 allows the French player to rearrange the stack to swap the 9-1 and 7-0) but this leaves the 9-1 to defend by himself.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
The attack back would be a 2:1 attack. 8FP CMG halved for motion = 4 / SMC CCV = 2.
 

JimWhite

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
783
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
"Anytime a MMC attacking in CC rolls an Original 2 DR, the player makes an immediate dr on the Leader Creation Table. If this results in the creation of a leader, that leader must add his leadership to the Original 2 CC DR that created him (even if the modifier is a +1)..."
I will now for about the 8th time try to find out out why a leader is created in this situation.

The field promotion rules to me should only apply to situations where there is no leader present...and I believe that was the intent of the designers. It seems to me they created those rules to have a couple of situations in the game where if no leader was present somebody could step up (for better or worse). So two situations were created for when an MMC rolled snake eyes leader creation could occur. Self-rally and CC...and to me both situations can only occur when NO leader is present.

Self-rally...MMC rallying alone rolls snakes...possible leader. No problem.

Close Combat...MMC attacking alone rolls snakes...possible leader. No problem.

Yet for years everybody has also played that if an MMC STACKED with a leader rolls snakes in CC...then ANOTHER leader can be created which takes the place of the original leader.

How is this possible? The MMC didn't rolls snakes....the STACK rolled snakes.

I mean we differentiate between single units and stacks doing stuff all the time. Why not in this situation?

Anyway...I realize this will most likely be another futile effort on my part to enlighten others with my brilliant insight concerning one of my (few) pet peeves about a rules interpretation...:D
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I will now for about the 8th time try to find out out why a leader is created in this situation.

The field promotion rules to me should only apply to situations where there is no leader present...and I believe that was the intent of the designers. It seems to me they created those rules to have a couple of situations in the game where if no leader was present somebody could step up (for better or worse). So two situations were created for when an MMC rolled snake eyes leader creation could occur. Self-rally and CC...and to me both situations can only occur when NO leader is present.

Self-rally...MMC rallying alone rolls snakes...possible leader. No problem.

Close Combat...MMC attacking alone rolls snakes...possible leader. No problem.

Yet for years everybody has also played that if an MMC STACKED with a leader rolls snakes in CC...then ANOTHER leader can be created which takes the place of the original leader.

How is this possible? The MMC didn't rolls snakes....the STACK rolled snakes.

I mean we differentiate between single units and stacks doing stuff all the time. Why not in this situation?

Anyway...I realize this will most likely be another futile effort on my part to enlighten others with my brilliant insight concerning one of my (few) pet peeves about a rules interpretation...:D
This thought had occurred to me and makes perfect sense. Would be a very simple alteration to the rules as they are currently written. As you say though, it is the stack that rolls the snake eyes as opposed to the MMC that forms part of it.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Think about it this way...
5 men being directed by a good leader, and one of them suddenly decides he is going to "lead" his buddies and take out that tank. They, being his buddies, have listened to him before, and in the heat of the moment, follow his lead this time. they forget about the officer, to his detriment.

Also, think about the probability of all of this happening. Does it happen in the game, of course it does. But how often? Maybe once in a lifetime of playing. I've been playing for over 40 years and it still hasn't happened to me. In fact this is the first time the topic has even come up, which is interesting as it leads me to re-read the rules and learn more about this game, but in the end it won't change how I play. Let's face it, who leaves a 10-3 leader with just a halfsquad in a position vulnerable to a tank like that? Maybe it is a perfect learning experience and never happens again. At best it was already a desperate situation and the units were running for their lives. Maybe the good leader sacrificed himself to save his troops. Lessen - don't go playing with tanks using bayonets.
 

JimWhite

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
783
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
This thought had occurred to me and makes perfect sense. Would be a very simple alteration to the rules as they are currently written. As you say though, it is the stack that rolls the snake eyes as opposed to the MMC that forms part of it.
Simple fix:

"Anytime a MMC attacking in CC rolls an Original 2 DR, the player makes an immediate dr on the Leader Creation Table. If this results in the creation of a leader, that leader must add his leadership to the Original 2 CC DR that created him (even if the modifier is a +1)..."

ERRATA: Add "(without accompanying leader)" after "attacking"

It just bugs me...why would the original designers go out of their way to create a rules section called "Field Promotions" that allows leader creation in two ways...and one way there has to be no leader present...and the other there can be a leader present?
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
Q_and_A said:
A18.12
Q. Leader and MMC attack an enemy MMC in CC. They roll a 2. Do you then roll for another Leader?
A. Roll for Leader Creation normally. Any new leader must join into this attack.
[It does seem a Keystone Cops interpretation that a created inferior leader would bump-out a superior leader already directing the leader-spawning MMC, but I guess that's a charm of a game of chaos.]
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,545
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Simple fix:

"Anytime a MMC attacking in CC rolls an Original 2 DR, the player makes an immediate dr on the Leader Creation Table. If this results in the creation of a leader, that leader must add his leadership to the Original 2 CC DR that created him (even if the modifier is a +1)..."

ERRATA: Add "(without accompanying leader)" after "attacking"

It just bugs me...why would the original designers go out of their way to create a rules section called "Field Promotions" that allows leader creation in two ways...and one way there has to be no leader present...and the other there can be a leader present?
Unfortunately, there is a Q&A which indicates that presence of a leader with the MMC does not bar field promotion. The question is in the context of a CC attack against another MMC but the principle appears to be the same.

A18.12
Leader and MMC attack an enemy MMC in CC. They roll a 2. Do you then roll for another Leader?

A. Roll for Leader Creation normally. Any new leader must join into this attack.



Edited to add that Wayne beat me to it!
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
It just bugs me...why would the original designers go out of their way to create a rules section called "Field Promotions" that allows leader creation in two ways...and one way there has to be no leader present...and the other there can be a leader present?
I keep thinking about the multitude of movies where a member of a group challenges the leader of the group for said leadership of that group. Maybe the designers were watching too many movies.
IMNSHO there are more impactful things to focus on, like clarifying Bypass Movement situations.

btw, if a British or German first line or better squad is in this situation it has at least a 50% chance of creating an 8-1 leader. Even an American 1st line squad has a 33% chance.

The situation has [roll snakes (1/36 chance)] x [extra roll doesn't kill (4/6 chance)] x [chance of getting lower level ldr (multiple situations) means at best a 4/216 or 1.9% chance of happening, once you are even in the situation. Maybe it will happen before my ASL career ends.
 

JimWhite

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
783
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
Again...the rule says MMC...not STACK.

I mean why can't we just say the Leader rolled the snakes and just so happened to be attacking with an MMC?

That is what bugs me... 🤪

If somebody could explain why the rule has been interpreted (and Q&A'd) the other way I would really like to hear it.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Well, you could change the rule to allow the attack with the leader, with the MMC supporting it... CCV = 2 +1 for extra MMC = 3 CCV and prevent the entire situation.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Again...the rule says MMC...not STACK.
I think your interpretation has merit, however, it could still be a stack - there could be multiple MMC attacking.

It would certainly solve the issue with a second leader being created when a MMC+SMC is attacking a vehicle.
 
Reactions: EJ1
Top