Spotters and Opportunity Fire

[Juan SantaX]

The spotter is treated as if using a SW. The spotter is "firing" in some sense. I don't think the spotter could be used in the AFPh if it fired in the PFPh, for instance. It couldn't be used if it did not have capacity to use a SW in the AFPh either, e.g. it was a HS/SMC that fired inherent or another SW.

The remaining question is whether a MTR marked with an Opportunity Fire marker can use a spotter that is not, and if so, can use that spotter without penalty. As an example of "odd behavior" if allowed without penalty, could a designated spotter that was broken but just rallied this turn run up to the lines and direct the MTR this turn? That sounds sleaze to me. But perhaps it is how it is played.

JR

Only for the shake of the argument, ok? I don’t know the rules like you...it’s using a sw for just two effects as the rule says. I don’t see him shooting but just spotting... Agree with you about using sw in both the PFPh/AFPh, A7.1.

And for the last paragraph, A4.41 also looks weird ... but maybe there is no Area Fire penalty in that situation for the firing unit A7.23, A7.24, C.4...

Anyway, as the solution is full of grey zones, I would play it as my opponent wants to play it

Best

 

[Pyth]

The spotter is treated as if using a SW. The spotter is "firing" in some sense. I don't think the spotter could be used in the AFPh if it fired in the PFPh, for instance. It couldn't be used if it did not have capacity to use a SW in the AFPh either, e.g. it was a HS/SMC that fired inherent or another SW.

The remaining question is whether a MTR marked with an Opportunity Fire marker can use a spotter that is not, and if so, can use that spotter without penalty. As an example of "odd behavior" if allowed without penalty, could a designated spotter that was broken but just rallied this turn run up to the lines and direct the MTR this turn? That sounds sleaze to me. But perhaps it is how it is played.

JR

I think Juan Santax may have had it correctly in his earlier post. I also think the Spotter rules are a bit thin and could use clarification. And that's after reading several Q&As about spotting.

So JRV, I think the rules do say in what sense the spotter is firing: "Spotting is considered the equivalent of using a SW for purposes of movement curtailment and inherent FP loss" -- so that's it. IOWs The spotter is not firing for the purposes of concealment loss etc.

So, following Juan's suggestion imo works very well, as follows:

Spotters aren't marked Opp fire for spotting purposes, they are only marked for Opp fire if they wish to fire weapons in the AFph without penalty. Being marked OPP fire IS a concealment loss action. Concealment is lost normally.

Suppose a MTR has a concealed Squad as its spotter. This Spotter Squad also possesses a HMG. Both MTR and Squad are marked Opportunity Fire in the PFph so both lose concealment (if in enemy LOS). The squad may spot normally for the MTR and may use its HMG in the AFph without penalty and with full ROF, as spotting is the use of a SW and a full squad may use two.

Same deal as above except now the spotter squad is a Half squad (or/Crew or/SMC). Here's how I think it should work: If marked for OPP fire the half squad may not spot normally for the MTR. Being marked OPP fire commits the HS's firepower (whether it actually decides to fire at something in the AFph or not) -- in other words the HS does not have the option of forgoing its OPP fire shot and instead spotting for the MTR. If the MTR wished to OPP fire the HS spotter must not be a marked for OPP Fire. (It probably wasn't the best use of resources to equip a MTR spotting half squad with an HMG. Just saying.)

In either case, half or full squad, if the spotter wished to retain concealment it would need to confine itself to spotting and not undertake concealment loss actions like firing weapons or being marked OPP fire.

I don't see any conficts/sleazes with the interpretation I've given. But it's just one interpretation... others are possible I suppose.

[Edit... Well there is an odd case, but I wouldn't call it a sleaze. According to me, a MTR would be able to use spotted fire in the PFph, and if the spotter is a full squad, that squad would be able to be marked OPP fire. (The MTR gets the prepfired marker.) The squad isn't firing in two phases because -- spotting isn't firing [EXC for movement curtailment and loss of inherent FP]]

 

[Vinnie]

I think Juan Santax may have had it correctly in his earlier post. I also think the Spotter rules are a bit thin and could use clarification. And that's after reading several Q&As about spotting.

So JRV, I think the rules do say in what sense the spotter is firing: "Spotting is considered the equivalent of using a SW for purposes of movement curtailment and inherent FP loss" -- so that's it. IOWs The spotter is not firing for the purposes of concealment loss etc.

So, following Juan's suggestion imo works very well, as follows:

Spotters aren't marked Opp fire for spotting purposes, they are only marked for Opp fire if they wish to fire weapons in the AFph without penalty. Being marked OPP fire IS a concealment loss action. Concealment is lost normally.

Suppose a MTR has a concealed Squad as its spotter. This Spotter Squad also possesses a HMG. Both MTR and Squad are marked Opportunity Fire in the PFph so both lose concealment (if in enemy LOS). The squad may spot normally for the MTR and may use its HMG in the AFph without penalty and with full ROF, as spotting is the use of a SW and a full squad may use two.

Same deal as above except now the spotter squad is a Half squad (or/Crew or/SMC). Here's how I think it should work: If marked for OPP fire the half squad may not spot normally for the MTR. Being marked OPP fire commits the HS's firepower (whether it actually decides to fire at something in the AFph or not) -- in other words the HS does not have the option of forgoing its OPP fire shot and instead spotting for the MTR. If the MTR wished to OPP fire the HS spotter must not be a marked for OPP Fire. (It probably wasn't the best use of resources to equip a MTR spotting half squad with an HMG. Just saying.)

In either case, half or full squad, if the spotter wished to retain concealment it would need to confine itself to spotting and not undertake concealment loss actions like firing weapons or being marked OPP fire.

I don't see any conficts/sleazes with the interpretation I've given. But it's just one interpretation... others are possible I suppose.

[Edit... Well there is an odd case, but I wouldn't call it a sleaze. According to me, a MTR would be able to use spotted fire in the PFph, and if the spotter is a full squad, that squad would be able to be marked OPP fire. (The MTR gets the prepfired marker.) The squad isn't firing in two phases because -- spotting isn't firing [EXC for movement curtailment and loss of inherent FP]]

This method is, for me, the worst of both worlds. Not onky do you have to recall who the spotter is but you have committed him to an action prior to taking it.
There is absolutely no support for it in the rules.
If you are going to commit the spotter to spotting, are you also committing the mortar to using that spotted fire? What if a better target within the mortars Los but out with the spotter's appears?

 

[Juan SantaX]

You have to predesignate the spotter for the whole game, and you can only change that if broken, etc Thats in the rules

 

[Juan SantaX]

And I cannot understand what do you mean with commitement to an action... Op firing? You commit your squad not to move in mph to fire without area fire penalties in de AFPh... But you dont have to roll for it if you dont want... You predesignate the spotter for the game, then you can spot iwith it in any fire phase. In the AFPh the mortar will fire with penalties if it didnt opp fire, and the mortar can use in that fire his designated spotter or not.

C9.3 Otherwise, each mortar
must have its own Spotter.....
... A new Spotter may not be designated until the original Spotter is eliminate,
broken, or captured - and not until the start of the owner’s MPh following such a loss of the original
Spotter....

imho, but who knows...

 

[Vinnie]

Yes the spotter must be designated but this does not mean he can't do anything else he normally could, merely tgat no one else can spot for that mortar. You can charge the spotter off all over the board if you want to!?
The suggested rule would have a unit predesignated to an action (you're a spotter so you MUST spot) which happens at no other time.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Yes the spotter must be designated but this does not mean he can't do anything else he normally could, merely tgat no one else can spot for that mortar. You can charge the spotter off all over the board if you want to!?
The suggested rule would have a unit predesignated to an action (you're a spotter so you MUST spot) which happens at no other time.

I understand now what you meant. No, you dont have to spot if you dont want. Maybe you prefer the mortar shooting on his own or just dont want to give clues to your enemy that the stack under a concealement has at least a spotter...or maybe the spotter will shoot on its own because the target is out of range/to close to be hit by the mortar..

Best

 

[Pyth]

Oh hell ... this message temporarily removed for Editing. I see where I screwed up...

 

[Pyth]

Okay here is my original response to Vinnie, corrected.... Most of the post is unchanged but the stuff between the dotted lines is commented on.

This method is, for me, the worst of both worlds. Not onky do you have to recall who the spotter is but you have committed him to an action prior to taking it.
There is absolutely no support for it in the rules.
If you are going to commit the spotter to spotting, are you also committing the mortar to using that spotted fire? What if a better target within the mortars Los but out with the spotter's appears?

"No support in the rules" -- I'm pretty sure I can find some support for all of it, but that doesn't mean I'm correct. Honestly I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you are objecting to. In the examples I gave -- can you identify a part that strikes you as bonkers? The RB isn't always clear, but neither are we... possibly I said something ambiguously or unclearly, possibly you've mistaken my meaning, and possibly I've said something completely bogus.

IMO The spotter is definitely committed to spotting by the rules "A new Spotter may not be designated until the original Spotter is eliminated, broken, or captured—and not until the start of the owner's MPh following such a loss of the original Spotter" The rules say you have to remember who the spotter is, (don't blame me) -- what isn't particularly clear is what "spotting" is -- Is "spotting" the act of lining up a specific shot for the mortar, or is spotting an ongoing status: 'the act of being a spotter.' IMO "spotting" is both but it isn't always clear in the RB which is being referred to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EDIT] HERE'S WHERE I SCREWED UP:

You object that the spotter is "committed...to an action prior to taking it" -- but what action is that? As I see it, I say that an OPP fire marked Half Squad can spot all the way up to the moment it actually uses its FP in the AFPh, at which point it is 'out of shots' [EXC. ROF] and cannot spot a shot for the mortar. This is in line with: "Spotting is considered the equivalent of using a SW for purposes of movement curtailment and inherent FP loss."

The above is NOT what I said. It's what I wish I'd said. It's what I now think is correct. Vinnie is right -- in my earlier post I say that being marked OPP fire itself constitutes a use of SW -- that is NOT supported in the RB I completely agree... this stuff here from my earlier post is bananas:

Same deal as above except now the spotter squad is a Half squad (or/Crew or/SMC). Here's how I think it should work: If marked for OPP fire the half squad may not spot normally for the MTR. Being marked OPP fire commits the HS's firepower (whether it actually decides to fire at something in the AFph or not) -- in other words the HS does not have the option of forgoing its OPP fire shot and instead spotting for the MTR. If the MTR wished to OPP fire the HS spotter must not be a marked for OPP Fire. (It probably wasn't the best use of resources to equip a MTR spotting half squad with an HMG. Just saying.)

Wow! That's quite a screw up. I claimed to be saying exactly the opposite of what I'd said -- Don't ask how I managed this, let's just say sometimes the RB gets a person turned around. What I hope doesn't get lost in this mess is that the correct version (the version I claimed to have made in my response to Vinnie,) is honestly I think a good read of the spotter + Opp fire rules.

Sorry to have wasted anyone's time have to puzzle out wtf I was saying as I contradicted myself so spectacularly.

And now back to the original posting....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I'm NOT saying, which you seem to think I was saying, is that the Mortar is committed to using the spotter. No. The Mortar is free to fire at a spotted or unspotted target as it chooses. The EXC is that if the MTR is marked OPP fire -- but it is never able to fire because it has no in LOS target and no Spotter -- it must check for weapon breakdown! That is frankly bizarre, but I definitely didn't make it up, here is the RB verbatim:

EXC... A mortar cannot be designated for Opportunity Fire if it has no Spotter (9.3) and its intended target is out of its LOS. A mortar designated for Opportunity Fire but not able to fire in the AFPh due to no Spotter and no target in its LOS must still roll for breakdown purposes (as per A6.11)].

I call that bizarre because, as I read that EXC, as long as an OPP-fire marked mortar has LOS to a valid target, or has a Spotter it can hold fire during the OPP Fire phase without any breakdown check.... it's only if there's neither a target nor a spotter that the MTR must check for breakdown... that is a very strange stipulation. OPP fire doesn't ordinarily commit a unit to having to fire. It strikes me as being some kind of anti-sleaze to prevent spotted OPP fire from being abused, but I honestly can't see what that abuse would be.

Does this clarify any of what I offered earlier? Do you still have problems with it -- if so what are they specifically?

 

[Vinnie]

Ok, I think you've covered most of my objections!

I'm not keen on the idea of requiring a spotter to use his spotting ability. Hmmm, I may have misread that....

Mark the spotter Opp Fire and he can still do anything, but loses his concealment on being marked.
Fail to mark him as such and you do not gainm the Opp Fire benefits but keep concealment, you do not have to be used as a spottewr and could fire normally. I think That's what I want to say!

 

[zgrose]

I hoping Perry comes thru with option 3 that plays out like PFPh. Spotter gets a counter for being the Spotter but that act doesn't drop concealment.

 

[Pyth]

Ok, I think you've covered most of my objections!

I'm not keen on the idea of requiring a spotter to use his spotting ability. Hmmm, I may have misread that....

Mark the spotter Opp Fire and he can still do anything, but loses his concealment on being marked.
Fail to mark him as such and you do not gainm the Opp Fire benefits but keep concealment, you do not have to be used as a spottewr and could fire normally. I think That's what I want to say!

I agree with all that. Id only add (repeat, actually) that spotting does not consume all of a full squads FP capapability (which wouldn't be my ASL intuition's first choice) and so a full squad can both spot and fire. Whether the spotter can fire a squad weapon in the PFph and spot for Mortar OPP fire in the AFph is an open question. I said I think it can but I wonder what the Wise Ones think. It certainly would benefit from clarification from Perry.... i hope the Q&A was worded in a way that addresses that.

 

[Stewart]

Shouldn't we look to the ?ment loss table?
C has the exception for SPotters.
D has PRC and MANNING Infantry lose ?ment A spotter is neither....

The exception for Spotters not losing ?ment is after the Opportunity Fire section of the rules.... C vs A... So, doesn't that mean the higher level rule takes precedence?

 

[Juan SantaX]

Shouldn't we look to the ?ment loss table?
C has the exception for SPotters.
D has PRC and MANNING Infantry lose ?ment A spotter is neither....

You are right, but the question was if the spotter lose concealment if the mortar opportunity fire (or, has the spotter to opp fire if the mortar opp fire? Opp fire is a losing concealment activity).

Best

 

[Stewart]

At first blush that is a reasonable expectation, but it's not what the rules say. The rules say that if you use Opportunity Fire, you lose concealment when you declare it.

The problem for play is, what happens if the Spotter is a squad with a HMG? It declares it is using Opportunity Fire. If you don't remove concealment because it is a Spotter, can it then fire squad and HMG in the AFPh at full FP without having lost concealment in the PFPh? Even if it is required to make a Spotted Fire attack to retain concealment (an option not mentioned in the rules), Spotted Fire is only use of one SW. Can it fire the HMG too after keeping concealment for being a Spotter? Or its inherent? I don't think you can just say that a Spotter does not lose concealment if it declares Opportunity Fire. You'd have to add a lot more to that unless you want to add a sleaze to Opportunity Fire.

JR

Wouldn't the squad be considered a manning infantry to the SW? and if you are intend to fire the weapon using OPP fire, you need to use Case D of the ?ment loss table...otherwise, I'd say you'd lose the Full FP of the SW but yet could still fire it...at 1/2 fp.

 

[Stewart]

You are right, but the question was if the spotter lose concealment if the mortar opportunity fire (or, has the spotter to opp fire if the mortar opp fire? Opp fire is a losing concealment activity).

Best

No, why would it? It clearly has an exception. The spotter doesn't have to opp fire but if the spotter DOESNT spot, the MTR must still roll for MALF if not using the spotter. This completely clarifies the rule of spotters... if you have a SW and intend to fire with FULL FP...then you OPP fire normally as the rules allow...SPOTTING is marked but A12.141 is clearly after the mention of A12.14 loss due to Opp Fire status.

If you want to use a SW as a fire attack, then you lose ?ment…

Don't sleaze this out. Spotting by itself doesn't lose ?ment, but if you engage in any other action i.e. firing your SW, then you lose it.

The Spotter is "considered the equivalent of using a SW for purposes of MOVEMENT curtailment and INHERENT FP loss"
Not actually using a SW....now if he is going to USE his SW ...that falls under ?ment loss for OPP fired units.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Zgrose sent a Q&A request, so hopefully we will have light on the issue sooner or later

Best

 

[Stewart]

Zgrose sent a Q&A request, so hopefully we will have light on the issue sooner or later

Best

I think the answer is in the rules and is obvious.

Just think of a Leader ?ed....can he fire on enemy units or does the MTR fire on enemy units? he has no "opportunity" for OPP fire. I'm pretty sure common sense needs to be used here...and again...he's not USING a SW for FIRING purposes, only for Movement and IFP loss.

 

[zgrose]

Shouldn't we look to the ?ment loss table?
C has the exception for SPotters.
D has PRC and MANNING Infantry lose ?ment A spotter is neither....

D has:

• It
• Its PRC
• its manning Infantry

designated as an Opportunity Firer.

The Spotter fulfills the It. I am waiting to hear if it is designated an Opportunity Firer.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Not marking the spotter and only the mtr create new questions not resolved by the rules .. May move the spotter to change position?.. Is penalized the spotted adv Fire shot?

Considering a leader can move up to an OP marked unit and direct it in the AFPh without penalty - allowing a Spotter that same ability doesn't seem that far off, IMO.