SSR vs A7.55 Mandatory FG

[Sparafucil3]

That's not how I played it until now, but I think that's what the rules imply. There's no [EXC: units that aren't allowed to form a FG].

@klasmalmstrom and I agree. The rules seem to be at odds with how we have all played the game. -- jim

 

[Juan SantaX]

I agree, D6.44 won't allow the BMG of a tank to be part of a FG. At issue is what allows the tank to fire from the same location contrary to A7.55 which says All GO units wishing to fire on the same target MUST form a FG to do so. Now, there is not question the tank may fire it's MA as Ordnance (A7.55). I don't think it could fire its MA as IFE at the same target though.

FWIW, I think the rules as written are at odds with the rules as played. I have submitted Q&A on the subject. -- jim

I want to see that answer

 

[WuWei]

I asked Perry:

Are GO units/weapons that aren't allowed to form a Firegroup exempt from the restrictions of A7.55?
Example: During the PFPh, can the BMG of a tank and a MMC (wanting to use its inherent FP) in the same location both fire separately at the same enemy unit?

 

[Sparafucil3]

But I cant because I didnt FG two GO units that are not allowed to FG (either mandatory or voluntarily)?

As the rules read, you are correct. There are limits. For instance, if the unit used 2 MF's to go up the hill, one could fire on 1 and the other could fire on 2. You could fire the MA as ordnance on 1 and fire the MG's on 2. But as the rules read, if they are GO, they must form a FG to fire on the same unit on the same MP/Phase. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

I asked Perry:

Are GO units/weapons that aren't allowed to form a Firegroup exempt from the restrictions of A7.55?
Example: During the PFPh, can the BMG of a tank and a MMC (wanting to use its inherent FP) in the same location both fire separately at the same enemy unit?

I sent this:

A7.55 MANDATORY FG: If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC: Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons (9.2).

Assume all attacks spoken of below occur on the IFT. Ordnance attacks are clearly not subject to mandatory FG's according to A7.55

Must a Squad and HT in the same Location form a FG to attack an eligible target on the IFT?

Now imagine a squad and a tank/AC/Armed Truck which is not included in D6.64 or otherwise allowed to FG by SSR wishing to attack the same target. Would one unit have to forego it's attack per A7.55 if each wished to attack on the same MF? Would one have to forego it's attack in Final Fire if they each wished to attack the same unit?

I ask, because I am sure I and others have played this differently but A7.55 is pretty clear: if you are GO and wish to fire on the same unit in the same Phase/MF, you must form a Fire Group. I am sure I (and others) have played this as if you can FG, you must, otherwise you are free to fire. This seems contrary to A7.55. -- jim

 

[Juan SantaX]

As the rules read, you are correct. There are limits. For instance, if the unit used 2 MF's to go up the hill, one could fire on 1 and the other could fire on 2. You could fire the MA as ordnance on 1 and fire the MG's on 2. But as the rules read, if they are GO, they must form a FG to fire on the same unit on the same MP/Phase. -- jim

Really I dont read the rule that way: its title is mandatory fg. And when you read D xx rule I understand that I cannot fire first the bmg, and then the cmg...they must firegroup. But not that I must do a ”mandatory fg” that I cannot do.

I think everybody thinks the same... thats the reason of the Q sent indeed...

 

[Sparafucil3]

Really I dont read the rule that way: its title is mandatory fg. And when you read D xx rule I understand that I cannot fire first the bmg, and then the cmg...they must firegroup. But not that I must do a ”mandatory fg” that I cannot do.

I think everybody thinks the same... thats the reason of the Q sent indeed...

I think ultimately, there will be a clarification. But the rules as written right now say if the units are GO and not firing ordnance, they MUST form a firegroup to attack the same unit on the same MF/Phase. There are no exceptions for things that can't firegroup. I think we have all played it that if you can firegroup, you must, otherwise, you're free to fire. I just don't think A7.55 allows for that as written. A D6.64 does is tell you what units may firegroup with Infantry. It doesn't dismiss A7.55.

I believe A7.55 likely needs some form of an EXCEPTION along the lines of "units not allowed to FG are not restricted by Mandatory Fire Group requirements". -- jim

EDIT to add:

D6.64 FG: ... In all cases, the normal rules for FG (A7.5-.55) still apply. ...

Note, this even refers us back to A7.55. Also looking at D3.5 and I see no out. D3.5 does says A7.55 applies against the MG's.

 

[Juan SantaX]

I understand what are you saying. But I dont see that. I think it has to do with the way I interpret rules.

I’m not a rules guru, and not sure if the meaning I give is the same. That interpretation sent me to a reductio ab absurdum, and thats what I wanted to show. At the same time, an exegesis of just a few rules, gives us some “valid” answers ( I didnt want to use those words either) that is precisely as almost everybody (at least you, Jim, and me) play it.
I think the ordenance/ft/dc exception is because its infantry that can fg, but dont have to (crew maning a gun / ft attack or thrown dc) but its only thinking of units that can fg, and as that, thats the only exception. A bmg dont need an exception because cant firegrup (either mandatory or voluntary).

Anyway, we will see an answer in a few days

 

[Sparafucil3]

A bmg dont need an exception because cant firegrup (either mandatory or voluntary).

A BMG may firegroup with other MG's/IFE of it's own vehicle. A BMG is subject to a Mandatory FG with other MG's/IFE of the same vehicle. See D3.5 which directs you back to A7.55. -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

You cannot FG infantry with the bmg of a tank. You cannot be bound by A7.55 to do a FG that is not allowed quite clearly at D6.64.

And I think that cannot disallow you to fire... You shoot your tank, and then you want to shoot your infantry, and then you are not allowed to do that because you didnt do a FG that you were not allowed to do...

I know all that.
A7.55 however seems to prohibit any separate IFT attack from any units occupying the same Location vs a same target.

 

[Robin Reeve]

But I dont see that. I think it has to do with the way I interpret rules.

I interpreted them quite like you until this present debate - and I think that many are in that case.
I do hope that Perry will clarify that units otherwise prohibited to FG and occupying a same Location may make separate IFT attacks.
Which, IMO and in relation to the SSR that triggered our debate, would allow infantry of allies otherwise prohibited to FG to fire separately on the same target when occupying the same Location..

 

[MajorDomo]

I hope Perry adds "for units/weapons allowed to firegroup" to A7.55.

That would bring the rules into synergy with how I have seen it played.

 

[Juan SantaX]

I know all that.
A7.55 however seems to prohibit any separate IFT attack from any units occupying the same Location vs a same target.

Hi Robin. Agree, but I read that diferently: we are under the FG rules that start at A7.5, and actually at A7.55, Mandatory FG. My way to read that is that you have to start at 7.5 go all the way down to 7.55, with all the EXC and crossreferences... and then you have to interpret A7.55. And I have to find a way to interpret A7.55 under a system that makes sense. The rules are made by humans, you must find how all that gears fit. And you must discard one position that doesnt make the clock work.

I said: I shoot first with A (bmg of an GO AFV), miss, then I want to shoot with B (GO hs), but now I cant because I didnt made a (mandatory) FG that the rule prohibits (its rule A7.55 which prohibits the firing of the hs). That dont make sense to me. You cannot say that I knew I wanted to shoot with both units together from the beginning. Its the flow of the game that make that situation. If both A and B were GO hs, you knew you had to make that FG from the begining of forget to shoot with one of those.

I think that Jim put squarely as we all play this: if we can form FG's, we must, otherwise we are free to fire. The only diference is that I read the A7.55 rule (and his EXC) and I dont feel I should change the way I play it. But as we say in Spain, I miss more that a amusement park pellet gun

But anyway, we will know in a few days.... (and I dont want to bore anyone)

 

[Stewart]

I hope Perry adds "for units/weapons allowed to firegroup" to A7.55.

That would bring the rules into synergy with how I have seen it played.

The rules already cover this.
If you aren't allowed to FG, MandFG doesn't apply ala veh mg and inf.
The SSR just extends that exclusion to multinational units. Pretty clear you treat them exactly like a vehicle mg and inf.
Neither loses its ability to fire, not even at the same unit.

 

[Robin Reeve]

The rules already cover this.
If you aren't allowed to FG, MandFG doesn't apply ala veh mg and inf.
The SSR just extends that exclusion to multinational units. Pretty clear you treat them exactly like a vehicle mg and inf.
Neither loses its ability to fire, not even at the same unit.

That interpretation needs confirmation and some clarification in the rule - which isn't clear on that point, otherwise the debate would have been close with an appropriate rule quotation.
Your opinion (which I share) is not decisive.

 

[Stewart]

That interpretation needs confirmation and some clarification in the rule - which isn't clear on that point, otherwise the debate would have been close with an appropriate rule quotation.
Your opinion (which I share) is not decisive.

Clarification?
Veh are not subject to Mand FG with INF.
Non-GO units are not required to create a Mand FG.

This SSR does the exactly the same thing. NO FG allowed. It doesn't state any OTHER restrictions. Some are trying to read what isn't there.
SSR trump ANY rule. That's about all you have to know.
Since they aren't subject to MandFG, they simply can't combine Firepower...and nothing else.

 

[Sparafucil3]

This SSR does the exactly the same thing. NO FG allowed. It doesn't state any OTHER restrictions. Some are trying to read what isn't there.
SSR trump ANY rule. That's about all you have to know.
Since they aren't subject to MandFG, they simply can't combine Firepower...and nothing else.

TL;DR: I agree with your conclusion on the intent; I think ultimately we will see errata or some other clarification to codify this. The rule as written right now is at odds with the rule as played.

The rules don't leave room for this interpretation in their current form. While I agree this is the likely outcome of a clarification, the rules explicitly says "If Good Order units/weapons in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Location and the same unit and the same “simultaneous” [8.1] MF/MP expenditure; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG;" Are both units GO? Yes. Are both units in the same Location? Yes. Are both units looking to fire on the same MP/MF expenditure or phase? Yes. Per A7.55, they MUST form a Firegroup. The SSR denies that to them. The SSR doesn't negate A7.55 so we have to ask what does the rest of A7.55 say: "they may not attack separately except with ordnance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of multiple ROF weapons." Unless they comply with the second part, there is no other recourse than to deny them an attack. There is no other rule in the game which negates A7.55. I agree, this is at odds with the way the game is ACTUALLY played. This is why I believe there will be errata issued on this. As written, an AFV in the same Location with Infantry would also be limited by this same rule [EXC: the MA could fire as ordnance] and we all know that isn't how the game is played. The rule absolutely needs to be re-written IMO.

Had the SSR been worded something like: "Hungarians and Germans may not form a FG and A7.55 is NA to allied Nationalities occupying the same Location" this would be solved. Since it was not, we have to fall back on A7.55. -- jim

 

[BattleSchool]

This is what I was driving at up thread, although Jim explained it much more thoroughly than I did.

The other point that I didn't see raised in Jim's question to Perry was how we are to square A8.312's requirement for a Mandatory FG should Perry's reply agree with the above conclusion (that prohibits separate attacks on the same unit on the same MF/MP expenditure). Klas raised this earlier, but there hasn't been much discussion on "compulsory" TPBF FGs. Presumably, berserk units would have to FG with GO units, as A8.312 has no exception for non-GO units or units/weapons under the effects of Ammunition Shortage. If an SSR prohibits a multi-national FG, how is A8.312 applied?

 

[Stewart]

This is what I was driving at up thread, although Jim explained it much more thoroughly than I did.

The other point that I didn't see raised in Jim's question to Perry was how we are to square A8.312's requirement for a Mandatory FG should Perry's reply agree with the above conclusion (that prohibits separate attacks on the same unit on the same MF/MP expenditure). Klas raised this earlier, but there hasn't been much discussion on "compulsory" TPBF FGs. Presumably, berserk units would have to FG with GO units, as A8.312 has no exception for non-GO units or units/weapons under the effects of Ammunition Shortage. If an SSR prohibits a multi-national FG, how is A8.312 applied?

How would it apply if there were a Vehicle with MG's in the location with an INF unit?
They can't combine their FP together as they are prohibited. The SSR creates this same situation.

The rule references Mand FG
See also OVR; D7.2. All such FPF and any Defensive/ Subsequent First Fire must be combined into one Mandatory FG (7.55).

As its an SSR and overrides all rules, as such, would be exempt from the FG mandate.

IF one thinks they must fire, yet there is an SSR disallowing such Combined firepower, it simply can't fire together.

 

[von Marwitz]

I was just updating this scenario to VASL v6.6.1 which I have prepared to play long ago and which went for some reason into hiatus.
Now, it is the next one up with one of my opponents with both offensive and defensive setups already done. Shown below are, however, the terrain & units without setup.



von Marwitz