Tactical tip: no "partial" leading of multi-Location FG

[jrv]

Since I just saw someone (with multiple ASLOK championships under his belt, I might add) have this misconception, I thought I'd post about it. A multi-Location FG may NOT have leaders lead in some Locations without leaders leading in all Locations (e.g. to prevent cowering in that Location). Either all Locations have a leader that is declared to be leading in the FG, or the FG can not be led.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

Since I just saw someone (with multiple ASLOK championships under his belt, I might add) have this misconception, I thought I'd post about it. A multi-Location FG may NOT have leaders lead in some Locations without leaders leading in all Locations (e.g. to prevent cowering in that Location). Either all Locations have a leader that is declared to be leading in the FG, or the FG can not be lead.

JR

What if you have a 2-Location FG with a 8-1 Leader in one, a Hero in the other Location.
Could the FG attack at -1 if in normal range of the Hero?

von Marwitz

 

[WuWei]

What if you have a 2-Location FG with a 8-1 Leader in one, a Hero in the other Location.
Could the FG attack at -1 if in normal range of the Hero?

The FG could attack at -1 even without the 8-1 leader.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I've always played that for Leaders to affect a multi-location FG there had to be a leader in each location and you used the "lowest" modifier available. ("lowest" as contra to arithmetic "+1" is lower than "-1").

What if you have a 2-Location FG with a 8-1 Leader in one, a Hero in the other Location.

Could the FG attack at -1 if in normal range of the Hero?

von Marwitz

As Heroes only have to be in one of the multi locations then the whole FG gets the Heroic -1, the 8-1 has no effect other than to possibly prevent cowering in his location. In many ways Heroes are superior to -1 Leaders in firing situations (of course useless for rallying). Eg no LLMC/LLTC, Heroic DRMs add up, affect the whole of a multi-location FG, can fire many SW solitary.

 

[jrv]

What if you have a 2-Location FG with a 8-1 Leader in one, a Hero in the other Location.
Could the FG attack at -1 if in normal range of the Hero?

Heroes affect multi-Location FGs even if not present in all Locations. In your EX the 8-1 leader can't be used in a two Location FG.

JR

 

[jrv]

the 8-1 has no effect other than to possibly prevent cowering in his location

This is what I was saying is wrong. The leader can have no effect (including preventing cowering in the one Location) and should not participate in the FG. Either all Locations have a leader, or the FG (in all its Locations) is not led.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

Doh! Of course...

The basic Hero capability...
That's what happens when you try to get smart.

von Marwitz

 

[Binchois]

Since I just saw someone (with multiple ASLOK championships under his belt, I might add) have this misconception, I thought I'd post about it. A multi-Location FG may NOT have leaders lead in some Locations without leaders leading in all Locations (e.g. to prevent cowering in that Location). Either all Locations have a leader that is declared to be leading in the FG, or the FG can not be lead.

JR

Hear hear! I have been convinced of this (by you and others), though I must admit finding the reasoning a bit ambiguous. The main problem is with whether the RB ever really states that "directing" fire is exactly equivalent to "applying a Leadership DRM." I'd be happy to hear your thoughts JR (or others). And I'd certainly love to know that this has been officially clarified. Otherwise, it seems like a leader could direct an attack even if his leadership couldn't apply. Cowering affects a unit "unless a leader directs that attack." But is this the same as "applying a leadership DRM"?

A7.53 speaks of a leader "directing fire" or else giving a "leadership benefit." Only A7.531 discusses the option to apply a DRM. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters here, I'm just wondering what clinches this argument: something in the RB I am misreading? a Q&A? Some other official pronouncement?

Perhaps also at question (using the OP example, but assuming a leader, squad, and MG in one Location of the original FG):

1) After the initial FG fires, may the MG (which maintained ROF) now be fired separately and led by the previously unused leader?

2) If the original FG was First Fired, can the squad SFF with the leader directing fire?

My assumption is yes to both.

 

[jrv]

There is a (very early) q&a on this, BTW. The first question is on this topic, while the second clarifies a related minor ambiguity.

A7.53, A7.531 & A7.9 An 8-1 leader and squad w/ LMG are in a Location; another friendly squad is in an Adjacent Location. Absent Leader Direction, each squad is subject to Cowering. All of these units have LOS to a target. They declare an attack on that target as a firegroup. To prevent Cowering in his Location, may the leader be declared as directing the fire of the squad and LMG in his location (even though he may not apply his DRM to the attack – A7.531)?
A. No.
If not, suppose there were another 8-1 and it were stacked with the other squad, such that both Locations of the FG featured a –1 leader directing the FG attack. A7.531 allows a -1 leadership attack DRM in this case. Because this would be an attack directed by two leaders (as opposed to a leader – A7.9, 1st sentence), would the attack be subject to Cowering?
A. No. [Letter69]

JR

 

[jrv]

The main problem is with whether the RB ever really states that "directing" fire is exactly equivalent to "applying a Leadership DRM." I'd be happy to hear your thoughts JR (or others). And I'd certainly love to know that this has been officially clarified. Otherwise, it seems like a leader could direct an attack even if his leadership couldn't apply. Cowering affects a unit "unless a leader directs that attack." But is this the same as "applying a leadership DRM"?

A7.53 speaks of a leader "directing fire" or else giving a "leadership benefit." Only A7.531 discusses the option to apply a DRM. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters here, I'm just wondering what clinches this argument: something in the RB I am misreading? a Q&A? Some other official pronouncement?

This is an official q&a:

A7.53-.531 & A10.72 These seem to imply that leader direction and the application of a leader's DRM can be declared independently of each other. Is this true?
A. No; the two are synonymous in all cases. However, if leader direction is used for an attack/action to whose DR/dr "Leadership NA" triangle applies, that leader's DRM/drm cannot
apply to that DR/dr. [An91; An92; An95w; An96; Mw]

Note that the second part of the answer allows FTs to be leader-directed. Any leadership DRM (positive or negative) does not apply, but it does prevent cowering (yes, FTs can cower).

Perhaps also at question (using the OP example, but assuming a leader, squad, and MG in one Location of the original FG):

1) After the initial FG fires, may the MG (which maintained ROF) now be fired separately and led by the previously unused leader?

2) If the original FG was First Fired, can the squad SFF with the leader directing fire?

I believe the answer to both is yes.

JR

 

[Russ Isaia]

This is what I was saying is wrong. The leader can have no effect (including preventing cowering in the one Location) and should not participate in the FG. Either all Locations have a leader, or the FG (in all its Locations) is not led.

JR

Even to exclude any unit (and its SW) in the FG from being marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter via Random Selection? There is a more current Q&A that kinda/maybe/sorta implies/suggests otherwise, involving units immune to Cowering and units not immune.

 

[jrv]

Even to exclude any unit (and its SW) in the FG from being marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter via Random Selection? There is a more current Q&A that kinda/maybe/sorta implies/suggests otherwise, involving units immune to Cowering and units not immune.

I'm not sure what q&a you are referring to. A leader would be immune to cowering and would not be involved in any Random Selection as far as I know.

JR

 

[Tuomo]

What if you have a 9-2 in one hex but no leader in the other? Since his leadership modifier equals the number of locations firing, isn't that ok?

 

[jrv]

What if you have a 9-2 in one hex but no leader in the other? Since his leadership modifier equals the number of locations firing, isn't that ok?

There is a special EXC for you:

Q. If Tuomo does something that is not allowed by the rules, what you should you do?
A. Don't make eye contact, but don't turn your back. Back away slowly and edge out the door. Use the HazMat shower and burn any apparel (after removing).
[An91; An92; An95w; An96; Mw]

JR

 

[Tuomo]

There is a special EXC for you:

Dammit!

If I'da suggested that to Jazz, I know there's at least part of his brain that'd give me points for creativity. He'd smack me down, rules-wise, but I know there'd be an edge of wistful regret. His Inner Lithuanian, never far from the surface anyway, would salute me.

 

[Russ Isaia]

I'm not sure what q&a you are referring to. A leader would be immune to cowering and would not be involved in any Random Selection as far as I know.

JR

The Q&A is as follows:

A7.9
If a Fire Group (FG) that contains units immune to Covering and units that are not (e.g., 1st Line and 2nd Line British units) what happens when the IFT attack DR is an Original "Doubles"? I presume: the attack covers (shift 1 column left ) & Random Selection to determine which units covered is applied only among units not immune to covering, right?
A. Correct.

The Random Selection is that discussed at the end of A7.9: "If a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) that becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter."

Of course the answer on RS could be different, immune/non-immune units vs. leader stacked/non-leader stacked units, but it is at least a potentially relevant item.