HS SFF after having fired a SW

[Robin Reeve]

Hi all,

Situation: a HS possessing two SW defensive first fired a SW (in example below, it fired a PF).

I believe it could SFF vs a moving unit (in example, the 447) by using its IFP.

But could it fire another SW (such as the MMG in the example)?

 

[clubby]

No, according the B of the SW usage chart a HS may use one SW.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Advanced Squad Leader • The Bishop Says: Half Squad Offensive Capabilities

The Bishop Says: Half Squad Offensive Capabilities. Half squads have choices when using SW or Inherent FP during Subsequent First Fire and Final Protective Fire.

asl-players.net

This comes up all the time. I wrote about to solidify it in my mind.

 

[Thumbtack]

Sure, why not? It's Sustained fire either way. ALL SW and the HS are marked with a First Fire marker.
Both can't be used, only 1. The SW is marked with First Fire...it is capable of SFF. BUT the hs has only 1 MG it could potentially fire with.

I read nothing in the examples that dictate otherwise...a FPF attack isn't what the OP question is asking.

 

[von Marwitz]

Advanced Squad Leader • The Bishop Says: Half Squad Offensive Capabilities

The Bishop Says: Half Squad Offensive Capabilities. Half squads have choices when using SW or Inherent FP during Subsequent First Fire and Final Protective Fire.

asl-players.net

This comes up all the time. I wrote about to solidify it in my mind.

You are darn right - it comes up all the time.
It came up in my game yesterday...

So your article came just at the right time (notably, you only wrote it some weeks ago).

Even after reading it, I am still unsure when it comes to inherent SW, like PFs for example.

The Index defines SW as follows:
"SW (Support Weapon; any weapon depicted on a ½" counter)"

PFs are (barring SSR) are not depicted on a 1/2 counter.


In your article you say:
The applicable starting point is A7.352. That rule says “A crew/HS/SMC that fires any SW/Gun loses its inherent FP until attacked/attacking in CC or the end of that Player Turn (whichever comes first) [EXC: 7.353].”

So, could it be that a PF is not a SW in the sense of A7.352?
If so, when the HS has fired a PF, could it then use SFF with inherent FP?

von Marwitz

 

[Sparafucil3]

So, could it be that a PF is not a SW in the sense of A7.352?

A PF is a SW by rule.

If so, when the HS has fired a PF, could it then use SFF with inherent FP?

A PF is a SW, just like any other SW. The EXC in A7.352 still applies and the HS could use its Inherent in SFF.

 

[von Marwitz]

A PF is a SW by rule.

I really want to agree. But by which rule?

"A7.35 SW USAGE: All weapons on ½" counters are SW [EXC: Goliath] and must be possessed by an unbroken Personnel unit in order to fire. Usage limitations for each type of SW are listed on the SW Chart. However, two general rules apply to all SW:"

Index: "SW (Support Weapon; any weapon depicted on a ½" counter)"

"C13.3 PANZERFAUST (PF): The PF31 is a potentially inherent SW of every German Infantry unit after September 1943 (see A25.76 for Finnish use and A25.85 for Romanian and Hungarian use), and uses the C3 To Hit Table (as per 13.33) and the C7.33 HEAT To Kill Table to resolve any vehicular hit."


Maybe there are "SW" and "inherent SW", the latter - as a seprarate category - counterintuitively not to be subsumed to the former?

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

An Inherent SW is a SW.
Otherwise, applying the Index definition in a restrictive way, you will have a contradiction.
If "SW" is used for a PF, a SW is not only a SW depicted by a physical counter. The Index definition should be refined.

 

[von Marwitz]

An Inherent SW is a SW.
Otherwise, applying the Index definition in a restrictive way, you will have a contradiction.
If "SW" is used for a PF, a SW is not only a SW depicted by a physical counter. The Index definition should be refined.

What about A7.35 SW Usage (see quote above) then?

One could read that in two ways:

All weapons on ½" counters - only - are SW [EXC: Goliath]
All weapons on ½" counters - and inherent not on on ½" counters - are SW [EXC: Goliath]

In the first case, you see "inherent SW" and "SW" as different categories.
In the second case, you see "inherent SW" as a sub-category of "SW".

Just playing the devil's advocate here, maybe I am missing some other rule. But I am sharing the determination of @Sparafucil3 to finally wrap my head around this.

Strictly RAW, by A7.35 and the Index, "weapons on ½" counters" seem to be the requirement. If "inherent SW" and "SW" are seen as different categories, there will still be rules that apply to both categories in the same way.

I think it will only make a difference if a HS, which has tried for / fired a PF wants to SFF vs. non-ADJACENT units with its inherent FP. Which was exactly the case I had in my game yesterday. Or maybe if a HS has tired to use an ATMM vs. a vehicle in its hex/streetfighting, which was either killed or survived and moved away.

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

C13.31 points towards equating trying to use a PF as the use of a SW.

"... Provided a squad has not yet fired its inherent FP, it can attempt to fire a second PF in the same phase even if its first attempt did not yield a shot, but that would constitute use of two SW and cause the squad to lose its inherent FP for that phase (A7.351).
Even if a unit’s PF Check dr fails to result in a shot, that PF Check constitutes use of a SW (A7.35)."

 

[von Marwitz]

C13.31 points towards equating trying to use a PF as the use of a SW.

"... Provided a squad has not yet fired its inherent FP, it can attempt to fire a second PF in the same phase even if its first attempt did not yield a shot, but that would constitute use of two SW and cause the squad to lose its inherent FP for that phase (A7.351).
Even if a unit’s PF Check dr fails to result in a shot, that PF Check constitutes use of a SW (A7.35)."

Again, I really want to agree.

I am not a native English speaker. In ASL, sometimes we have the phrase "is considered to be", which seems similar to "constitutes use of". There is a nuance between "is considered to be" and "is", maybe between "constitutes the use of" and "is the use of". Dunno, maybe I let myself be carried away.

von Marwitz

 

[Sparafucil3]

In your article you say:
The applicable starting point is A7.352. That rule says “A crew/HS/SMC that fires any SW/Gun loses its inherent FP until attacked/attacking in CC or the end of that Player Turn (whichever comes first) [EXC: 7.353].”

@von Marwitz C13.3 says PF are an "Inherent SW". There is no doubt that a PF is a SW.

A7.352 says usage of a SW forfeits Inherent FP and then lists a single exception (A7.353).

A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks (regardless of how they were used during First Fire)—although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attacks can negate inherent FP in the normal manner. See the 8.41 EX.

Keep in mind, the rule about "losing Inherent FP" immediately precedes this rule. So "both of the above cases" includes A7.352. And in "both of the above cases", units retain halved inherent FP for SFF, FPF, and Final Fire attacks.

 

[von Marwitz]

A PF is a SW by rule.


A PF is a SW, just like any other SW. The EXC in A7.352 still applies and the HS could use its Inherent in SFF.

"A7.352 A crew/HS/SMC that fires any SW/Gun loses its inherent FP until attacked/attacking in CC or the end of that Player Turn (whichever comes first) [EXC: 7.353]."

"A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks (regardless of how they were used during First Fire)—although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attacks can negate inherent FP in the normal manner. See the 8.41 EX."


Struggling to understand the EXC in A7.352 (i.e. A7.353) - is it:

A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks

or

A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks

i.e. does the "vs adjacent units"refer to SFF, FPF, and Final Fire or only to Final Fire?
I assume the latter, because FPF can never happen "vs adjacent units".


And then the next thing I struggle to understand:

"A7.353 ... —although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attacks can negate inherent FP in the normal manner."

In case of a MG, it can be First Fired normally and it lies in the capability of the MG to be SFF'ed being subject to Sustained Fire penalties.

In case of a PF, ATMM, MOL, I reckon firing, sticking, throwing it - and even trying to find one - is the full SW capability?
If that's the case, inherent FP would be negated, i.e. contrary to a MG zero possibility to fire any inherent form of FP thereafter?

 

[von Marwitz]

Keep in mind, the rule about "losing Inherent FP" immediately precedes this rule. So "both of the above cases" includes A7.352. And in "both of the above cases", units retain halved inherent FP for SFF, FPF, and Final Fire attacks.

So one should read A7.353 like this?

A7.353 In both of the above cases, A crew/HS/SMC that has fired any SW/Gun and thus lost its inherent FP, uses Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks ...

 

[Sparafucil3]

A7.353 In both of the above cases, Subsequent First Fire (8.3), FPF (8.31), and Final Fire (8.4) vs adjacent units retain halved inherent FP for those attacks

This. (e.g. SFF, FPF, and Final Fire are conducted in the normal manner).

"A7.353 ... —although use of full SW/Gun capability during such attacks can negate inherent FP in the normal manner."

If you can use a possessed SW (say an LMG as Sustained Fire) and opt to use that SW, your negate (ignore) Inherent FP just as you would in First Fire. It doesn't allow a HS to check for a second PF nor does it allow you to "IF" a Bazooka/Panzerschreck. It is this last bit that started me exploring. A HS had gained possession of an enemy radio. I wanted to destroy the Radio in SFF. A radio is not one of those things you can use in SFF so I could not opt to destroy it. If I wanted to destroy it, I should not have First Fired in his MPh, retained complete SW usage capability, and then destroyed the radio as my first (and only) shot in Final Fire.

 

[von Marwitz]

Thank you for taking the time to get this into my head, mate...
I think I am getting closer...

This. (e.g. SFF, FPF, and Final Fire are conducted in the normal manner).

If you can use a possessed SW (say an LMG as Sustained Fire) and opt to use that SW, your negate (ignore) Inherent FP just as you would in First Fire.

Yes, in this case the only way to use SFF, FPF, Final Fire vs. ADJ would be to incur Sustained Fire penalties with the MG. No way whatsoever to use Inherent FP. No way whatsoever to attempt to use any other SW (inherent or not) the HS might carry.

It doesn't allow a HS to check for a second PF nor does it allow you to "IF" a Bazooka/Panzerschreck.

Yes. If the HS tried to find/fired a PF/BAZ/PSK it has used this single SW to its full capability. There is no IF'ing BAZ/PSK. No use of any other SW (inherent or not) whatsoever. However, the HS may use inherent FP for SFF, FPF, Final Fire vs. ADJ in the normal manner.


Did I get this right now?

von Marwitz

 

[Sparafucil3]

Yes, in this case the only way to use SFF, FPF, Final Fire vs. ADJ would be to incur Sustained Fire penalties with the MG. No way whatsoever to use Inherent FP. No way whatsoever to attempt to use any other SW (inherent or not) the HS might carry.

No, you could opt for Inherent in lieu of the MG. A crew could fire a Gun as IF.

Yes. If the HS tried to find/fired a PF/BAZ/PSK it has used this single SW to its full capability. There is no IF'ing BAZ/PSK. No use of any other SW (inherent or not) whatsoever. However, the HS may use inherent FP for SFF, FPF, Final Fire vs. ADJ in the normal manner.

This is correct.

 

[von Marwitz]

Bonus question:

The HS First Fires the MG. Then it SFF's the MG incurring Sustained Fire penalties and Malfunctions it. I reckon that would be full use of that SW MG. Assume now some Japanese Banzai Charge into the HS's hex forcing FPF. As the MG has been used to full capability, the HS must now (and can only) use inherent FP to FPF.

Had the MG not malfed in SFF, then the HS would have now been forced to FPF with the options of either using inherent FP or using the MG, the latter once more under Sustained Fire penalties.

In both cases, the HS cannot use any other SW (inherent or not) whatsoever.

Correct?

 

[Bill Kohler]

Situation: a HS possessing two SW defensive first fired a SW (in example below, it fired a PF).
[C]ould it fire another SW (such as the MMG in the example)?

I read this thread (quickly) and also Jim's article, and I didn't see a clear answer to Robin's question other than Clubby's--but nobody thumbed his answer. I agree with Clubby's answer: no.

Just to be clear, is that the consensus of this thread to the OP question?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Bonus question:

The HS First Fires the MG. Then it SFF's the MG incurring Sustained Fire penalties and Malfunctions it. I reckon that would be full use of that SW MG. Assume now some Japanese Banzai Charge into the HS's hex forcing FPF. As the MG has been used to full capability, the HS must now (and can only) use inherent FP to FPF.

Had the MG not malfed in SFF, then the HS would have now been forced to FPF with the options of either using inherent FP or using the MG, the latter once more under Sustained Fire penalties.

In both cases, the HS cannot use any other SW (inherent or not) whatsoever.

Correct?

No.

A8.31 FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRE (FPF): ... All usable MG/IFE possessed by that unit (up to the unit’s normal operation capabilities; 7.35-.353) must be fired (even if not previously marked with a Final Fire counter) and are subject to Sustained Fire penalties. ...

The HS would have to shoot the MG in lieu of its inherent FP if the MG were not broken.