Old Q&A on SW usage in MPh then in DFPh

[Sparafucil3]

So that brings me back to why PFs are treated differently than MGs in the DFPh. ... So what's the reasoning behind the answers to these two Q&A--does anyone know?

PF's are a semi-special case. They are treated the same as any other SCW (Baz/'Schreck). The biggest difference is they are an "Inherent SW" and the definition of Small Arms includes Inherent SW in the definition. So when you see a unit may fire its "Inherent FP" in SFF, it begs the questions "Can it fire a PF as SFF?". That is why these specific questions were asked and answered as they were (guessing here on that last bit as I am not part of the Q&A process). With these Q&A, PF are just like any other SCW in terms of when they can be fired.

(I don't see a rule which says we treat the MPh and the DFPh as the same "Fire Phase". A.15 doesn't.)

Already asked and answered in this thread. Scroll up, look at the answers I have provided. It is there. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

Already asked and answered in this thread. Scroll up, look at the answers I have provided. It is there. -- jim

I was editing my previous post, BTW, while you were responding to it. (I'm struggling to make myself clear today.)

And thank you again: I saw that you had pointed out A8.1 earlier in this thread, and I had pointed out A.15, but I didn't think either of them really said they're one fire phase, due to COWTRA--but B9.53 says that they are, which settles the issue and you are right.

So regarding PFs: I know they can't fire in SFF/FPF--C13.31 clearly says they can't. And now I can see where C13.31 prohibits squads from trying for PFs in the DFPh (since it's the "same phase").
And, by squinting, I can extrapolate the other answer for HSs.

So I believe I have my answers. Again, thank you to everyone who responded to me in this thread! (I wish this were BoardGameGeek and I'd gift you all some GeekGold.)

 

[Sparafucil3]

c) Yes. If it stacks with Inherent, the MMG would be subject to Sustained Fire penalties and limited to Adjacent targets (A7.353, A8.3, A8.41). If it doesn't stack, it is free to fire until it exhausts ROF (A8.41).

So in one of those rare instances where @klasmalmstrom and I disagree. I will concede the rules leave room for this to be wrong, in fact, a strict reading of A8.4 and A8.41 says nothing about the MGs fire being Sustained Fire in Final Fire. I can see how Klas comes to this opinion and I can see this being rules as he sees it.

However, I think A8.4x speaks ONLY about the weapon firing on its own. Notice, it says nothing about any Inherent or Small Arms fire combining into a Fire Group. IMO, an unmarked MG which Fire Groups with a squad that is already marked First Fired would make the MG fire be sustained fire. This is not what A8.4x says although as I already noted, A8.4x only speaks to the weapon. Still, you should probably ignore the part about sustained fire.

Klas has an unpublished Q&A supporting his position. It was never published because the questioner didn't put it out there and Klas only includes Q&A which made it into the public domain. It makes zero sense that a unit would be using Sustained Fire in SFF but not in Final Fire IMO. I have personally always played it as Sustained Fire. I have seen many other examples of people playing this as Sustained Fire.

Just wanted everyone to know Klas and I have been discussing this for about an hour. We still don't agree and if pressed, Perry will almost certainly agree with Klas as the rules as written are more on his side of the argument. I still think this was an oversight. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

Let me see if I can follow your discussion . . .

Case 1: A squad possessing a MG fires only its Inherent FP in Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, the MG can fire with full ROF and full FP and full range and no Sustained Fire penalties--and once the MG's ROF ends, it can't fire any more.
The squad can fire its Inherent FP, but only against adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If the MG and Inherent FP are used together in the DFPh, fire is limited to adjacent enemies, and the squad's FP is Area Fire, but I think the MG would retain full FP, full ROF, and no Sustained Fire penalties and could fire elsewhere afterwards if it retains its ROF.

Case 2: A squad possessing one MG fires the MG and its Inherent FP during Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, the MG is limited to Area Fire, adjacent enemies only, no ROF, and Sustained Fire penalties.
The squad's Inherent FP is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If both the Inherent FP and First Fired MG fire together, fire is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire, no ROF, and with Sustained Fire penalties.

Case 3: A squad possessing two MGs fires one MG and its Inherent FP during Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, if the squad fires the unmarked MG, it can fire with full ROF and full FP and full range without Sustained Fire penalties.
The squad's Inherent FP is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If both the Inherent FP and unmarked MG fire together, fire is limited to adjacent enemies, and the squad's FP is Area Fire, but the unmarked MG would retain full FP, full ROF, and no Sustained Fire penalties (and could fire elsewhere too, if it keeps ROF).

That's how I read the rules, but I can be wrong somewhere.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Keep in mind, I think there is an oversight here and I am speaking on behalf of Klas which is never good.

Case 1: A squad possessing a MG fires only its Inherent FP in Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, the MG can fire with full ROF and full FP and full range and no Sustained Fire penalties--and once the MG's ROF ends, it can't fire any more.
The squad can fire its Inherent FP, but only against adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If the MG and Inherent FP are used together in the DFPh, fire is limited to adjacent enemies, and the squad's FP is Area Fire, but I think the MG would retain full FP, full ROF, and no Sustained Fire penalties and could fire elsewhere afterwards if it retains its ROF.

I think this is correct per the discussion Klas and I had. I still think this is wrong, but I think an argument can be made in the rules that this is correct.

Case 2: A squad possessing one MG fires the MG and its Inherent FP during Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, the MG is limited to Area Fire, adjacent enemies only, no ROF, and Sustained Fire penalties.
The squad's Inherent FP is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If both the Inherent FP and First Fired MG fire together, fire is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire, no ROF, and with Sustained Fire penalties.

This may be correct. If the MG fires and maintains ROF, it is basically Case 1 all over again. If the MG lost ROF, it is limited to fire against Adjacent targets as Sustained Fire. Doesn't matter if the squad includes its Inherent FP.

Case 3: A squad possessing two MGs fires one MG and its Inherent FP during Defensive First Fire and then doesn't SFF at all.
In the DFPh, if the squad fires the unmarked MG, it can fire with full ROF and full FP and full range without Sustained Fire penalties.
The squad's Inherent FP is limited to adjacent enemies with Area Fire.
If both the Inherent FP and unmarked MG fire together, fire is limited to adjacent enemies, and the squad's FP is Area Fire, but the unmarked MG would retain full FP, full ROF, and no Sustained Fire penalties (and could fire elsewhere too, if it keeps ROF).where.

So this is a mix of Case 1 and Case 2. The MG's are limited as I described earlier. If the Inherent FP is used, then one of the MGs cannot be.

Now, keep in mind, when I look at A8.4x, it only speaks about MG and IFE. It makes no mention of how a squads Inherent FP works. A8.1 says First Fire is that portion of of Defensive Fire that occurs during the enemy's MPh is called First Fire. First Fire IS Defensive Fire. It makes no sense to me that one portion of Defensive Fire would suffer Sustained Fire Penalties while the same conditions would not in another part of Defensive Fire. It's ALL Defensive Fire. It makes no sense that if I fire at your last moving unit while spending MF, I would be subjected to Sustained Fire penalties but if I wait until that same unit is done moving, the same exact unit could fire at that previous unit and not suffer Sustained Fire penalties. I am not sure what's trying to be modeled here.

What's more, I have been playing the game for a long time. I have always played this as sustained fire. I cannot recall a single instance where this wasn't played as sustained fire. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

I see what you're saying. And it does seem inconsistent that (in my Case 3) if the second, unfired MG waits until the DFPh to fire, it will avoid the SFF limitations.
(Although giving two MGs to a single squad is rare in my experience, except maybe with kill stacks or as the result of casualties/SW Recovery.)

 

[von Marwitz]

von Marwitz

 

[Philippe D.]

What I find surprising with PF (something I discovered rather recently, and had been playing incorrectly) is that a Squad which First Fires (only) its Inherent FP, cannot then go for a PF as a SW usage. I'm pretty sure I played this for years as if the PF were a MG, with the Squad allowed (provided it didn't Cower) to use a PF after firing First Fire. From the current discussion I get the idea that this is more or less because, since the FP is an Inherent SW, its usage counts as part of the Inherent FP.

In practice, it makes for interesting tactical options when facing PF-equipped troops. The simple threat of AFV closing in can make the opponent withhold fire, so that the Infantry can maneuver more safely (I've seen this a lot in the Sainte-Mère CG3, where the Americans end up with lots and lots of Sherman that only the threat of Panzerfaust can keep at a distance).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

What I find surprising with PF (something I discovered rather recently, and had been playing incorrectly) is that a Squad which First Fires (only) its Inherent FP, cannot then go for a PF as a SW usage.

A PF is like any other SW in this regard. So if a squad is marked First Fire for firing only its inherent FP it can still fire a SW as First Fire, and that includes trying for a PF.

Q&A
A8.31 & C13.31
May a German squad marked with a First Fire counter make a PF check during the enemy movement phase?
A. Assuming it can still fire a SW without having to use Subsequent First Fire, i.e., it either only used its Inherent FP or only fired one SW.

 

[Philippe D.]

Hmm, we went through the rules (didn't look for a Q&A) when playing, and concluded that PF usage while under First Fire wasn't allowed.

Here's the part of C13.31 that closed the deal for us:

A unit may not make a PF Check in Subsequent First Fire or FPF (A8.3-.31) — regardless of whether it made a PF Check during First Fire. 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).

This, on careful reading, seems pretty explicit: if you've already used your Inherent FP, you are under a First Fire, and are not allowed to go for a PF, "regardless of whether [you] made a PF Check during First Fire".

Edit: hmm, I think I get it. A squad that only used Inherent FP would be using SFF with its Inherent FP, but only First Fire with a SW. Right?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Edit: hmm, I think I get it. A squad that only used Inherent FP would be using SFF with its Inherent FP, but only First Fire with a SW. Right?

Correct. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

So in one of those rare instances where @klasmalmstrom and I disagree. I will concede the rules leave room for this to be wrong, in fact, a strict reading of A8.4 and A8.41 says nothing about the MGs fire being Sustained Fire in Final Fire. I can see how Klas comes to this opinion and I can see this being rules as he sees it.

However, I think A8.4x speaks ONLY about the weapon firing on its own. Notice, it says nothing about any Inherent or Small Arms fire combining into a Fire Group. IMO, an unmarked MG which Fire Groups with a squad that is already marked First Fired would make the MG fire be sustained fire. This is not what A8.4x says although as I already noted, A8.4x only speaks to the weapon. Still, you should probably ignore the part about sustained fire.

Klas has an unpublished Q&A supporting his position. It was never published because the questioner didn't put it out there and Klas only includes Q&A which made it into the public domain. It makes zero sense that a unit would be using Sustained Fire in SFF but not in Final Fire IMO. I have personally always played it as Sustained Fire. I have seen many other examples of people playing this as Sustained Fire.

Just probing this a little. In the DFPh . . .

A SW/Gun fired by a HS/crew marked by a First Fire counter should be treated as if also already marked by a First Fire counter; the same for a squad marked by a First Fire counter if it has fired a different SW/Gun earlier in the turn.

Is that sort of the idea?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Just probing this a little. In the DFPh . . .

A SW/Gun fired by a HS/crew marked by a First Fire counter should be treated as if already marked by a First Fire counter; the same for a squad marked by a First Fire counter if it has fired a different SW/Gun earlier in the turn.

Is that sort of the idea?

Not really, it is the inconsistency between A8.3 and A8.41. Imagine a situation in which a DEFENDING squad marked First Fired also possesses an un-marked MG. In this scenario, an ATTACKING unit is moving in LOS of the DEFENDER. If the DEFENDER shoots the combined Inherent FP along with the MG, the MG would be treated as Sustained Fire. If the DEFENDER instead opts to shoot on the MG, it would shoot the MG normally. So far, so good. Now imagine the ATTACKER moves into an Adjacent Location. If the DEFENDER combines its Inherent FP with the MG in the MPh, the MG is halved and treated as Sustain Fire. If instead, the DEFENDER waits for Final Fire, the MG would not be Sustained Fire and can possibly get ROF even when combining with Inherent FP against an Adjacent unit. To me, that seems broken.

Thinking about it more, I think the ROF point is irrelevant since the SFF by the unit would mark the unit and all the weapons it possesses with a Final Fire counter so a potential ROF tear isn't an issue when combined with the Inherent FP. But it makes little sense to me that one shot suffers Sustain Fire penalties while another doesn't when nothing else in the situation changes. Imagine it was the last ATTACKER unit to move. It enters a hex. If you shoot now, Sustained Fire. If you wait but a moment, it is not Sustain Fire. Everything else is equal. To me, that's just silly.

IMO, A8.4 does not consider the case where MG/IFE Firepower is combined with Inherent Firepower that is already marked. The chances of "abuse" are limited as the Inherent FP can only fire Adjacent so it probably isn't worth a change or errata. IMO, it probably is worth a Q&A, but I already have a couple of petitions before the court and I don't want to jam the docket.

Have a good weekend everyone. -- jim

 

[MajorDomo]

A similar situation occurred in a ASO tournament game.

A squad/HMG first fired its inherent FP.

In Defensive fire, the squad again fired only its inherent fire as area fire at an adjacent unit, marked with Final Fire

The HMG then fired multiple times ( with ROF) at non-adjacent enemy units.

I thought this violated the rules, but have come around to the view that the above is just fine and legal.

 

[Sparafucil3]

A similar situation occurred in a ASO tournament game.

A squad/HMG first fired its inherent FP.

In Defensive fire, the squad again fired only its inherent fire as area fire at an adjacent unit, marked with Final Fire

The HMG then fired multiple times ( with ROF) at non-adjacent enemy units.

I thought this violated the rules, but have come around to the view that the above is just fine and legal.

It is probably a difference without a distinction. It is funny the rules are very pedantic on when to place a Final Fire counter in SFF but are not in the ACTUAL DFPh (AKA Final Fire). It is also interesting that in SFF, the rules are pretty pedantic that when an Infantry unit is marked Final Fire so too are all of its possessed SW/Guns. This pedantry is remarkably absent in Final Fire.

The reason I say this is a distinction without a difference is because it would all be perfectly legal if done the the other way around. Had he shot the MG and THEN shot the Inherent, the only thing that would have changed is the order of the DR.

The only thing that might make it illegal as done is if the MG should be marked as Final Fired when the unit itself was marked Final Fired. Sadly, the rules and the ASOP don't specify that. It is so unclear that I have changed my answer above. Like you, I think once the Inherent FP is used, the weapon should be marked as Final Fired. Sadly, I cannot prove it. This feels silly to me. I wonder how many people have played it the way you experienced at ASO.

ASOP:
4.21D May designate Spotter(s) for MTR(s) that had no original Spotter (C9.3). May fire unit(s) not marked with First or Final Fire counter {Heavy AA fire; E7.52}, and/or any marked with First Fire counter (as Final Fire at adjacent/same hex target; A8.4), placing AA/Final/Intensive/No Fire or Gunflash counter(s) as required;

A strict reading of the ASOP could be argued you cannot shoot SW/Gun in Final Fire since they aren't a unit. Obviously, this is silly. Clearly, the ASOP is as well written as the Final Fire rules -- jim

 

[Old Noob]

Herr Oberst, you should submit the flowchart for First Fire to MMP, to be published in the next Journal.

 

[Bill Kohler]

Herr Oberst, you should submit the flowchart for First Fire to MMP, to be published in the next Journal.

As indicated on the graphic, the First Fire Flowchart was first released by Tom Repetti and Ole Boe, and it's a great chart!

BTW I've added a couple minor notes to my Repetti/Boe version:
--SFF Text Box: 1st bullet: append: ", and only by Infantry."
--SFF Text Box: 4th bullet: append: "regardless of whether it had itself previously been fired--A8.41 EX, A8.3."
--Append to the * note: "See A8.3 Q&A."

 

[von Marwitz]

Herr Oberst, you should submit the flowchart for First Fire to MMP, to be published in the next Journal.

As @Bill Kohler has stated, the credits for the flowchart are not due to me.

von Marwitz

 

[Old Noob]

Sorry, my bad. Still think it should be included in a future Journal or Action Pack.

 

[John Fedoriw]

Let me ask this specific question:

A squad possessing a MMG and a HMG fires the HMG and its Inherent FP during Defensive First Fire and--without Cowering--it Malf's the HMG.
(a) Now it comes to Subsequent First Fire: can the squad fire its Inherent FP and the MMG?
...

a) Yes, the MMG would be halved and subject to Sustained Fire. (A7.353 and A8.3)
...

Forgive my ignorance but WTH? How is this not using IFP + 2 SW? Per the SW Weapons Chart you must forfeit IFP to fire 2 SW. Can you cite which rule allows this?