[Rules] AT fire *during* assault

[campsawyer]

I understand that this is one of those points that can be interpreted differently and there has been other rules that muddy the waters. Here is my thinking. First, the ability of AT in an assault is ambiguous. The rule says that AT fire can be used in an assault hex, but does not state when. By not saying when it seems that it can be used any time you want, including as part of an assault. From the attackers perspective, this is supported by the SSR and soon to be added to the core rules for Infantry AT weapons. In an assault a designated infantry unit can both assault and fire their AT weapon when they are the attacker, but not as a defender. I use this to justify the AT use as an attacker no matter what the unit as this is supported by the use of AT fire in the assault. However, on the defense the rules state "However, all enemy units in the hex defend as one combined strength." and as the defender they do not get to activate as a FIRE activation, so they do not get a choice as to how to defend; they only defend as one group on the assault table.

This is how I see the rule now and I feel this is a muddy spot and we may need some judgement from John S. on this. I am happy with what to make it either way, but there needs to be consistency as allowing the defenders to fire AT. This will also impact infantry AT and I would what them to be considered for there AT ability while defending in an assault.

[zaarin7]

I realize that what is happening in the hex is at a sub scale to normal PG. It would almost be like taking the fight to a smaller scale. Then you would see weapons firing at the perceived most dangerous opponent to themselves. If it's armor and non-armor attacking a similar mix if the non-armor on defense has ranged AT they will use it. If they do not then the defenders will be trying to separate the attackers forces into two parts so the defenders non-armor can close to the attacking armor.

I would vote that defenders should be able to fire AT if the attacker includes armor.

[vince hughes]

OK,

This is for Alan & Hugmenot. Other readers may / will find this interesting, particularly as nobody else has raised it.

One of you at least MUST be wrong. Although IMO, both of you are incorrect and here is why with the below example which if you were both correct would reveal a serious flaw in the PG system after so many 1000's of plays on PG_HQ alone that nobody noticed before.

In 1942 in the USSR any scenario almost (as most Soviets have a '7' morale) , 3 x StGIIIG's activate to FIRE in order to carry out an assault attack on a town hex that 3 x T34's are defending. They assault because part of the VC's are that towns controlled is part of the VC's.

Using PG rules, the attacking StG's have 2 choices. Either add their DF's together (3 x 10) for 30pts (-2 against a town +1 higher morale) = a 24col attack. OR take 6 x AT shots requiring 9's+ to hit. They go for the 6 x 9's AT attack as the damage possibilities are far more luctrative.

That is the easy part: Now we introduce Alan and Hugmenots interpretation of the rules.

Alan says the defending T34's, unlike the attackers are not allowed to AT fire,, therefore, the T34's are denied their 3 x AT shots where they would have a gun of 5 v an armour of 4 (plus town) therefore needing 10's to hit. As stated, Alan's interpretation of the rules is denying this possibility because he states that defending units can not AT fire in assault albeit attacking units can.

OK

If we take that rule, that leaves them with ONLY their DF option. This now moves us onto Hugmenot's rule interpretation of NOT allowing the defending units assault roll to affect units that have AT fired at them in the hex because they did not roll on the assault table. Hugmenot's interpretation being that AT firing units in an assault hex are not 'assaulting'.

Well this now leaves a serious flaw. Using Hugmenot's interpretation, because the StG's AT fired, the T34's can not harm them with an assault roll because they are exempted !!

The combined interpretation of Alan's and Hugmenot's rule means that an enemy can attack in assault using AT fire and receive NO harm at all. they can not be AT fired on because Alan does not believe defenders can AT fire and they can not be harmed by an assault table rule because Hugmenot does not believe AT firing units IN an assault hex are assaulting and are therefore exempt from attack. This is clearly incorrect... no assaulting units are exempted.

Another problem with H's idea is that it assumes the attacker designates his attack first ? As the fire against each other is simultaneous, there is no need for the defender to work out who has AT'd and who has DF'd. They are simply activated to FIRE in an assault and are therefore IN ASSAULT. What if the defender rolled his dice first in a simultaneous assault ?

Therefore, I reiterate the rather simple rules:

Any unit with an AT factor in an assault that is activated for a FIRE activation may AT fire if they so wish. The defenders may also use AT values as per 12.52. Also, any unit activated to FIRE in an assault hex is also open to the effects of any assault roll whether they AT fire or use their DF numbers. Assault is not what table you use to fire, it is the act of activating to FIRE in an assault hex.

So I maintain that activating to FIRE in an assault hex whether AT or DF numbers are used is all part of the assault hex and therefore that unit WILL be included in the retaliatory results. To have a situation where a unit assaulting can not be touched by the combination of two interpreations is clearly an error of judgement. As I play against both of you, there clearly is a need for one or both of you to re-visit what you are putting forward. The procedure I put forward seems obvious from the reading, intuitive and means that assault FIRE activations is the HEX rather than the type of fire.

I will add that units activated to MOVE when an assault takes place, such as recover from DIS or DEM ARE exempt as they are not taking part in the assault FIRE activation.

[larrymm]

Having watched the back and forth among distinguished veterans of the PG ethos, I can only say I'm in awe of the depth of insight and reasoning on all sides of this question. It's thus with a great deal of trepidation that I add my own first attempt to clarify things based on what I hope is a close reading of the rules. Also, I'm very long-winded, so I apologize in advance for posting this...

Summary: There are 2 distinct types of assault combat, required (assault movement) and optional (ongoing assault combat). Required assault combat is conducted only with DF on the assault table. Optional assault combat allows for different types of activation among participating units, including (as argued below) activation for AT Fire. AT fire in an assault hex is handled like any other AT fire and thus targets of AT fire cannot return fire for that attack. Attacking units not activated for AT fire can activate for and conduct normal assaults against all enemy units.

Reasoning:

To my mind, the confusion about AT fire and Assault is due to the numerous references in the rules to the multi-unit effects of assault combat for both attacker and defender, e.g.

1.1 Rules Summary
Assault: ...Results affect all enemy units in the hex.
7.43 Assault: ...Assault fire affects all enemy units in the assault hex.
12.3 Optional Combat:...all enemy units in the hex defend as one combined strength.
12.4 Procedure:...Each player totals the direct fire values of all his units in the hex...

AT fire, on the other hand, is strictly one on one. So here we have a qualitative difference between assault fire and AT fire. This is confirmed by the annotation for 12.12 Exiting a Hex:

AT fire against exiting units
The "free shot" against exiting enemy units is conducted as an assault, on the Assault Table. Units with AT values may use their Direct Fire values in the assault, but may not use AT fire against the exiting units.
Note that late war infantry units with short range AT must be activated in order to use it. Therefore, they may not use their short range AT in addition to the "free shot."

The key here is "units with short range AT must be activated in order to use it." But any unit with AT must be activated in order to use it. In a non-assault hex, a unit targeted by AT fire does not get to fire back with AT nor with DF; it is not activated. With respect to AT fire, a unit in an assault hex is no different: if targeted by AT fire from a unit in the same hex, or from any other hex, the defending unit is not activated and thus may not return fire.

So when can defending units with AT in an assault hex return fire? Only when attacked on the assault table, and then the return fire must use DF factors only.

OK, but when can a unit use its AT to attack during assault combat? To me, assault combat breaks down into two phases, 1) assault movement, and 2) ongoing combat in an assault hex.

Phase 1 - Assault Movement. It is clear that a unit must activate for fire to use its AT, and activating for assault movement is activating for fire. However, the rules for assault movement read:

12.2 Required Combat
Assault combat must be resolved immediately when active units enter a hex containing enemy units and no friendly units. Resolve the assault after all active units which are to enter the assault hex this action segment have finished entering the hex.
All units of both sides in the hex must participate.

Per 12.2, assault movement results in a single assault combat consisting of all attackers against all defenders. As there is no distinction made for types of fire, and the rules repeatedly refer to results being applied to "all enemy units in the hex," combat in this case is limited to DF factors used on the assault table for both attacker and defender.

So, for assault movement (initiating an assault), we should consider AT-capable units on the attack as "in motion" and thus unable to use their AT fire, only DF (i.e., HE ammo and MGs). This interpretation (to my mind) balances nicely with the prohibition of AT fire during a free shot at exiting units.

Phase 2 - Ongoing Assault Combat. For units already in an assault hex, 12.11 applies:

Units which begin their activation in an assault hex or enter an existing assault hex are not required to assault, and can opt to recover morale, leave the hex, or do nothing (12.3).

We need to add "activate for AT fire" to these options. This is the only way to make sense of the rule references to using AT against a target in the same hex. If we allow this, then an AFV has the option to activate for assault as normal, combining its DF with other units, being subject to defensive fire, etc. Or the AFV can choose to activate for AT fire, conducted as normal AT fire (with no die roll mod due to being in same hex), against designated targets and without chance of return fire. Of course, a unit which activates for AT fire cannot activate for assault, and vice-versa.

As with any other fire activation, order of fire execution is up to the attacker. Just as a given unit can be targeted multiple times outside an assault hex, so can a given vehicle unit be targeted first by AT and than by an assault in the same turn (or vice-versa).

So how does this work with the example of the StuGIIIGs assaulting the T34s? Phase 1 - Assault movement - 3 StuGIIIGs enter the town hex and must use their 30 DF factors on the Assault Table, the 3 T34s returning fire in the same way. The StuGIIIGs get MOVE/FIRE markers, the T34s do not.
Phase 2 - Ongoing combat - On the Soviet's activation (assume all units have survived), the T34s have all the options of 12.11 plus the option to activate for AT fire. 1 T34 could fire at a specific StuGIIIG unit with AT, then the other 2 T34s could use their combined 16 DF on the assault table against all 3 StuGIIIGs. These 2 T34s would then be the defenders for the StuGIIIGs' return fire. All 3 T34s now have MOVE/FIRE markers. If all T34s elect AT fire, the StuGIIIGs have no return fire. So it goes....

If the Germans on their turn exit the hex, the T34s can take their "free shot" only on the assault table using their DF; no change here.

This all seems consistent and reasonable to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if no-one else agrees. And if you've read this far, well, thanks, and I can send aspirin if you need it.

[rerathbun]

My two cents:

Per Rule 7.1, "Each unit which elects to "FIRE" during its activation segment may perform one type of fire." [emphasis added]

Per Rule 12.11, "good-order units . . . may enter an adjacent hex occupied by enemy units. This is called "assault movement." . . . This initiates an assault (or reinforces an existing one)."

Per Rule12.2, "Assault combat must be resolved immediately when active units enter a hex containing enemy units and no friendly units. Resolve the assault after all active units which are to enter the assault hex this action segment have finished entering the hex.
All units of both sides in the hex must participate."

Referring back to 12.11, "Units which begin their activation in an assault hex or enter an existing assault hex are not required to assault, and can opt to recover morale, leave the hex, or do nothing (12.3)."

Put those together and it seems to me that if you initiate an assault, all units that move into the assault hex in that activation must participate in Assault combat using the Assault Table. If they begin their activation in an assault hex, they may either fire with AT fire at armor in the hex or assault. They may not do both. Infantry AT weapons in an assault hex are a special case, spelled out in SSRs.

If assaulted, the defenders all participate in Assault Combat using the Assault Table. Since defending does not count as their activation, they may (on their activation) either assault or use AT fire against the enemy in the assault hex (or recover, exit the hex, dig-in, or just sit there).

In the example of the StuGs assaulting the T-34s, when the StuGs move into the hex, they all must assault. All of the T-34s will defend, and both sides will use the Assault Table. Assuming they all survive with no disruptions, the T-34s on their activation may
1) All three assault the StuGs, or
2) All fire at them with AT fire, or
3) One fires using AT fire and the other two assault, or
4) Two fire using AT fire and one assaults or
5) Use a Move activation to dig in, exit the hex, etc.

In (3) or (4), the Russian player may activate all of them together in one activation, and choose which to carry out first, the AT fire or the assault.

Assuming all three StuGs survive with no disruptions, on the following turn the German player will have the same choices as the Russian player did.

[larrymm]

Rerathbun:

Looks like you reached the same conclusions I did -- in about 1/10th the space.... Nicely reasoned.

[Hugmenot]

Your example above shows you do not understood my interpretation Vince.

Example 1: the StG's are adjacent to the T34's and activate to fire. They can do one of three things: (1) conduct AT fire at 1 hex range, (2) conduct direct fire at one hex range, or (3) assault the town hex. If they assault the town hex they must do so using their Direct Fire value and the T34's defend using their Direct Fire value.

Example 2: the StG's are in an assault hex with the T34's and activate to fire. They can do one of two things: (1) conduct AT fire, or (2) assault. If they conduct AT fire, it is like any other AT fire in the sense that there is no return fire and it is not an assault. If they assault, they must do so using their Direct Fire value and the T34's defend using their Direct Fire value.

Very simple.

Nowhere in 12.52 does it state the defender can defend using AT fire, actually the assault procedure is very clear they must use their Direct Fire value. I interpret attack 12.52 to mean the activated units to fire.

Edit: I was writing my response while Robin posted his. My interpretation is the same as his. His example is much better than mine because mine may mislead you into thinking the tanks must perform the same action.

[rerathbun]

This all seems consistent and reasonable to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if no-one else agrees. And if you've read this far, well, thanks, and I can send aspirin if you need it.

Well, obviously I agree. My timing is a little late, though.

[larrymm]

Yeah, I wish you had posted about 30 min. earlier; would've saved me a lot of carpal-tunnel Now if only I can remember to stop assaulting with unsupported AFVs.

[zaarin7]

Since the 4th ed rules are supposed to have been derived or some such from the Modern rules (or so I understand) can somebody look at the relevant to this discussion rules in the Modern rules so we can have some idea of how 4th ed might be handling this issue?