(08-12-2021, 08:05 PM)cjsiam Wrote: what does that mean?
Can he confirm it?
How so?
You asked what opinions there were about the consensus point. You asked about the reality aspect (I understand that to be latent plausibility). Fred Schwartz,aka Blackcloud here, retired colonel, battalion commander, author of a book on Sherman tanks (probably others too), seems to agree with the latent plausibility of the consensus.
He might confirm it here. So might Greyfox and treadasaurusrex. There are likely others with professional credentials, rather than my academic, who may also respond.
(08-12-2021, 08:05 PM)cjsiam Wrote: Anyway---I think the consensus is -- AT Fire Does NOT happen in Assault.....it is separate and distinct.
The way I would put it is that AT Fire and Assault are distinct actions, except in the case of
rule 12.12. (Technically that is not an action.)
