[Rules] 6.42 Firepower Enhancement

[cjsiam]

This has caused me to go deeper than I thought it would into why I think the way I do--and to find a weakness in your perspective.  It's harder than I thought, given constraints,---but, I think I may have some new ideas on how this is resolved.

First though---we might review some of this process a bit....
We all have copies of the full rules---there is only one RAW 4th edition we all have.  What we have discovered is that there is some imprecision, some wiggle-room, or some confusion in the reading/interpretation of the RAW.

Going through this I’ve thought about how divergent opinions develop:
a) Incorrect reading of the rules—
That is either not recognizing how the sentence is constructed, or the reader not appreciating the full context of what the words mean---that happens.  I've seen it happen--couple of these are not yet resolved....
 
This I think can be "set right" with explanation and examples of what the correct reading means, and how/why it should be interpreted one way vs. another.

b) Imprecision in the language, sentence structure in RAW—
Resulting in multiple interpretations of what the rules say.  The obvious one for all of us is "Units"...used is so many different ways and contexts in the rules....This is much harder to "set right" or even know what "right" means. 
(The FINAL authority should probably be the Rules Author (Authors?? and there lies a rub...) and having some input from them to just resolve things would be ideal...but it dont' seem to
come so much---at least no within PG-HQ...maybe CSW PG forum gets more attention....
 
So dealing with this issue (which is where I think this particular debate is) can be addressed in a few ways:
  1) Citing the specific rules which bolster an interpretation--examples from RAW, discuss how the particular siting applies and how it supports one interpretation or the other..
  2) Showing how the variant interpretation would be in violation of other established, not questioned, portions of the RAW.  If numerous logical inconsistencies can be shown resulting from the variant interpretation--impacting stable and agreed mechanics then the new interpretation might be declared invalid.
 
I would also like you to clarify the difference you seem to see in “reading the rules” and “interpreting the rules”.  Extending what the rules might say---into what they don’t mean—that is to be avoided, certainly…but, clarifying what the implications are of what they DO say—that is valid and necessary (I think)

Also in terms of my responses---they may seem long winded, I apologize.  I include rule references in context to where I'm talking about them--because I may talk about them multiple times, they may show up multiple times--I want the reader to focus on the issues--not scrolling to find things...
I wish I wrote better---but doing this, doing it clearly, takes care.
I like to avoid being obviously stupid in my "lives forever" writings....

So---cutting to the chase of the "arguments" (in legal sense of the term):

A) Must a leader declare an ACTION upon activation?

1. No, the LEADER activating "to fire" has not yet been established via rules text, only via interpretation of rules text.
   

 
B) Can a leader who is Activated (possibly with an ACTION) contribute his CF or MF to support units—when? during or after actions?
b)No, the act of directing UNITS to fire has not been established via rules text to be a "to fire" action, only via interpretation of rules text. 
 
C) When is a leader no longer Activated?
 
D) See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is "A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)". While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is still in some state of activation after the move, if they have a distinction between "beginning of his activation" and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation. 
----------------------
 
A) Must a leader declare an ACTION upon activation?

1. No, the LEADER activating "to fire" has not yet been established via rules text, only via interpretation of rules text.
   

I think we can cut this back to maybe some definitions we may be overlooking or assuming.
 
Consider the following from RAW:
1.1 Summary of Concepts
Action Segments: In an action segment, a player can activate one unit, or a stack of units, or a leader and all units of his type (regular or tank) in his hex and all adjacent hexes,or a string of adjacent leaders in descending rank order (plus all units with or adjacent to those leaders). Activated units may either move or fire in their action segment.
 
So this says that units that are activated may MOVE or FIRE in their Action Segment.
à There are TWO (not three or N) options, MOVE or FIRE
à Things happen in an “Action Segment”

1.2 Definitions
Action Segment: The activation of a unit, leader, or stack of units, or a group of units and subordinate leaders under the direction of a single senior leader. Activated units may perform either fire or movement (morale recovery is a move action and assault is a fire action) (3.13).
Active Player and Units: The player conducting the current action segment is the Active Player, and any units he takes actions with in the current action segment are Active Units.
àAgain—there are only TWO States for Activated Units TO FIRE or TO MOVE
àHere Leaders are explicitly called out with units---(contention is that the subject includes leaders, thus remaining portion of paragraph infers that leaders are included in the reference to units)
àMorale recovery is a MOVE ACTION…Assault is a FIRE Action—THUS, if you do not have such an action assigned you may not undertake these actions.
àActive units “take actions”….Actions have been defined as TO MOVE TO FIRE.  Thus—Units without Actions do not (can not) take actions.
 
What this means (I think) is that if a unit/Leader does not have an Action assigned, they do not participate in the ACTION Segment.  Perhaps you can “activate” them---but not assign an ACTION….(I say perhaps because I see it nowhere else in the rules, and don’t see it excluded explicitly---so, guess we have to allow it)

But then, they cannot undertake any MOVE action or any FIRE action in the ACTION segment.
 
So a leader which is activated, but no Action assigned—can sit there….until the player
ends the Action Segment….in this case—because the leader did not “complete move or fire” they are not marked with a M/F marker….but, they still don’t get to perform actions later, or in following Action Segments. 
 
I assume you have some reference to when M/F are placed onto these leaders—the only one I see is in 3.13—that last sentence.  Or 14.4 when upon attempting assistance All the Action Segment is exhausted.  Clearly at the end of an Action Segment they NEED to have M/F placed—but where is that called if not 3.13?
 
3.13 Unit Actions
The activated unit, leader or group performs actions in no specific order, but all actions must be designated before the first is performed. Actions are either Movement or Fire. Players need not pre-designate directions or targets - they just state which units will move and which will fire this action segment.
"Movement" includes moving (5.0), digging in (16.2), limbering/unlimbering (5.63) or attempting to recover morale (14.4). "Fire" includes direct fire (10.0), bombardment (9.0), anti-tank fire (11.0) and assault (12.0, even though initiating or joining an assault involves moving into the assault hex).
Once units are done moving and firing, mark them with Moved/Fired markers. Units marked with Moved/Fired markers may not activate again in the current turn except through Random Events (see Optional Rules).
Here in 3.13 above the sentence subject in the 1[sup]st[/sup] paragraph “activated unit, leader or group” is allowed to perform actions—all of which are designated—they are only TO MOVE or TO FIRE.
 
The ALLOWED activities for TO MOVE and TO FIRE are called out---and this is without saying only to units.  I think this must then refer also to leader (as in activated unit, leader or group)—otherwise – why does it even apply to units (not leaders) either—if units are not specifically called out? The sentences have two subjects “Movement” and “Fire”, and delineate what activities each such Action allows.  It nowhere says “Units” or “Leaders” but we know it’s in context of Unit Actions—(and I content the initial phrase “activated unit, leader or group” is held as “units” through the section). 
 
Units completing movement/firing are indicated to then have M/F placed upon them.  Here is where your “New View” interpretation says this doesn’t apply to leaders.  I think the context says that it does—but, for argument—say it does not.  The leader finished his MOVE or FIRE—but no marker is applied…..he is “unmarked” until the end of the Action Segment in your “NV”.
 
Perhaps the interpretation is:
The first thing you do in any Action Segment is Activation.
This is where you can assign Actions (actions are ONLY "Move" or "Fire")
After Action Assignment you immediately perform the Action portion, this is where those units which have assigned Actions---can execute those actions. 

Thus---if you have a leader you have not assigned an Action(M/F)--he may not participate
in the Action Segment---maybe that is the interpretation which cuts the Gordian knot... this would then infer that in the context of these paragraphs "units" means
both "combat/other units" and Leaders (who did things laid out in this paragraph--specifically activated with an Action).

ACTION segments support the exercise of ACTIONS---there are only two ACTIONS (movement and fire)---so if you are going to participate in an ACTION SEGMENT, you have to have an ACTION assigned
 
....thus Leaders, when activated must be assigned a To Move or To Fire Action, if they wish to participate in an Action Segment.
 
(over to you on A) this one)

B) Can a leader who is Activated (possibly with an ACTION) contribute his CF or MF to support units—when? during or after actions?
b)No, the act of directing UNITS to fire has not been established via rules text to be a "to fire" action, only via interpretation of rules text. 
 
Above we established (I contend) that Units/Leaders who do NOT have an Action assigned cannot participate in the ACTION SEGMENT.

Direct Fire happens in the ACTION SEGMENT for units with a TO FIRE Action….numerous references….
 
6.42 Firepower Enhancement
An activated, undemoralized leader may add his combat modifier to the direct fire value of one unit in his own hex. 
 
So if a Leader is Activated---it’s got to be TO FIRE or TO MOVE---being only valid way to participate in the ACTION segment.….

IF the Leader is activated to MOVE---it is not allowed to DF….thus “adding it’s factor” and then having that resulting value from a Leader which MOVED is Participating—then rolling and referencing the DF table is participating…..Leaders/Units with TO MOVE may not DF---
 
This is subject to (admittedly) the reading of the 3.13 to include leaders (from sentence 1, paragraph 1) when discussing what TO MOVE and TO FIRE mean in paragraph 2---where neither UNITS or LEADERS are referenced---meaning if units are inferred (as sent 1, para 1 says) then Leaders or Groups are as well.
 
IF, on the other hand the Leader is activated TO FIRE, they can do all the CF things, DF enhancement and Combined Fire---because they can EXPLICITLY participate in DF.
 
7.33 Combining Fire
… Units in adjacent hexes may combine fire only if activated by a leader who has a combat modifier. A leader can combine the fire of his hex plus a number of adjacent hexes equal to his combat modifier (6.41).
 
Combining Fire supports that the activation of the unit must be TO FIRE as well—the leader is “combining”, during his turn/action segment, the coordination of fire….an ACTIVE operation, not like supporting adjacent units with a MF during opponents turn (when not Active player)….
 
 
Later in rules
14.4 Recovery
... Units may recover with the assistance of an activated leader, or on their own. Units attempting recovery and leaders assisting them must be activated and may conduct no other action that turn. Place a Moved/Fired marker on any unit that attempts recovery (whether it is successful or not), and any leader who assists a recovery attempt.
A leader may not move in the same action segment in which he assists a recovery attempt, except to accompany a fleeing demoralized unit that fails to recover (6.53).
Recall:
1.2 Definitions
Action Segment: The activation of a unit, leader, or stack of units, or a group of units and subordinate leaders under the direction of a single senior leader. Activated units may perform either fire or movement (morale recovery is a move action and assault is a fire action) (3.13).
So clearly using MF to support recovery requires a leader to be marked with a “TO MOVE”…otherwise:
a)if they are not activated---they may not help 14.4
b)if they are activated – but with a TO FIRE – they are explicitly excluded
c)if they are activated – but in the proposed “no Action” state—they may not help as TO MOVE action is required---and if you have NO ACTION, you cannot participate in the Action Segment anyway…
d)if they are activated with a TO Move—they may assist, but do no other TO MOVE actions.
So this is clear.  They have laid out what is required, what states the leader have to be in.

The application of an MF during an opponents Action Segment as result of a MC required is allowed regardless---again, that is called out explicitly---and it happens in the opponents turn, not during the Players activation.
C) When is a leader no longer Activated?
 
I think the only consistent interpretation is as soon as it completes it’s TO MOVE and TO FIRE Actions.  Again, 3.13 “units” reference shows up in question.  Based on context—I think it must apply to Leaders as well.
 
IF we don't place M/F markers on completion of a Fire activation on a leader (for example) --or at completion of his move---then how many times does he get to add his CF as either DF or use it to combine bombardments?--is there no limit? there is no
M/F placed when the actions TO FIRE (DF, BF) are done---so--2,3,4 times he can apply his factors?  (....there lies madness.....)

Even in your example/Shad's example the Leader was activated to Move--- he did move---into the hex with the Inf (now I say he gets a moved/fired..but for this point i'll ignore that)...say he stays with his TO MOVE Action completed in the hex, with no M/F placed......the INF wants to fire---DF....but, the Leader cannot participate in DF--he's still marked with TO MOVE Action....it says DF required a TO FIRE action....

One of the things you seem to be inferring is AFTER the Leader performed his TO MOVE action---you contend that he does NOT get a M/F marker (only units do...) thus he remains activated---BUT---NOW his ACTION (TO MOVE) disappears? fades? evaporates--and he can now do TO FIRE kinds of things....(and reverse might be true...doing a TO FIRE action, not being marked, and then allowing TO MOVE actions?...)  I don't think this holds up.

So the new interpretive wrinkle on this is:
If a Leader wishes to participate in an ACTION SEGMENT---he must have an ACTION. 
ACTIONS are only TO MOVE or TO FIRE....
You may well activate your leader---but unless he has an ACTION assigned at his activation he has no ability to participate in the ACTION SEGMENT...
so no moving, no morale recovery, no Direct Fire, no combining Fire, nada....

I Guess you could have senior officers who activate Other units/officers and then don't do anything...no move/no fire....
we typically call those "TO MOVE" actions....but, perhaps we should have a "only activated" State--in which a leader (or unit??) may be activated--but can do nothing?
 
6.2 Leader Activation
A leader may only be activated if it is not currently marked with a Moved/Fired marker. A leader with a Moved/Fired marker may assist friendly units undergoing morale checks (14.1) or defending against an assault (12.4), but may not activate friendly units (3.1), assist recovering units (14.4), or initiate an assault (12.11).
Here the rules are explicit about dealing with Leaders who have M/F markers on them.
The only case you see that happening (I think, New View) is Morale recovery
because a) the completion of move/fire in 3.13 does not say leaders, and the "units" doesn't refer to them (necessarily) and b) the only case it is specific on placement of M/F other than that is in 14.4.....
So by your interpretation the only circumstances in which a leader would be marked with M/F would be after assisting recovery.??
Again---I don’t think that holds up in the Game either---lots of units, but leaders activated (even without TO MOVE/TO FIRE requirement) and just hanging??
7.46 Moved/Fired Markers
Once a unit has performed any type of fire, place a Moved/Fired marker on it to show that it may perform no further action this turn (exception: a "Free Shot" when all enemy units exit an assault hex, 12.12). …

This is another case where the RAW uses "unit" to place M/F....here I think it should be Unit or Leader involved.  Again--not placing a M/F on a leader allows players to potentially use a DF enhancement or combine fire with a leader multiple times in one Action segment with the same leader.
Does that seem to hold up?
I don't think so--but--again---I could be wrong....

 
3)See this is the side issue, as to whether or not an activated unit remains activated throughout the whole action segment in which they activated or just until they get a moved/fired chit. In fact the only directly relevant passage to this granularity of the rules I can seem to find is “A leader may only activate units at the beginning of his activation (he may not move and then activate units he was not with or adjacent to before moving)”. While in the situation described by Shad/Peter, the unit is not moving to activate, to be clear, the adjacent unit was activated before the move; this does suggest that the leader is stil” in some state ctivetion after the move, if they have a distinction between “beginning of his activation” and ... some other ambiguous stage of activation. 

I’ve demonstrated my Thesis about 3.13 referring to leaders when it requires placement of M/F.  14.4 is explicit—but with circumstances constraining Move Actions—that’s why.  I don’t agree with the idea that the leader is in “some state”---he activated to move, he moved—he should be marked with an M/F.  He is done for the turn.  Because he was Activated “TO MOVE” he cannot apply his CF to the DF attack…as he cannot participate in a DF combat with a TO MOVE Action.
 
So---your idea that M/F are not applied works only if you reject the 3.13 as including Leaders in selected parts of the section (para 1 definitely leaders included, para 2 neither units or leaders specified—but we all must assume it refers to them (my contention), para 3 only units mentioned but I assert in context of subject of para1—Leaders is inferred) does the “New View” hold up. 
Regardless, I draw you back to my hypothetical, of the unit and leader both being in the same hex at activation, the unit firing with the modifier of the active leader, and then the leader moving. 
My Orthodox Thesis is that this is invalid….
a) if the Leader wanted to participate (add their DF) to the DF Combat—they would be required to ACTIVATE TO FIRE (as per 3.13).
b)if the Leader wanted TO MOVE, they need to so activate---meaning the could NOT participate in the Direct Fire (as per 3.13).
 
SO---are we at an impasse?

Can you provide some clarification about how using a CF (DF or combine hex) in a Direct Fire Combat is NOT doing Direct Fire? I think this is kinda of hard to justify as a valid perspective.

Can you provide rationale to counter my counter examples in previous entry (the extrapolated +2 moving 4 hexes before jumping into a DF enhanced Multi-hex combat is my favorite)…

Have we been playing this wrong?