[Rules] Bombardment Chart - Example

[triangular_cube]

An X has to give the stack a step loss, not each unit in the stack... otherwise whats the point of the 3X results on the DF table? To move each unit in the stack to negative 1 step?

In your DF example, it would be up the player taking the hit. A 3-stack could lose one step a piece if that is how the owning player wished to distribute the 3X step DF table loss to appropriate units.

Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1.

[triangular_cube]

Not to be a rules lawyer, but . . . the Bombardment Rules - on page 24 in 9.0 Bombardment Fire, and 9.4 Procedure, indicate that: "All enemy units in the hex are affected." as well as, "He then rolls two dice and cross-references the result with the column arrived at, and applies the combat results (if any) to ALL units in the target hex."

This would mean that the two concurrent column X results would affect both combat units, and each one would lose a step.

 Naturally, all units in the hex would have to make an M2 morale check with even a singe step loss.

 Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The 2022 discussion did reach a consensus. Only unfulfilled step losses from higher columns may be passed down, and those losses passed down may not exceed what would have been inflicted by the lower column.

Are you seriously are arguing that results from multiple column can multiply losses?

Its certainly a headscratcher how they came up with that one. Take the corollary of a dug in unit. 2xINF in a stack getting bombed by a finger of death 42 column strike, rolls a 3. Units suffer an X. Dig in one of those units, so resolution is on 42 and 30 and suddenly digging in results in double casualties? Nah, doesn't work that way. 

Can't say I agree that forcing the loss on the higher column unit when both have an X though. Aside from it "feeling right" that the AT gun/W.e. is more vulnerable, if both columns result in an X I play it as owners choice who takes it. If only the higher column has an X, then I'd force it as the only eligible X result. But I dont have the energy at 4am to argue about that till the cows come home...

[plloyd1010]

My phrasing seems to have been a bit off. Equal unfulfilled losses can be destitute however is desired. Such as with a with an X/2X.
It might be better to say a step losses taken from lower column results may be applied against higher column results.

No, Dr. Mike and John Stafford did not comment. I don't think Doug McNair did either.

[Schoenwulf]

A single DR should not lead to multiple results because ordnance happens to be present in the hex. What if the split columns had been an X and an M2. Would one really need to roll the M2 twice for the infantry? Methinks not.

[cochise75]

Not to be a rules lawyer, but . . . the Bombardment Rules - on page 24 in 9.0 Bombardment Fire, and 9.4 Procedure, indicate that: "All enemy units in the hex are affected." as well as, "He then rolls two dice and cross-references the result with the column arrived at, and applies the combat results (if any) to ALL units in the target hex."

This would mean that the two concurrent column X results would affect both combat units, and each one would lose a step.

 Naturally, all units in the hex would have to make an M2 morale check with even a singe step loss.

 Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The 2022 discussion did reach a consensus. Only unfulfilled step losses from higher columns may be passed down, and those losses passed down may not exceed what would have been inflicted by the lower column.

Are you seriously are arguing that results from multiple column can multiply losses?

Beg to differ, but in this case, it seems clear that the answer is: yes. Both units in both columns got X results, so both should lose a step.

[triangular_cube]

Not to be a rules lawyer, but . . . the Bombardment Rules - on page 24 in 9.0 Bombardment Fire, and 9.4 Procedure, indicate that: "All enemy units in the hex are affected." as well as, "He then rolls two dice and cross-references the result with the column arrived at, and applies the combat results (if any) to ALL units in the target hex."

This would mean that the two concurrent column X results would affect both combat units, and each one would lose a step.

 Naturally, all units in the hex would have to make an M2 morale check with even a singe step loss.

 Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The 2022 discussion did reach a consensus. Only unfulfilled step losses from higher columns may be passed down, and those losses passed down may not exceed what would have been inflicted by the lower column.

Are you seriously are arguing that results from multiple column can multiply losses?

Beg to differ, but in this case, it seems clear that the answer is: yes. Both units in both columns got X results, so both should lose a step.

The answer is clear in that it is no. Its still one attack. X does not mean every unit in the hex loses a step, again, a plain illustration is that 3X would not be on the DF table, as it would reduce all units to negative one. 

Especially in this simple example where both the upshift and normal column results are the same, X, the answer is consult the CRT for the definition of X. That answers the question plainly.

[Grognard Gunny]

In a case of contending rules.... I would award the step loss to the AT gun, as that is the least "protected" of the two. But that is just a logical happenstance. (All things considered.)

GG

[OldPueblo]

An X has to give the stack a step loss, not each unit in the stack... otherwise whats the point of the 3X results on the DF table? To move each unit in the stack to negative 1 step?

In your DF example, it would be up the player taking the hit. A 3-stack could lose one step a piece if that is how the owning player wished to distribute the 3X step DF table loss to appropriate units.

Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1.

This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?

[triangular_cube]

An X has to give the stack a step loss, not each unit in the stack... otherwise whats the point of the 3X results on the DF table? To move each unit in the stack to negative 1 step?

In your DF example, it would be up the player taking the hit. A 3-stack could lose one step a piece if that is how the owning player wished to distribute the 3X step DF table loss to appropriate units.

Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1.

This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?

Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X. 

It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from.

[OldPueblo]

An X has to give the stack a step loss, not each unit in the stack... otherwise whats the point of the 3X results on the DF table? To move each unit in the stack to negative 1 step?

In your DF example, it would be up the player taking the hit. A 3-stack could lose one step a piece if that is how the owning player wished to distribute the 3X step DF table loss to appropriate units.

Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1.

This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?

Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X. 

It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from.

Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.

In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.

That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?