AT fire in assault hexes

[triangular_cube]

TC, don't disagree with you in much of what you say---as I said "murky"....

Some of the consequences trouble me though----
IF you can AT fire, without instigating an Assault response.....
Does that mean that later in that turn the Other side can attack those units with impunity---that is 
  those that AT fired have no attack back?.....

So in the above example if the units fired at the PzIII....as AT fire, and it did NOT instigate an Assault firefight,
the units could (even individually (see other ongoing thread about multiple assaults...) ) Attack the tanks (all at once) 
and suffer no return fire....

I guess that's plausible....the Russians being so focused on the PzIII they ignored the infantry ....

I have some trouble with a, for example, 37mm AT gun deciding it will AT fire at a Tank in the hex (for example) and
doing so without having to suffer a firefight response....thinking they could take the shots and NOT have to deal with 
return fire/ instigating a firefight seems .....well....skewed....

I agree we need a ruling......
Between this issue, and the "multiple assaults" question...the whole Assault mechanic may change for me...

"So in the above example if the units fired at the PzIII....as AT fire, and it did NOT instigate an Assault firefight,
the units could (even individually (see other ongoing thread about multiple assaults...) ) Attack the tanks (all at once) 
and suffer no return fire...."

I would think that if the PzIII survived the AT fire, it could return AT fire on its activation, Or it and the INF could attack on the assault chart and suffer the retaliatory fire. Units that have already activated still get to retaliate when they are attacked on the assault chart. 

To me, the limitation that the AT firing units not add their DF values to the assault total is limited to their specific activation. Even if firing AT in the hex DID trigger the defensive assault fire, and on the following activation the German's did an assault of their own, I would expect the Soviet tanks to be able to use defensive fire in Assault. I THINK the implication of the text is that a combined arms force is assaulting in one activation, with the tanks AT firing at something else and the INF assaulting the pile. 

To me at least, the AT fire within the hex acts just like AT fire from one hex away, just without the modifiers from the CRT in play. 

And to be honest I'm still very uneasy with the legality of the multi assaults. It still seems very "wrong" to me, but it doesnt seem to have many objections on here. I'm leaning on house ruling against that one myself but I'm still experimenting a bit with it.

Again, a reminder, this is all my opinion. Ask me again next week and it might be completely different. 

[cjsiam]

So I'm having some trouble with a few aspects of this:

1) if AT Fire is allowed, without ASSAULT---it is not simultaneous----the Russian tanks could take out the PZ without any retaliation---whereas if it
  was considered AT Fire under an ASSAULT it would instigate an ASSAULT fire-fight and the PZ could shot back, either individually or in combined assault.
So allowing AT Fire independent of assault---the dynamic of simultaneous fire is broken...

That is a problem for me....

2) In your example the problem is exacerbated...
  a) The Russians Fire AT while in the Assault square---not subject to any retaliation
  b) The Germans decide to ASSAULT -- PZ either AT fires or combines DF
  c) the Russians (you suggest) get to AT fire AGAIN in their Assault retaliation.....

I think that breaks the mechanic.... 

I'm cooped up in 14day quarantine in Bangkok....my opinion also might change in a week when I breath free beach air....

[triangular_cube]

So I'm having some trouble with a few aspects of this:

1) if AT Fire is allowed, without ASSAULT---it is not simultaneous----the Russian tanks could take out the PZ without any retaliation---whereas if it
  was considered AT Fire under an ASSAULT it would instigate an ASSAULT fire-fight and the PZ could shot back, either individually or in combined assault.
So allowing AT Fire independent of assault---the dynamic of simultaneous fire is broken...

That is a problem for me....

2) In your example the problem is exacerbated...
  a) The Russians Fire AT while in the Assault square---not subject to any retaliation
  b) The Germans decide to ASSAULT -- PZ either AT fires or combines DF
  c) the Russians (you suggest) get to AT fire AGAIN in their Assault retaliation.....

I think that breaks the mechanic.... 

I'm cooped up in 14day quarantine in Bangkok....my opinion also might change in a week when I breath free beach air....

I'm not sure why you would have the expectation of simultaneous action with AT fire to begin with. It really is an oddity in the PZG world to have simultaneous fire. The Assault procedure is the sole exception to the norm in that it could be simultaneous depending on if the defender has first fire or not.

If one is of the opinion that AT fire within the same hex is not engaging in an assault, it doesn't seem abnormal that it is one at a time, just like AT fire outside of the same hex. 

As for the second example, unless this was added in 4th (maybe it was? im still playing through 2nd/3rd edition modules, and have only played a handful of 4th) I don't see where the Soviets are getting the ability to retaliate with AT fire on C. They would retaliate on the assault table against whatever Germans chose to assault. If the PZ chose to AT fire on its activation, it would not be in the assault to begin with, only the INF would be (if they chose to assault). If they choose to assault together, they would all face retaliatory fire on the assault table. 

It seems any mention of the possibility of melding of AT fire and Assault was added in 4th entirely. 3rd only says that you can AT fire in the same hex, which I treat just like any other AT fire attack with different modifiers. I'm guessing this is why we are starting from the opposite sides of the coin when interpreting these rules.

[cjsiam]

you may be right...I play with 4th, or "Peter's house rules" at this point.

My understanding of the 4th Assault rules are that in an ASSAULT you use the DF, UNLESS you are an AT in which your ASSAULT fire can be AT fire against
an enemy vehicle unit in the same hex....so if you have AT ability you choose what type of ASSAULT fire you undertake as part of the ASSAULT, or response
to ASSAULT.... DF or AT

You seem to be interpreting it as AT FIRE is not part of ASSAULT, I have read the 4th (perhaps incorrectly, ??) that ASSAULT fire can be either the DF or AT if capable.

That do seem to make a difference in how we see things....This is where the "edition" would seem to matter.

Remembering this is a 15minute period of multiple guns/tanks in close proximity to enemy units---it's not one fire....
So folding that into how we view what the mechanic is presenting is part trying to understand this, me thinks...

[triangular_cube]

At least while im working my way through Jungle Fighting, none of this matters in the least bit 

[joe_oppenheimer]

So allowing AT Fire independent of assault---the dynamic of simultaneous fire is broken
 

Which is how AT Fire works outside of assault. I find in late war scenarios where AT fire is so lethal it often comes down to who wins the initiative. If powerful enemy tank units can see each other the winner of the initiative will get to fire first and often lethally.

[plloyd1010]

Starting at the end...
 

I think that breaks the mechanic....

It seems to be a presumed mechanic. None of the rules editions I have (2nd, 3rd, 4th & Modern) specify AT fire as combined in action with or as sub-component of assault combat. There is not any option for AT fire for the defender in any version of the rules. The only cross-over is at the end of 4th Ed rule 12.12 where units with AT values may conduct an AT shot for their "free shot".
 

1) if AT Fire is allowed, without ASSAULT---it is not simultaneous----the Russian tanks could take out the PZ without any retaliation---whereas if it
  was considered AT Fire under an ASSAULT it would instigate an ASSAULT fire-fight and the PZ could shot back, either individually or in combined assault.
So allowing AT Fire independent of assault---the dynamic of simultaneous fire is broken...

There is no dynamic of simultaneous AT fire anywhere else in the game. Why do you expect it here?
Of course there is no AT fire by units entering an assault hex. That is precluded by the requirement of rule 12.2 and the restriction of rule 12.3.
 

2) In your example the problem is exacerbated...
  a) The Russians Fire AT while in the Assault square---not subject to any retaliation
  b) The Germans decide to ASSAULT -- PZ either AT fires or combines DF
  c) the Russians (you suggest) get to AT fire AGAIN in their Assault retaliation.....

My hypothetical is extremely unlikely. It assumes that both sides are present in the hex at the start of the turn, and that no one (at least the Russians) has carried over adverse conditions.
In sub-points a & b: That is correct. In b, since AT fire is a separate action, The PzIII might scrab 2 of the T-26's before the infantry attacks.
In sub-point c: I don't see anywhere in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or Modern rules that you would get an AT shot as part of the defensive side of assault combat. Technically it doesn't seem part of initiating assault combat, but is a separate action, if AT fire is part of the activation.
 

I'm cooped up in 14day quarantine in Bangkok....my opinion also might change in a week when I breath free beach air....

I guess we'll how that is working out in about 11 hours.

[cjsiam]

So My confusion was reading that combat in an Assault hex, was ASSAULT combat---either DF or AT fire.
That apparently is not the case (I will say I'm not the only one who labored under that perspective.....)

So it would seem that AT Fire can happen in an Assault hex...It is Not simultaneous....
Then, as a Defender, a unit which previously undertook AT fire can defend in Assault with their DF fire factor (this time simultaneous, unless they are first fire
  in which case they defend first)

This would mean that AT/Tanks NEVER get to use AT fire as their first fire---they must activate any AT Fire as a separate attack...First fire then is
EXCLUSIVELY a DF total on the Assault table....
So if a tank is adjacent to an entrenched AT gun....if it gets initiative, it moves in as assault---and suffers ONLY DF total, not AT fire at the tank...as it is Assault
I think that is how this then has to work out....
That means that with Extended Assault---that AT Gun needs to fire opportunity fire---which means if you're doing this as a german you send in an APC first...
because that precludes Opportunity fire on the Tanks (in the same activation)...that there is some combined arms....

Hmm...ok....someone clarify if I missed something.....

[plloyd1010]

Yeah, that all looks about right. Your conclusions follow the consensus.

[triangular_cube]

I must say that these rules discussions always turn my mind into  mush, which is why I tend to stay out of them. 

It really surprises me though, that this would have a significant impact either way. I guess tactics exist in a vacuum when we largely play solitaire, but my tanks tend to stay a safe distance away from assault. There really needs to be a compelling reason to give up their armor protection