[Rules] Bombardment Chart - Example

[treadasaurusrex]

In recent online play, a German INF and an AT gun with its transport were in the same hex. One side managed an amazing bombardment die roll of 12, against this target hex. The bombardment chart columns were: 21 against the INF (personnel) unit, and the 30 column for the AT gun (weapon) unit. The combat result was an X in both columns. Do both units take a 1 step loss? That would completely eliminate the AT unit and halve the INF unit. Is this interpretation correct?

[Schoenwulf]

In recent online play, a German INF and an AT gun with its transport were in the same hex. One side managed an amazing bombardment die roll of 12, against this target hex. The bombardment chart columns were: 21 against the INF (personnel) unit, and the 30 column for the AT gun (weapon) unit. The combat result was an X in both columns. Do both units take a 1 step loss? That would completely eliminate the AT unit and halve the INF unit. Is this interpretation correct?

Seems like double jeopardy. I'm thinking that the one-step loss would need to be taken by the gun with the INF rolling an M2 check.

[OldPueblo]

This interpretation sounds correct to me. Two units, in the same hex, both take step losses.

[plloyd1010]

This question came up about 2 years ago. The basic conclusion was that results fulfilled on a higher column do not carry downward. If there is an unfulfilled result on a higher column maybe carried downward, if there is a open result in the lower column.

In this case the X is applied against the gun first. Since there is no second X, the infantry would only be subject to an M2 check. Pretty much like Bob said.

[treadasaurusrex]

This question came up about 2 years ago. The basic conclusion was that results fulfilled on a higher column do not carry downward. If there is an unfulfilled result on a higher column maybe carried downward, if there is a open result in the lower column.

In this case the X is applied against the gun first. Since there is no second X, the infantry would only be subject to an M2 check. Pretty much like Bob said.

Ah, but BOTH units got an X result. Does that not mean that both lose a step?

[PANISTA]

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?

[plloyd1010]

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?

[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?

[treadasaurusrex]

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?

Hmm, I missed the Forum discussion, and the consensus interpretation seems odd & whimsical.

IMHO, this consensus view represents a strange interpretation of a rule that seems relatively clear. Given the rarity of a throw of a 2 or a 12, on 2 separate bombardment value columns in one artillery strike -- as was the case in the example -- this result should merit the loss of a step for each category of unit in the target hex as is stated in the rules in question.

Out of curiosity, did Dr. Mike weigh in with an opinion on this matter?

[treadasaurusrex]

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.