[Rules] AT fire *during* assault

[campsawyer]

Many good points either way. Hugmenot is right on if the ATR was trying its shot at a Tiger. But to take out a SPW251, it might be worth it to reduce the defensive shot by 5.

[richvalle]

1. Isn't Assault actually a Move order, not Fire?

[larrymm]

1. Isn't Assault actually a Move order, not Fire?

Per 3.13 Unit Actions:

"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 one hex).

[richvalle]

1. Isn't Assault actually a Move order, not Fire?

Per 3.13 Unit Actions:

"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 one hex).

Ahh, thanks. I had it backward.

[larrymm]

I seem to get most of the assault rules backwards, then forwards, then inside-out, then....

[vince hughes]

For item number 3, I believe the answer is no. Per 12.3 all enemy units in the hex must defend as one combined strength. The ATR at this point would be considered the enemy unit as the panzer initiated the assault. So they would have to defend with there DF rather than attack with their AT. This would also be similar to how short range INF AT works as well. They cannot use their AT on defense only when attacking.

From a practical perspective, I would not want to use the AT as the DF is higher anyway.

Alan,

That is reference to a completely different matter for 'Optional Combat' and has no reference to AT combat.

It is referencing the fact that although the attacker only moved one in, it can still can stir up his 'whole nest' of units, and that he would have to attack ALL the defenders and can not pick out just 1 or 2 enemy units in the hex to attack.

12.52 Is very specific telling us that AT units CAN fiire in the assault hex.

As a simple example. A German leader, PzIV, StGIIIG and INF unit assault a T34 on its own. They decide to attack as one AT attack with the StG and a DF attack with the PzIV and INF. (16pts = 13col +1 for leader, combined arms = 24col). The T34, then has a choice whether to attack with its DF factor, or try and take out the PzIV or StG with its AT. There is no reason I can see to stop it from doing this (or logic).

To take it further, your reading and explanation of it suggesting 1 x combined strength to defend. I would suggest you were thinking of more than one unit defending. I say that because if it is one unit in the hex, then using that mantra, if the 1 x unit has an AT value, it COULD then fire it because its using it as 1 combined strength of AT. This would then be plain silly.

I am suggesting that 12.3 has no bearing on the rule of 12.52 and hopefully Richvalle will read this before getting all his defending AT empowered units hamstrung.

[vince hughes]

Keep in mind if the ATR is firing with its AT factor, it is not participating in the assault and thus cannot be selected to satisfy the step losses, if any.

Hugmenot, for once, I am sad to say that I am in disagreement with you here

If they fire AT weapons, they are still activated to FIRE in an assault hex. This counts as assault combat being as it is in an assault hex. My understanding is that an 'Assault' is not the act of throwing dice on the assault table, but being activated to 'Fire' in a hex that contains enemy units and being in combat in that hex.

[Hugmenot]

My understanding is that an 'Assault' is not the act of throwing dice on the assault table, but being activated to 'Fire' in a hex that contains enemy units and being in combat in that hex.

We'll have to disagree on this one until we get an official clarification.

My understanding is based upon the first paragraph of 12.4 Procedure. As AT fire does not count towards the direct fire value total, my opinion is the AT shot does not count as part of the assault.

[tlangston28]

My understanding is that an 'Assault' is not the act of throwing dice on the assault table, but being activated to 'Fire' in a hex that contains enemy units and being in combat in that hex.

We'll have to disagree on this one until we get an official clarification.

My understanding is based upon the first paragraph of 12.4 Procedure. As AT fire does not count towards the direct fire value total, my opinion is the AT shot does not count as part of the assault.

In reading rule 12.3, it states "If he attacks , any units that moved into the hex this turn, plus any undemoralized friendly units and leaders that began the turn in the assault hex and have not activated this turn, may attack if desired." in the second paragraph. I think that since he is part of the Assualt attack, then he is eligible. It is only the defense that is combined for DF (i.e. they cannot use AT fire), the offense is allowed either DF or ATF but it is considered a single assault.

I think Vince is right on this one.

[Hugmenot]

Tony,

12.52 states "They [Units in an assault hex] may conduct AT fire attacks, but only against enemy vehicles in the same hex with them".

What I understand you and Vince to be saying is that unit that is making AT fire attack is part of the assault; my interpretation is that it is not. My interpretation is the unit activates to fire but not to assault; two separate actions.

Corollary 1: the unit conducting the AT fire attack can fire before the Direct Fire value for the defenders is calculated.
Corollary 2: the unit conducting the AT fire attack does not contribute towards column shifts.

Hopefully fourth edition will be clearer as to which interpretation is correct.