If a unit expends 1 MF/MP and is attacked, may it be attacked on that same MF/MP by a different weapon or by its inherent firepower? For example, a squad fails an initial PIAT/PF check and sacrifices its inherent FP to attempt a second PF check; if the second PF check succeeds, may that PF fire at the same target on that same 1 MP expenditure?
EXPECTED
Yes to both. This is settled by the official A8.14 Q&A: when a unit expends 1 MF/MP and is attacked, on that same MF/MP it may also be attacked by a different weapon and/or by its inherent FP wherever Mandatory Fire Group does not apply. So a squad that fails an initial PF check may sacrifice its inherent FP, make a second PF check, and—if it passes—fire that PF at the same target on that same 1 MP expenditure. Likewise a squad possessing two weapons not subject to Mandatory FG (e.g., two PF) may fire both on that single MF/MP.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A single 1 MF/MP expenditure may be attacked separately by different weapons and/or a unit's inherent FP (provided Mandatory Fire Group requirements do not apply), and a squad may even attempt to fire two PF on that same one-point expenditure (A8.14 Q&A). In your example, since a PF Check may be made during a Defensive First Fire opportunity and a successful check "must be immediately fired" (C13.31), the second PF — gained at the cost of the squad's inherent FP for the phase (A7.351) — fires at the target on that same 1 MP expenditure.
---
References:
- (A8.1) Defensive First Fire — when a unit/stack expends MF/MP in LOS, the DEFENDER may halt its movement and fire at it "with as many attacks as he can bring to bear" in that Location.
- (A8.14) Q&A — a unit that expends 1 MF/MP and is attacked may be attacked on that same MF/MP by a different weapon or by the firer's inherent FP; a squad may fire two SW (e.g., two PF) on the same one-point MF/MP expenditure. [Yes to both]
- (A9.61 & C13.31) Q&A — a German squad may attempt to fire two PF when an enemy unit expends only one MP/MF. [Yes]
- (C13.31) PF Usage — a PF Check dr may be made during a friendly fire phase (including a Defensive First Fire opportunity during the enemy MPh) and, if successful, the PF must be immediately fired; provided the squad has not yet fired its inherent FP, it can attempt a second PF in the same phase, but that constitutes use of two SW and costs the squad its inherent FP for that phase.
- (A7.351) Using two SW causes a squad to forfeit its inherent FP for that phase.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it affirms both parts (yes to different weapon and yes to inherent FP), cites the A8.14 Q&A, notes the Mandatory Fire Group caveat, and correctly explains the PF-check/sacrifice-of-inherent-FP sequence and that using two SW forfeits inherent FP (A7.351/C13.31). The response covers the key concepts and procedural outcome described in the expected answer.
When a squad spends 1 MF in the MPh to place SMOKE grenades in its own hex and succeeds, is any announced Defensive First Fire (DFF) during that 1 MF expenditure resolved with the +2 SMOKE DRM or without it? In other words, is the DFF shot resolved before or after the SMOKE counter is placed?
EXPECTED
After the SMOKE is placed—so the +2 SMOKE DRM applies to the Defensive First Fire. Per the official A8.1/A24.1 Q&A, the SMOKE-placement MF expenditure, the placement dr, and (if successful) the actual placement of the SMOKE counter are all completed before any DFF is resolved. The placing unit always gets its placement attempt; SMOKE placement is not interrupted by DFF (only DC placement can be interrupted). The DFF triggered by that 1 MF is therefore resolved against a unit already in its own SMOKE and receives the +2 DRM.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The DFF shot is resolved *after* the SMOKE counter is placed, so it is resolved *with* the +2 SMOKE Hindrance DRM. Per official Q&A on A8. & A24.1, the SMOKE Placement MF expenditure, the SMOKE placement dr, and (if successful) the actual placement of the SMOKE counter are all completed before any Defensive First Fire is resolved.
---
The Defender may still declare Defensive First Fire against the 1 MF expenditure, but that fire cannot "beat" the smoke: the placement attempt is fully resolved first, and only then is the DFF attack made — through the newly placed SMOKE, adding its +2 Hindrance DRM (A24.2) to the attack. Consequently, pinning, breaking, or even eliminating the placing squad with that DFF shot cannot retroactively prevent the SMOKE placement — the counter is already on the map.
This is consistent with the general timing principle for MF expenditures that allow an activity: Residual FP (and by extension First Fire triggered by the expenditure) does not attack until the activity the MF expenditure allowed is completed — placing SMOKE grenades is explicitly listed as such an activity (A8.221 notes).
References:
- (A24.1) Infantry SMOKE Usage — placing SMOKE grenades in the squad's own Location costs 1 MF; the hex must be specified before rolling the placement dr
- (A8. & A24.1 Q&A) The SMOKE Placement MF expenditure, placement dr, and (if successful) counter placement are all done before any Defensive First Fire
- (A8.221) Residual FP does not attack until any activity the MF/MP expenditure allowed is completed (placing SMOKE grenades is given as an example)
- (A24.2) SMOKE Effect — all Direct Fire traced into, through, within, or out of a SMOKE Location suffers the SMOKE Hindrance DRM (+2 for Smoke grenades)
- (A24.11) The 1/2" SMOKE counter remains until the end of the ATTACKER's MPh, after all opposing First Fire but before Defensive Final Fire
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it clearly states the DFF is resolved after the SMOKE counter is placed and thus the +2 SMOKE DRM applies. It cites the relevant timing principles and Q&A (A8.1/A24.1) and notes that SMOKE placement cannot be interrupted by DFF, which are the key points required for a correct explanation.
A11.8 requires a vehicle to be on a road and adjacent to building hexes on both sides to be subject to CC Reaction fire and street fighting. If one of those adjacent building hexes is rubble (B24.1 says a rubble location is no longer a building location), does that rubble hex still meet the requirement for street fighting?
EXPECTED
By the standard rules, no. A rubbled hex is no longer a building Location (B24.1) and is not a 'building hex' for A11.8 Street Fighting, so a vehicle that is adjacent to a rubble hex (rather than a building hex) on that side does not meet the requirement to be flanked by building hexes on both sides. This is overridden only when a Special Scenario Rule states that rubble still counts as a building hex for Street Fighting (e.g., RF8 in Red Factories)—and the very need for such SSRs confirms that rubble does not count by default.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. B24.1 states that "a rubbled Location is no longer a building Location," so a rubble hex does not count as one of the required adjacent building hexes for Street Fighting/CC Reaction Fire (A11.8). Unless a scenario SSR says otherwise, the vehicle in that road hex is not subject to Street Fighting.
---
A11.8 makes a vehicle "especially vulnerable to CC" only if it is in a road hex ADJACENT to a building hex on both sides of that road, and the attacking Infantry must occupy the ground level of one of those adjacent building hexes. Reading the rule literally, both flanking hexes must actually be building hexes at the time of the attack. Once a hex is rubbled, B24.1 removes its status as a building Location — it is rubble terrain, not a building — so the "building hex on both sides" condition fails.
Supporting evidence that this is the intended reading: in Valor of the Guards, SSR VotG8 had to state that "Stone rubble is treated as a building for Rout, Rally, Ambush and Street Fighting purposes" — a special rule that would be unnecessary if rubble already qualified as a building for A11.8 under the standard rules (and even under that SSR, official Q&A confirms the rubble is still not part of the same building).
Do not confuse this with the separate exception for rubble ON the road itself: a road covered by rubble/debris is treated as non-existent, EXC: for Street Fighting (A11.8) purposes (B/O1.2, RB O3.43). That exception preserves the road's status for Street Fighting when the road hex is rubbled — it says nothing about letting a rubbled flanking hex count as a building.
References:
- (A11.8) STREET FIGHTING — vehicle must be in a road hex ADJACENT to a building hex on both sides; attackers advance/react from the ground level of those adjacent building hexes
- (B24.1) "A rubbled Location is no longer a building Location" (also confirmed in official Q&A regarding building control)
- (A10.51 & VotG SSR Q&A) "Stone rubble is treated as a building for ... Street Fighting purposes" exists only as an SSR, implying rubble does not qualify under standard rules
- (O1.2/O3.43) A road covered by rubble/debris is non-existent [EXC: for Street Fighting (A11.8) purposes] — an exception for the road hex itself, not for the adjacent building requirement
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it correctly states that rubbled hexes are not building Locations under B24.1 and therefore do not satisfy A11.8's requirement for flanking building hexes, notes that only an SSR can override this (with VotG as an example), and clarifies the separate exception that applies to rubble covering the road itself. It includes the key concepts and supporting references from the expected answer, so it is correct.
Is a leader (e.g., a single non-heroic SMC) allowed to destroy a captured gun, or is there a rule prohibiting it?
EXPECTED
By the rules as written, no. A unit may destroy a weapon only if it could fire it (A9.73), and a single non-heroic SMC cannot fire most Guns (A21.13)—so a lone non-heroic leader cannot destroy such a captured Gun. (This exact situation has not been addressed by official Q&A; many expect it would be allowed if asked, and some permit it as a house rule, but strictly per A9.73/A21.13 the leader may not.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — a lone non-heroic leader may destroy a captured Gun; there is no rule prohibiting it. Gun destruction (A9.73) only requires a Good Order Infantry unit in possession of the Gun, and an SMC qualifies as an Infantry unit that can possess a captured Gun. The captured-use and non-qualified-use penalties (A21.11-.13) apply to *firing* the weapon, not to destroying it.
---
The key distinction is between *using* (firing) a crewed weapon and merely *possessing/destroying* it:
- Firing a Gun normally requires a qualified crew, and non-qualified units (including leaders) suffer the Captured Use / non-qualified use penalties of A21.11-A21.13. The rules explicitly contemplate SMCs and leaders operating crewed weapons in this penalized fashion — e.g., a hero "may fire any Gun ≤ 82mm that normally requires a crew as if it were captured and being fired by an enemy crew (21.11 & 21.12)" (A15.23), and the MOL-Projector rule notes "a Russian non-heroic leader may use one with non-qualified use (A21.13) penalties." So a leader being a single man is not, by itself, a bar to interacting with a crewed weapon — it only imposes DRM penalties when he fires it.
- Destroying a Gun (A9.73) is a voluntary elimination of a weapon in the unit's possession, not a fire attack, so no To Hit/IFT penalty structure is involved and no crew requirement applies. Read literally, nothing in A9.73 or A21.13 restricts the destruction to MMCs or qualified crews; any Good Order Infantry unit possessing the captured Gun — including a lone leader — may do it.
Practical caveat: the leader must be in Good Order (unbroken, unpinned, not berserk/in Melee) and must actually possess the captured Gun, and the destruction is performed at the time/phase specified by A9.73.
References:
- (A9.73) Gun destruction — voluntary elimination of a possessed Gun by a Good Order Infantry unit; no crew/MMC requirement stated
- (A21.13) Non-qualified use — imposes firing penalties on non-crew users (leaders included); it penalizes use, it does not prohibit possession or destruction
- (A15.23) A hero may fire a crew-served Gun ≤ 82mm as if captured (21.11 & 21.12) — showing SMCs may operate Guns with penalties
- (A21.11-.12) Captured Use penalties — apply to TH/IFT attempts with the captured weapon, not to its disposal
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer contradicts the rules-as-written. A9.73 allows a unit to voluntarily destroy a possessed gun only if the unit could fire that gun; it does not permit destruction by any possessor irrespective of firing capability. A21.13 (and related captured-use rules A21.11-.12) mean a single non-heroic SMC/leader cannot legally fire most crew-served guns, so such a lone leader also may not meet the "could fire" requirement of A9.73 and therefore may not destroy the captured gun. The model incorrectly claimed destruction is allowed without the ability to fire and misapplied the captured-use rules (which govern firing penalties) to justify destruction; that reasoning is inconsistent with A9.73/A21.13.
Does Height Advantage (HA) prevent loss of Concealment when a unit is advancing? For example, if a unit advances into an Open Ground hex but a theoretical shot at it would receive the HA TEM, does it keep Concealment? Are there exceptions while advancing?
EXPECTED
Yes—Height Advantage can preserve Concealment. Under A10.531 a hex counts as Open Ground (for '?' loss, rout, Dash, Interdiction) only if no effective protective TEM or LOS Hindrance would apply to a shot at the unit; if a theoretical shot would receive the Height Advantage TEM, the unit keeps its '?'. The key exception when advancing is B10.31: a unit advancing from lower to higher elevation across a crestline into an Open Ground hex does NOT get HA against a shooter who has LOS across the very hexside being crossed—so HA does not apply and the advancing unit loses Concealment in that case. Rule of thumb: if FFMO would be cancelled for anyone shooting at you (while assault-moving/advancing), you keep Concealment.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A hex is "Open Ground" for concealment-loss purposes (A10.531) only if a hypothetical shot at the unit would qualify for FFMO with no positive DRM — and the +1 Height Advantage TEM (B10.31) is such a positive DRM. So if every enemy unit with LOS is at a lower elevation and the theoretical shot would receive the HA TEM, the advancing unit keeps its "?". This is confirmed by official Q&A: a concealed unit advancing into an open-ground hill hex seen only by a lower-level enemy does NOT lose concealment.
---
How it works:
- A concealed unit loses its "?" when it moves/advances/withdraws into an Open Ground hex "as defined in 10.531" in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit within 16 hexes (A12.14). Open Ground per A10.531 is evaluated by asking whether a hypothetical Defensive First Fire shot would get FFMO/no positive DRM.
- B10.31 grants a +1 HA TEM to a target at higher elevation than the firer (if the target hex has no other TEM), and HA negates FFMO/Interdiction. Any elevation difference suffices, per Q&A (e.g., level-1 hill vs. lower firer, upslope 3/4-level hexsides).
- Official Q&A (A10.531): concealed unit advances into an OG hill hex devoid of cover; the only enemy with LOS is at a lower Location — "Does the advancing unit lose concealment? A. No." The same logic is applied to wall TEM (A12.14 Q&A: wall TEM prevents concealment loss while advancing in otherwise open ground).
Exceptions/caveats while advancing:
- The test is per enemy unit: if ANY Good Order enemy within 16 hexes at equal or higher elevation has a true Open Ground LOS to the hex, concealment is lost (cf. B10.31 Q&A — the unit advancing AA2-to-BB1 loses "?" to the unit in Z1, which gets FFMO).
- HA applies only if the target hex has no other TEM ("+1 HA TEM if no other TEM," Terrain Chart note), and HA is NA in certain terrain per the Terrain Chart notes.
- Rooftops: a unit on a rooftop gets the +1 HA DRM but "is considered to be in Open Ground for FFMO, Rout, and Interdiction purposes from equal or higher LOS" (B23.81), with special concealment restrictions (B23.82) — so HA does not protect there against equal/higher viewers.
- Vehicles, Cavalry, and non-Emplaced Guns are different: they lose "?" whenever they move in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit within 16 hexes regardless of terrain (A12.2), so HA does not help them.
References:
- (A10.531) Open Ground definition — "more about just what is OG for both rout and non-rout purposes"; positive DRM prevents the hex from being Open Ground (per Q&A with A10.532)
- (A12.14) "?" lost when a concealed unit moves/advances into an Open Ground hex (as defined in 10.531) in LOS within 16 hexes
- (B10.31) Height Advantage +1 TEM for a target higher than the firer; negates FFMO/Interdiction (Q&A: any elevation difference; can apply even on woods-roads per B13.31 Q&A)
- (A10.531 Q&A) Advancing concealed unit seen only from lower level keeps concealment
- (B23.81) Rooftop exception — HA DRM applies but the Location is Open Ground for FFMO/Rout/Interdiction from equal or higher LOS
- (A12.2) Concealed vehicles/Guns lose "?" on any movement in LOS within 16 hexes, regardless of terrain
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer correctly states the core rule: Height Advantage is a +1 TEM that can prevent a hex from being "Open Ground" for concealment-loss purposes (A10.531) because it cancels FFMO/Interdiction, and the answer properly notes the per-enemy-unit test and other relevant exceptions (rooftops, vehicles/guns, requirement that HA applies only if no other TEM). However, it fails to clearly and explicitly state the important advancing exception from the expected answer: when advancing from a lower to a higher elevation across a crestline (i.e., LOS across the hexside being crossed), the advancing unit does NOT get HA against a shooter who has LOS across that hexside and thus would lose concealment. The model's wording (saying "any elevation difference suffices" and emphasizing HA applicability) could be read as overlooking that specific crestline/hexside crossing exception, which was a key point in the expected answer. Because most key concepts are present but that specific exception is missing/ambiguous, the judgement is Partial.
If a multi-hex FG cowers, is Random Selection applied across all individual units (and their side weapons) to determine which unit(s) are marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter, or are hex(es) randomly selected first and then units within those hexes chosen?
EXPECTED
Random Selection is applied directly to the individual units (and their SW) to determine which become marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter. A7.9: 'If a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) that becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter.' Hexes are not selected first; the multi-hex composition of the FG is irrelevant to the selection.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Random Selection is applied directly across all the individual units of the FG — there is no intermediate step of randomly selecting a hex first. Per A7.9, "if a FG cowers, Random Selection is used to determine the unit(s) (and its SW) which becomes marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter," and that selection is made among the units themselves (excluding any units immune to Cowering), with each selected unit's SW marked along with it.
---
The rule and the published Q&A treat the FG's units as the pool for Random Selection, regardless of how many hexes the FG occupies:
- A7.9 states that when a FG cowers, Random Selection determines "the unit(s) (and its SW)" marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter — the selection is by unit, and a selected unit's Support Weapons are marked with it automatically rather than being selected separately.
- The A7.9 Q&A on mixed FGs confirms the selection pool is the units: when a FG contains units immune to Cowering (e.g., British Elite/1st Line, SMC, berserk/Fanatic units, Finns [EXC: Conscripts]) and units that are not, the attack still cowers, and "Random Selection to determine which units cowered is applied only among units not immune to cowering."
- The A7.9/A9.22 Q&A (two squads firing as a FG, Random Selection designating one squad to be marked with Final Fire) likewise shows Random Selection operating directly on the units of the FG, with the non-selected unit unaffected.
Nothing in A7.9 or its Q&A calls for randomly selecting hexes/Locations first; a hex-based procedure would also skew the odds against units stacked alone, which is not supported by the rule text.
References:
- (A7.9) COWERING — if a FG cowers, Random Selection determines the unit(s) (and its SW) marked with a Prep/Final Fire counter; lists units immune to Cowering (SMC, berserk/Fanatic, British Elite and 1st Line, Finns [EXC: Conscripts (A25.7)], etc.)
- (A7.9 Q&A) Mixed FG with cower-immune units — Random Selection applied only among units not immune to Cowering
- (A7.9/A9.22 Q&A) FG of two squads cowers — Random Selection designates one squad to be marked with Final Fire, illustrating unit-by-unit selection
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states Random Selection is applied to individual units (and their SW) rather than selecting hexes first, notes that units immune to cowering are excluded from the selection pool, and explicitly says the multi-hex composition is irrelevant. These are the key points in the expected answer, so the response is correct.
All open ground. A squad begins its move in the same hex as an AFV and is moving with that AFV as an Armored Assault. May the squad move 4 MF with the AFV, then declare a late Double Time (late CX) while remaining in their hex (i.e., not actually moving further) so that the AFV may move one additional hex?
EXPECTED
Yes. The squad may declare late Double Time while in its hex so the AFV it is making the Armored Assault with can advance one additional hex. An official Q&A requires the infantry to actually declare the late Double Time; but, just as a unit declaring Double Time early need not spend its two extra MF, the squad here need not expend the MF it gains—declaring it is enough to let the AFV move the extra hex (the AFV can never move farther than the accompanying infantry could). The infantry does nothing else and stops.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. Double Time may now be declared at any point during a unit's MPh — but a late declaration (after MF have been expended) yields only *one* extra MF, not two (A4.5). That one extra MF raises the squad's potential MF to 5, and since an Armored Assault AFV may move as far as it could have "if accompanied by that same Infantry throughout the move — even if that Infantry fails to end its MPh in the same hex" (D9.31), the AFV may move one additional Open Ground hex. The squad does not have to actually spend the MF; it does become CX with all CX penalties (A4.51).
---
The D9.31 Armored Assault example covers this case almost verbatim: with the squad and Tiger having expended MF together, "had the squad declared Double Time upon entering [the hex] to gain one extra MF, the Tiger could get to R1 but no farther" — i.e., a late Double Time declaration extends the AFV's Armored Assault movement by exactly the one hex the squad could now afford, and the AFV may continue without the squad, since the limit is on how far the Infantry *could* have accompanied it, not on where the Infantry actually ends up.
Points to note:
- Timing: the old requirement that Double Time be declared at the start of the MPh has been rewritten — a unit may declare it any time during its MPh, but if it waits until after expending MF it gets only a 1 MF bonus while still taking the full CX penalties (A4.5).
- The squad is marked CX and suffers the normal CX penalties (+1 to attack/labor DR, +1 to CC DR made, -1 to CC attacks against it, etc.) and its CX counter also prohibits Double Time next MPh (A4.51).
- Double Time is legal here because the squad never mounts/rides a conveyance — Armored Assault Infantry move on foot beneath the AFV (A4.5 prohibits DT only for units that will mount/ride/dismount a conveyance that Player Turn).
- The AFV gains one additional hex only if that hex costs 1 MF to the Infantry (Open Ground here, so yes).
References:
- (A4.5) Double Time — may be declared any time during the MPh; declared late it grants only one extra MF, with normal CX penalties
- (D9.31) Armored Assault — the AFV "cannot move farther than if it were accompanied by that same Infantry throughout the move — even if that Infantry fails to end its MPh in the same hex"; the rule's example explicitly allows the AFV one more hex on a late Double Time
- (A4.51) Counter Exhaustion — CX penalties and removal timing; CX prohibits Double Time in the unit's next MPh
- (A4.2) Base Infantry MF allotment (4 MF) that the Double Time bonus modifies
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that a squad may declare a late Double Time while remaining in its hex, that a late declaration grants only one extra MF (not two), that the infantry need not actually spend that MF (declaring is sufficient), that the squad becomes CX and suffers the normal CX penalties, and that the AFV may move one additional open-ground hex but not beyond what the accompanying infantry could have done. The response cites the relevant rules (A4.5, A4.51, D9.31) and the D9.31 example, aligning with the expected ruling.
In Close Combat where two enemy infantry units are in the same location with a single AFV and infantry attack sequentially (attacker first):
1) After the first infantry attack fails to eliminate the AFV, may the AFV choose which of the two infantry units to attack (including the unit that has not yet attacked)?
2) If the AFV attacks and eliminates the infantry unit that has not yet made its attack, does that eliminated unit still get to make its CC attack back?
3) If after the sequence (infantry 1 attacks, AFV attacks, infantry 2 attacks) there are still no results, can the AFV then make a second CC attack if it used all its CC weapons in its initial attack?
EXPECTED
Close Combat involving a vehicle is sequential, not simultaneous. (1) After the first infantry attack fails, the AFV may attack and may choose which eligible enemy unit(s) to attack—including the unit that has not yet attacked—but only up to the number of CC attacks its weapons allow. (2) If the AFV eliminates an infantry unit before that unit has attacked, the eliminated unit does NOT get to attack back (this is why CC attacks are rolled in the correct order). (3) The AFV gets no extra attack after the sequence unless it actually has multiple separate CC attacks (e.g., a CMG plus an sN). On the Nahverteidigungswaffe specifically (A11.622): the sN may be used only during the CCPh after the AFV (or its Personnel escort) has been attacked that CCPh—units that never attack the AFV are simply not subject to it—and when the sN fires it attacks all vulnerable units in the Location.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** 1) Yes — when its turn in the attack sequence comes, the AFV may attack any enemy unit(s) in the Location, including the infantry unit that has not yet attacked; sequential attacks need not be predesignated (A11.3, A11.31). 2) No — a unit that is eliminated before it attacks forfeits its attack opportunity (A11.3). 3) No — each side alternates attacks one at a time until all units have attacked, been eliminated, or passed (A11.31), so an AFV that already combined all of its usable CC weapons/FP into its one attack has no further attack that CCPh.
---
1) A11.31 requires all CC attacks in a Location containing a vehicle to be declared sequentially: the non-vehicular player attacks first with one attack, and thereafter the sides alternate attacks one at a time. Nothing restricts the AFV's target choice to units that have already attacked, and A11.3 expressly allows each player to observe the results of each attack before declaring the next one — so the AFV may deliberately target the infantry unit that has not yet attacked.
2) A11.3 states that in sequential CC "any unit which is eliminated before it attacks forfeits its attack opportunity." An infantry unit eliminated by the AFV's attack before making its own attack therefore gets no CC attack back.
3) The alternation of A11.31 continues only "until all units in that Location have attacked, been eliminated, or passed." Each unit gets its attack opportunity once per CCPh. An AFV may split its armament (CMG, RMG, AAMG, etc.) into separate CC attacks rather than one combined attack (A11.62) — and an sN Close Defense Weapon System attack can never be combined with other FP (A11.622) — but if the AFV already expended all of its CC weapons in its initial attack, it cannot make a second attack in that CCPh just because no result was achieved. The Location is then in Melee for resolution in a subsequent CCPh (assuming the AFV can be held in Melee).
References:
- (A11.3) SEQUENTIAL CC — attacks are resolved in order; a unit eliminated before it attacks forfeits its attack; sequential attacks need not be predesignated
- (A11.31) vs VEHICLE — non-vehicular player attacks first with one attack; sides then alternate one attack at a time until all units have attacked, been eliminated, or passed
- (A11.62) AFV CC armament — an AFV may combine its CMG/RMG/AAMG/Passenger FP into one or more combined attacks or use them separately
- (A11.622) Close Defense Weapon System — an sN attack cannot be combined with any other form of FP
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response correctly states the core points: CC is sequential; the AFV may choose which enemy infantry to attack (including a unit that has not yet attacked); a unit eliminated before its attack forfeits that attack; and the AFV cannot make an extra attack unless it actually has multiple separate CC attacks (e.g., separate weapons/FP). However, it omits an important nuance from the expected answer regarding the Nahverteidigungswaffe (sN): A11.622 limits the sN so it may be used only after the AFV (or its escort) has been attacked that CCPh and, when used, it affects all vulnerable units in the Location. The model only noted that the sN cannot be combined with other FP, but did not state the conditional timing/targeting restriction, which is a key concept in the expected answer.
HUMAN NOTES
No mention of sN in the question.
A10.51 lets a routing unit ignore hexes of the building it is currently in as routing targets. Does the same exception apply to woods (woodland patches)? If the woods patch is a single hex, can a routing unit route away from that woods hex (i.e., rout through/leave that woods hex)?
EXPECTED
No—the A10.51 'may ignore' allowance is for the building you are in, not for woods. A unit may still attempt to leave the hex it begins the RtPh in, but a woods patch is not auto-ignorable as a destination the way a building is. A unit under DM that starts in a woods/building can still rout if otherwise allowed; it may rout THROUGH a single-hex woods (i.e., not one it starts the RtPh in) when that hex is ignorable / not its target, or if the hex becomes untenable (e.g., an enemy becomes Known ADJACENT), or if it is routing to an ADJACENT building. It may also continue routing through consecutive woods/building hexes until it runs out of MF if all other criteria are met; otherwise, once it reaches its target it must stop.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — the same treatment applies to woods. Official Q&A on A10.51 confirms that a broken unit beginning its RtPh in a woods hex is NOT required to designate its own hex as its rout target just because it is the "nearest" woods hex at zero MF; it may rout away from that woods hex toward another building/woods hex.
---
The A10.51 exception is worded in terms of buildings: "A broken unit in a building need not consider a hex of the same building in which it begins the RtPh (or when a new destination is re-figured) as its closest building hex if it prefers to rout out of that building altogether and toward another building/woods hex — even if it must cross Open Ground or another building hex of the same building to do so."
For woods, the official Q&A resolves the question directly: "A broken unit begins its RtPh DM in a woods hex with no ADJACENT woods/building hexes. There are no KEU in LOS. Since the nearest woods hex is its own at zero MF, must it choose its own hex as its target? A. No." [K34]
So a unit in a single-hex woods patch may rout away from (out of) that woods hex and head toward another building/woods hex instead. The other A10.51 exception also applies equally to woods by its own text: a routing unit may ignore any building/woods hex that is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex, even if it must rout through that ignored hex to reach its destination. All other rout restrictions (may not move closer to a Known enemy unit in LOS, must stop upon reaching a non-ADJACENT-to-enemy building/woods Location, etc.) still apply along the way.
References:
- (A10.51) Rout destination — must move to nearest building/woods hex; EXC allows ignoring hexes of the unit's own starting building, and ignoring any building/woods hex no farther from a Known enemy unit than the starting hex
- (A10.51 Q&A [K34]) A unit starting its RtPh in a woods hex need not choose its own woods hex as its rout target
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer contradicts the expected answer. The expected answer emphasizes that the A10.51 'may ignore' allowance is worded for the building a unit is in and is not an automatic 'ignore' for woods; although a routing unit can still leave the woods hex it starts in under certain conditions, woods are not treated the same as the building exception. The model asserts the exception 'applies to woods' and cites Q&A K34 as supporting that claim, which conflicts with the expected explanation. Because the core conclusion (whether the A10.51 building-ignore exception equally applies to woods) differs from the expected answer, the model response is incorrect.
HUMAN NOTES
I think the answer is correct.
Under A23.4 and A23.6, when a unit throws a demolition charge (thrown DC) and the throwing unit is CX, does the +1 DRM for CX apply to both the DR for the Target Location and the DR for the Thrower's Location, or only to the Target Location?
EXPECTED
It applies to both Locations. A23.4 adds the +1 CX DRM to the Attack Resolution DR (or Position DR; C7.346), and a thrown DC makes a separate attack on the Target Location (+2 DRM) and on the Thrower's Location (+3 DRM) per A23.6, each resolved with its own DR. The CX +1 modifies each of those DRs—just as the per-Location TEM is applied to each. (This is the consensus interpretation by experienced players; it has not been set by an official Q&A.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The +1 CX DRM applies to both DRs. A23.4 states that if the Placing/Throwing unit is CX, the +1 DRM is applied to "the Attack Resolution DR" — and for a Thrown DC there is a separate Attack Resolution DR for each Location attacked (A23.6), so both the DR vs the Target Location and the DR vs the Thrower's Location take the +1 CX DRM.
---
A23.6 makes a Thrown DC attack both Locations: "both the target's and thrower's Locations are immediately attacked by the DC," with the target Location taking the +2 (+3) Thrown-DC DRM and the Thrower's Location a +3 (+4) DRM, and "a separate DR is used to resolve the attack of a Thrown DC on each Location."
A23.4 (DETONATION) then says: "If the Placing/Throwing unit is CX, the +1 DRM for CX attack is applied to the Attack Resolution DR (or Position DR; C7.346)." Read literally, this attaches the CX penalty to the resolution of the DC's attack, not to one particular Location — and since each Location's resolution is an Attack Resolution DR of that CX unit's DC attack, the +1 is added to each. So a CX unit throwing a DC resolves the target Location at +2 (Thrown) +1 (CX) plus TEM, and its own Location at +3 (Thrower) +1 (CX) plus TEM.
Note the AFV exception: when the DC is Thrown at an AFV, the CX +1 (like the Thrown +2/+3) is applied to the special DC Position DR instead of the IFT resolution (A23.4, C7.346).
References:
- (A23.4) DETONATION — the CX +1 DRM is applied to the Attack Resolution DR (or Position DR; C7.346)
- (A23.6) THROWN DC — both target and thrower Locations are attacked, +2/+3 vs target and +3/+4 vs thrower, with a separate DR resolving each Location
- (C7.346) DC vs AFV — Placed/Thrown DC vs an armored target uses a special DC Position DR, which is where the Thrown/CX DRM apply instead
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that the +1 CX DRM applies to both the Target Location DR and the Thrower's Location DR. It cites A23.4 applying CX to the Attack Resolution/Position DR, notes A23.6 creates separate DRs for each Location, and therefore the CX +1 modifies each DR. The model also correctly mentions the AFV Position DR exception, which is additional correct context.
Can a unit that is on top of a Wire counter control that hex or Location for Victory Conditions?
EXPECTED
Yes. Being on top of a Wire counter does not by itself prevent a unit from gaining Control of that hex/Location for Victory Condition purposes. B26.32 treats units on and under Wire as being in the same Location, and nothing in A26.11/A26.13 bars Control merely because the unit is on the Wire (the unit must still otherwise qualify for Control—e.g., be the only side with an armed Good Order unit present, at ground level).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A unit on top of a Wire counter still occupies that Location/hex, so an armed Good Order Infantry MMC on the Wire can gain Control of it per A26.11. The list of things Infantry on top of a Wire counter are prohibited from doing (B26.32) does not include gaining Control.
---
Being on top of the Wire does not put the unit somewhere else: a unit on a Wire counter and one beneath the Wire counter in the same hex are in the same Location (B26.1). Control is gained during play by occupying the Location/hex/building with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without an armed enemy ground unit present there (A26.11); the only occupation-based method that is expressly barred is Bypass ("Control cannot be gained via Bypass"). Wire is not Bypass — it is simply a Fortification counter the unit sits on top of.
While on top of a Wire counter, Infantry are restricted from certain activities — they cannot Search, create an entrenchment, Recover/Transfer a SW/Gun beneath that Wire counter, or enter a pillbox/vehicle counter in that hex (B26.32) — but gaining Control is not among the prohibited actions. (They also suffer +1 to their own attacks and are at a disadvantage in CC; B26.31.)
References:
- (A26.11) Gaining Control — occupying a Location/hex/building with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC (with no armed enemy ground unit present) gains Control; only Bypass is excluded as a means of gaining Control
- (B26.1) Wire — Wire is a Fortification counter; a unit on a Wire counter and one beneath it in the same hex are in the same Location, so the unit on the Wire occupies that Location
- (B26.32) Restrictions on Wire — Infantry on top of a Wire counter cannot Search, entrench, Recover/Transfer a SW/Gun beneath the Wire, or enter a pillbox/vehicle in the hex; gaining Control is not listed as prohibited
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's response matches the expected answer. It gives the correct final value (Yes) and cites the correct rule logic: a unit on a Wire counter is in the same Location/hex for Control purposes and nothing in the Wire restrictions forbids gaining Control (the unit still must otherwise qualify per A26.11). The response also correctly lists the actual prohibitions on units atop Wire, without asserting any incorrect additional restrictions.
In the Movement Phase a moving 7-0 leader enters a hex containing a 9-1 leader and two squads. A Fire Attack against the moving 7-0 causes a MC; the 7-0 rolls HOB and becomes berserk. The 9-1 then takes its TC, passes, and becomes berserk as well. Are the two squads in the hex subject to two Terror Checks (one from each berserk leader)? Is one of those TCs at -1 DRM?
EXPECTED
Yes—each squad is subject to a Berserk-conversion TC from each berserk leader (two TCs apiece), and one of them carries a -1 DRM. Per A15.41, when a leader goes berserk he must (after first resolving his fire attack) attempt to turn the other friendly units in his Location berserk 'even if … not subject to that same attack'; each such unit takes a Berserk NTC 'subject to the berserk leader's modification', after which that leader forfeits his leadership DRM. So the 7-0's conversion attempt is made at its 0 modifier and the (now-berserk) 9-1's conversion attempt is made at -1. Leader checks follow A10.2 order (higher-Morale leaders first), and the 7-0—as the only moving unit—takes its original MC first per A10.21. Net: the two squads each face two Berserk TCs, one at 0 (from the 7-0) and one at -1 (from the 9-1).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes to both. Each leader who goes berserk must attempt to change all other friendly units in his Location to berserk (A15.41), so the two squads take two separate Berserk (Terror) Checks — one triggered by the berserk 7-0 (0 DRM) and one triggered by the berserk 9-1, which is taken at the 9-1's -1 leadership DRM.
---
A15.41 (LEADER CONSEQUENCES): "When a leader goes berserk, he must (after first resolving any fire attack vs any other targets in that Location) attempt to change any other friendly units (even if broken or not subject to that same attack) in the same Location to berserk status also. Each such unit must take a NTC subject to the berserk leader's modification. If they pass the Berserk TC they become berserk; if not, there is no change to their status. After the Berserk TC, the leader forfeits his leadership DRM until he returns to normal."
Applying this to the scenario:
- The 7-0 goes berserk via HOB (A15.4). It does not matter that the 9-1 and the squads were not part of the attack — A15.41 applies "even if... not subject to that same attack." The 9-1 and both squads each take a Berserk TC with the 7-0's leadership modification (0 DRM).
- The 9-1 passes and becomes berserk. Official Q&A confirms a leader who involuntarily becomes berserk always attempts to berserk the other units in his Location, regardless of how he went berserk [VFTT 27 Feb 1999]. So the two squads (assuming they did not already pass the first TC and go berserk) take a second Berserk TC.
- This second TC is "subject to the berserk leader's modification" — the 9-1's -1 DRM — since he only forfeits his leadership DRM after administering the Berserk TC.
Any squad that passes either TC becomes berserk (and is not checked again); failing a Berserk TC causes no status change (A15.41).
References:
- (A15.4) BERSERK — created by a Final Heat of Battle DR of 9-11; a broken unit that goes berserk is automatically rallied
- (A15.41) LEADER CONSEQUENCES — each berserk leader forces a Berserk TC on all other friendly units in his Location, modified by that leader's DRM; the leader forfeits his DRM only after the TC
- (A15.41 Q&A [VFTT 27 Feb 1999]) — a leader who involuntarily becomes berserk always attempts to change the other units in his Location, not only when berserk resulted from a fire attack
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer correctly states that each squad must make two separate Berserk (Terror) Checks — one from the berserk 7-0 at 0 DRM and one from the berserk 9-1 at -1 DRM — and it correctly cites A15.41 (leader-administered conversion checks) and the rule that a leader's DRM applies to the check and is forfeited only after administering it. These are the central points in the expected answer. The model omitted explicit citation of A10.2/A10.21 ordering language, but it nonetheless presents the correct sequence (7-0's conversion attempts first, then the 9-1's) and the correct final result, so its explanation matches the expected outcome.
A4.7 says a unit may not change both its location within a hex and also the hex it is in during the same APh. Since a pillbox is a separate location, can a unit advance into an adjacent hex and enter the pillbox in the same APh?
EXPECTED
No, with one exception. A4.7 forbids changing both your Location within a hex and the hex you are in during the same APh, so a unit normally cannot advance into an adjacent hex and also enter a pillbox (a separate Location) in that same APh—the same reason you cannot advance into a building hex and then move to its Level 1 or cellar. Exception: if the pillbox is a bunker (B30.8), a unit in a Location containing a connecting trench may advance into the bunker/pillbox directly from an adjacent hex.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. Because a pillbox is a separate Location in its hex, advancing into the adjacent hex and then entering the pillbox would be changing both the hex and the Location within the hex — exactly what A4.7 prohibits in the same APh. The advancing unit ends its APh in the pillbox hex outside the pillbox; it may enter the pillbox Location in a later phase (the only shortcuts are a tunnel or a bunker connection).
---
A4.7: a unit "may use the APh to move one hex horizontally or vertically... but not both. A unit may not change both its Location within a hex and also the hex it is in during the same APh." A pillbox is a separate Location from the rest of its hex (B30.34), so entering it is a change of Location within the hex and cannot be combined with the one-hex advance. The elevation allowance in A4.7 (advancing to an adjacent hex of different elevation, e.g., hill or Depression) does not help here, and the entrenchment allowance ("from inside an entrenchment to inside another in an Accessible hex") is an explicit exception for entrenchments only — a pillbox is not an entrenchment and has its own entry procedure.
This matches the MPh procedure: entering or exiting a pillbox Location is a separate action costing one MF that "cannot be combined with any other MF expenditure" (B30.33, B30.4) — a unit first enters the pillbox hex, then separately enters the pillbox.
The stated exceptions for entering a pillbox Location directly from elsewhere are a tunnel (B8.6; see the RtPh/APh tunnel-entrance EXC in B30.42) and a bunker (B30.8; see the EXC in B30.4). Absent those, the advancing unit stops in the pillbox hex outside the pillbox. Note also B30.42: it could not enter the pillbox Location at all while an armed enemy ground unit is in the hex outside the pillbox, and B30.44: it may never enter a pillbox containing enemy Infantry.
References:
- (A4.7) ADVANCE PHASE — one hex OR a Location change within the hex, never both, in the same APh
- (B30.34) A pillbox is a separate Location from the rest of its hex
- (B30.4 / B30.33) Entering/exiting a pillbox Location is a separate one-MF action that cannot be combined with other MF expenditure [EXC: tunnel (B8.6); bunker (B30.8)]
- (B30.42) No move/rout/advance/Withdraw into a pillbox Location while an enemy ground unit is in the hex outside it [EXC: RtPh/APh entrance via tunnel]
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that A4.7 forbids changing both hex and Location in the same APh (so you cannot advance into a hex and enter a pillbox there in the same APh) and it identifies the bunker connection exception (B30.8). The model also mentions the tunnel/bunker exceptions and cites relevant rules (B30.x, B8.6), which is additional correct context and does not contradict the expected answer. Minor wording differences (and an extra note about tunnel exceptions) do not change the semantic correctness.
If a carrier infantry stand sets up outside its vehicle and the vehicle is abandoned/scrounged at scenario start, is that vehicle treated as a wreck or can it be concealed at the scenario start?
EXPECTED
It is not a wreck, and it can be concealed only under the normal rules. A vehicle may set up Abandoned only if a Special Scenario Rule allows it (Carriers are not special in this regard); an Abandoned vehicle uses an Abandoned counter and is NOT a wreck. Per the A12.2 Q&A, a concealed vehicle that becomes Abandoned may retain its '?' (if otherwise allowed), but once it loses concealment it cannot regain a '?' while Abandoned. So if an SSR permits abandoned setup, the scrounged Carrier at scenario start is an Abandoned vehicle that may be set up concealed—it is not treated as a wreck.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** First, note that this setup is generally not legal: per official Q&A on D5.4, a vehicle may start a scenario with its crew/inherent Infantry outside it (or with its weapons Scrounged) "only in certain CG." Where such a setup is permitted, the abandoned/scrounged vehicle is NOT a wreck — a wreck only exists when a vehicle has been eliminated — so it remains a vehicle and, like any concealment-eligible vehicle, it may set up concealed under A12.2 (in Concealment Terrain/out of enemy LOS).
---
References:
- (D5.4) Official Q&A: "Can a vehicle start a scenario with its crew outside the AFV or with any of its weapons Scrounged/removed? ... A. Only in certain CG. No." — the baseline legality of this setup
- (D10.5) Scrounging is performed on "a non-burning wreck or abandoned vehicle" — the rules explicitly distinguish an abandoned vehicle from a wreck; a Scrounged counter marks it as scrounged but does not turn it into a wreck
- (A12.2) Vehicle concealment — a concealed vehicle's BU/CE/TCA status may be secretly recorded at setup; related Q&A confirms a vehicle "would start Immobilized only by SSR," i.e., an on-board vehicle sets up as a vehicle (concealable), not as a wreck
- (B25.14) Wreck Blaze / wreck status arises from a vehicle being eliminated — abandonment alone never creates a wreck
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states the vehicle is not a wreck, that abandonment/scrounging at scenario start is only allowed if an SSR/CSG permits it, and that an Abandoned vehicle is treated as a vehicle (and may be concealed only under the normal concealment rules, per A12.2). The response also correctly distinguishes scrounged/abandoned counters from wrecks (citing D10.5 and that elimination creates a wreck). The model omitted a minor detail about the Q&A on retaining a '?' while becoming Abandoned, but that is extra nuance and does not change the core correctness.
If an infantry squad conducts an Assault Movement into a hex and then spends additional MF there to place a Demolition Charge (DC), do the MF expended to place the DC count as part of the Assault Movement (i.e., remain under the Assault Movement rules) or not?
EXPECTED
Yes—the MF used to place the DC remain part of the Assault Movement. A unit may not "partially" Assault Move: it must declare AM before it starts moving and, once declared, AM cannot be voluntarily voided (A4.61). Additional MF spent within a Location (placing a DC, or a grenade/Smoke attempt) on top of a one-Location move do not break AM, provided the unit still moves ≤ one Location and does not expend all of its MF. E.g., AM into a grain hex for 1.5 MF plus a 2-MF DC placement = 3.5 MF total is still a legal Assault Move for a 4-MF squad (see the A23.3 example).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — the MF spent to place the DC remain part of (and do not void) the Assault Movement, because additional MF expenditure within a Location, in addition to the one change of Location, does not negate Assault Movement (A4.61). The exception: if in placing the DC the squad expends all of its MF (or gains CX status), it is no longer considered to be using Assault Movement and is subject to the -1 FFNAM DRM for the remainder of its MPh.
---
Detail: Assault Movement requires the Infantry unit to move ≤ one Location during its MPh without using all of its MF (A4.61). A4.61 expressly allows "additional MF expenditure within a Location ... in addition to a change of Location" without voiding Assault Movement "unless, in so doing, a unit expends all its MF or [gains] CX status." DC placement is such an in-Location MF expenditure (A23.3). Note also that official Q&A confirms a concealed unit may Place a DC while using Assault Movement — it simply loses concealment for that placement activity (A12.14/A12.141 Q&A, Concealment Table Case C).
References:
- (A4.61) Assault Movement — additional MF expenditure within a Location does not negate Assault Movement unless it expends all the unit's MF or causes CX; a unit that ends up not qualifying is subject to -1 FFNAM for the rest of its MPh
- (A23.3) DC Placement — placement is an MF expenditure by the carrying Infantry unit in/adjacent to its Location
- (A12.14/A12.141) Official Q&A — a concealed unit using Assault Movement to Place a DC loses concealment for that activity (confirming DC placement is legal during Assault Movement)
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states that MF spent to place a DC remain part of the Assault Movement, correctly cites A4.61 that additional in-Location MF does not void AM, notes the exceptions (expending all MF or becoming CX), references A23.3 that DC placement is an in-Location MF expenditure, and mentions the Q&A about concealment. All key concepts from the expected answer are present and accurately represented.
If an infantry unit attempts to enter a hex that contains a hidden AP minefield (and a concealed enemy MMC) but is denied entry (e.g., forced to remain in its previous hex), is the moving infantry unit subject to a mine attack from the target hex? Does the answer change if the entry is denied because the destination is a fortified building?
EXPECTED
No—in both cases the unit is not subject to the mine attack, because it never actually enters the mined hex. A12.15 is explicit: "A unit forced back to its previous Location is not subject to attack (even by a minefield or FFE) during its brief period in the previously-concealed unit's Location." When entry is instead denied because the destination is a Fortified Building Location occupied by an enemy squad, the unit "must remain in its present hex" (B23.922) and is likewise not attacked by the A-P minefield (confirmed by the B23.922 Q&A). It expends the MF but takes no mine attack.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. A unit forced back by a concealed defender is explicitly *not* subject to attack — "even by a minefield or FFE" — during its brief stay in the previously-concealed unit's Location (A12.15), so the hidden AP minefield in the target hex does not attack it. The answer is the same (still no mine attack) if entry is denied by a Fortified Building: per B23.922 the unit never enters the target Location at all — its MF are considered expended in its *present* hex — so the entry trigger for a minefield attack (B28.41) never occurs.
---
Two important caveats:
1. **The unit's own hex matters.** While the target hex's mines do not attack, a unit forced back into a Location that itself contains a minefield or FFE *is* subject to that minefield/FFE attack as it re-enters, and any already-existing Residual FP in the re-entered Location attacks it — even if that Residual FP already attacked it that phase (A12.15).
2. **Fortified Building case.** An Infantry unit attempting to move into a Fortified Building Location occupied by an unpinned, Good Order, armed enemy squad-equivalent loses that MPh capability and remains in its present hex; the MF expended (not lost) count as expended in its present hex for Residual FP, Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, and FPF purposes, and once that fire is completed its MPh is over (B23.922). Since it never enters the fortified (mined) Location, no entry/exit of the minefield hex occurs, so no mine attack is announced (B28.41). Loss-of-concealment rules (A12.15) still apply even though the Location cannot be entered.
References:
- (A12.15) Detection — a unit forced back to its previous Location "is not subject to attack (even by a minefield or FFE) during its brief stay in the previously-concealed unit's Location"; but re-entry into a minefield/FFE/Residual FP Location does trigger those attacks
- (B23.922) Fortified Building Entry — failed entry attempt: unit remains in its present hex, MF considered expended there for Residual FP/Defensive First Fire purposes; concealment-loss rules still apply
- (B28.41) Minefield Attacks — a minefield attack is announced whenever a unit enters/leaves a minefield hex; denied entry means no entry occurred
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: in both cases the moving infantry is not subject to the mine attack because it never actually enters the mined hex. The response correctly cites A12.15 and B23.922, notes that the minefield is expended without an attack, and references B28.41 for the entry trigger. The added caveats about re-entering a mined/FFE Location and the Fortified Building MPh effects are accurate and do not contradict the expected answer.
If a unit declares Assault Movement and attempts to enter a concealed enemy-occupied location but is bumped back by detection (A12.15), is it still considered to be using Assault Movement for any defensive fire, and how are the movement factors expended treated? Does it matter if the location attempted is Fortified?
EXPECTED
Yes—it is still using Assault Movement. A12.15 states the MF spent attempting to enter the concealed unit's Location are instead considered expended in the Location it is returned to, and nothing terminates Assault Movement (a unit cannot partially Assault Move). So the bumped-back unit may be fired on in the Location it is returned to, but because it is Assault Moving (and did not enter a new hex) FFNAM does not apply—"bump-scouting" under AM is in fact a common way to avoid FFNAM. Denial of entry to a Fortified Building Location works the same way. (This is the consensus reading of A12.15; no rule states that AM ends.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — the bumped unit is still using Assault Movement (once declared, Assault Movement is only negated by expending all MF, gaining CX, or breaking/going berserk; A4.61), so Defensive First Fire against it does not get the -1 FFNAM DRM. The MF expended in the failed entry attempt are still used, but are considered expended in the Location the unit is forced back to (A12.15) — it ends its MPh there, loses concealment, and is subject to Defensive First Fire (with the TEM of the Location it never left, per Q&A). A Fortified Building Location works essentially the same way: the A12.15 concealment/detection rules apply even though the Location can never be entered, and the MF expended (not lost) in the unsuccessful attempt are likewise considered expended in the unit's present hex for Residual FP, Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, and FPF — the added penalty is that the unit loses its MPh (or APh) capability for that turn (B23.922).
---
Detail:
- Bump mechanics (A12.15): when a unit attempts to move into a concealed enemy Location, the DEFENDER reveals at least one concealed unit and forces the mover back to the last Location it occupied, where it loses concealment, ends its MPh (unless it goes berserk), and is subject to Defensive First Fire. It is not subject to attack during its "brief stay" in the concealed unit's Location (no Snap Shot from the firer's hex on the attempted entry), but it is subject to Snap Shots/other First Fire while being returned.
- MF treatment (A12.15): "The MF expended in attempting to move into the concealed unit's Location are still used, but are considered expended in the Location it is returned to" — so already-existing Residual FP, FFE, or minefields in the returned-to Location attack it on re-entry (a unit forced back to an entrenchment/shellhole gets no TEM from it vs the ensuing Defensive First Fire). Official Q&A confirms the fired-on unit receives the TEM of the Location it did not leave (e.g., +2 for the trench it was bounced back into).
- Assault Movement status (A4.61): additional/failed MF expenditure does not void a declared Assault Movement unless the unit thereby expends all its MF or gains CX (or breaks/goes berserk from Defensive First Fire) — so the -1 FFNAM does not apply to fire on the bumped unit, though FFMO could still apply if it is in Open Ground.
- Fortified Location (B23.922): entry is simply impossible while an unpinned, Good Order, armed enemy squad-equivalent is inside; the attempting unit "loses that MPh or APh capability for that turn," and the MF expended (not lost) are considered expended in its present hex for Residual FP (A12.15), Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF; once such fire is completed its MPh is over. "Loss of concealment rules (A12.15) apply even though the Fortified Location cannot be entered."
References:
- (A12.15) Detection — bump-back procedure, MF considered expended in the returned-to Location, loss of concealment and end of MPh
- (A4.61) Assault Movement — declared AM is voided only by expending all MF, CX, or breaking/berserk, so the bumped unit is still Assault Moving (no FFNAM)
- (B23.922) Fortified Building entry — failed attempt costs the MPh/APh for the turn; MF treated as expended in the present hex; A12.15 concealment loss still applies
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states the unit remains on Assault Movement, that MF spent attempting entry are treated as expended in the hex to which the unit is bumped (A12.15), that nothing in A12.15 terminates AM so FFNAM does not apply to Defensive First Fire, and that the same treatment applies for Fortified Locations (B23.922). The response includes correct qualifiers for what would end AM (all MF expended, CX, breaking/berserk) and cites relevant rules; no core concept from the expected answer is missing or contradicted.
To inflict Desperation Morale (or qualify for Encirclement), an attack must have "enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least an NMC." How does the possibility of Cowering factor in — e.g., does a small attack that would Cower below NMC capability still cause DM?
EXPECTED
It depends on whether the firer can Cower. The test is whether the attack could possibly inflict at least an NMC; if the firer is subject to Cowering you must evaluate it after a cowering reduction—so a small attack that would Cower below NMC capability does NOT cause DM. But if the firer cannot Cower—a SMC, leader-directed fire, ordnance, or a Cowering-immune Elite/1st-Line British unit (A25.45)—no reduction is possible, so even a 1-FP attack with a +1 DRM that could yield an NMC does inflict DM and can enable Encirclement (A7.7). In short: if, accounting for this firer's actual Cowering possibility, the attack could still inflict ≥ NMC, the broken unit becomes DM.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** "Taking the possibility of Cowering into account" means you must assume the worst case: if the attack is capable of Cowering, evaluate it as if it had Cowered (i.e., after the leftward column shift), and it must still be able to possibly inflict at least an NMC on the target (best possible DR, after all applicable DRM). So a small attack that, had it Cowered, could no longer possibly yield an NMC does NOT qualify to inflict DM (A10.62) or to count as valid Encircling fire (A7.7) — regardless of what the actual DR turns out to be. Attacks that cannot Cower (e.g., leader-directed fire, or ordnance, which is immune to Cowering per A7.9) are evaluated at their full FP/column.
---
Detail:
- A10.62 (DM): an already-broken unit becomes DM when attacked by CC/WP "or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target." The test is about capability, not the actual result — but the capability is judged assuming the Cowering shift where Cowering is possible.
- A7.7 (Encirclement) uses the identical standard for valid fire: "ordnance weapons must secure a hit on the target, and other firers must exert enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result." Related Q&A confirms the threshold is applied to the qualifying fire itself — e.g., a FG mixing normal-range and long-range firers does not qualify if the normal-range units by themselves lack the strength to possibly cause a MC (A7.7 Q&A, VFTT 18 Sep 1998).
- The "possibility" framing also appears in the Dust Q&A (A7.7, A10.62, F11.71-.72): you do not roll the actual Dust dr — "just the possibility of the lowest Dust DLV is considered" when determining whether enough FP was applied. Cowering, by the explicit rule text, is the pessimistic side of the same test: the attack must clear the NMC bar even in its Cowered state.
References:
- (A10.62) Desperation Morale — FP threshold "taking the possibility of Cowering into account"
- (A7.7) Encirclement — identical valid-fire standard; ordnance must hit, other fire must possibly inflict an NMC after allowing for Cowering
- (A7.9) Ordnance/leader-directed attacks immune to Cowering are counted at full effect
- (A7.7/A10.62/F11.71-.72 Q&A) "Possibility" is evaluated without rolling the variable dr (Dust example)
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected response: it correctly states that if the firer can Cower you must evaluate the attack after applying the Cowering (leftward) shift and that such a reduced attack which can no longer possibly yield an NMC does not cause Desperation Morale or qualify for Encirclement. It also correctly notes that firers immune to Cowering (e.g., ordnance or leader-directed fire) are evaluated at full effect. The model's explanation and examples align with the expected key points.
A multi-Location Fire Group has a leader in only one of its Locations. Can that leader prevent the entire Fire Group from Cowering, as long as he does not apply his leadership DRM?
EXPECTED
No. A Fire Group cannot be partially leader-directed—it is either leader-directed (a participating leader in every Location of the FG) or it is not (A7.53/A7.531). A leader present in only one Location cannot direct the FG and therefore cannot prevent it from Cowering, whether or not he applies his DRM. To direct a multi-Location FG at all (including to prevent Cowering) a qualifying leader must be in each Location, and only the single lowest leadership DRM may then apply. Confirmed by official Q&A.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No, on two counts. First, "directing" fire and applying the leadership DRM are synonymous — official Q&A (A7.53-.531 & A10.72) states a leader cannot direct an attack independently of applying his DRM (the only exception being DRs to which "Leadership NA" applies). Second, a leader can only direct units in his own Location (A7.531), so he cannot direct — and therefore cannot protect from Cowering — the Fire Group units in the other Locations. Only the units in his Location are leader-directed ("no one cowers when directed by a leader"); the undirected units in the other Locations remain subject to Cowering, so an Original Doubles DR still Cowers the attack, with Random Selection applied only among the units subject to Cowering.
---
Detail:
- (A7.53) Fire Direction: a single leader cannot direct more than one weapon/unit per phase unless they are part of the same FG — but direction is still limited to units he is stacked with.
- (A7.531) A leader may direct only units/weapons in his own Location. Official Q&A reinforces this strictly: a squad firing as a FG with an ADJACENT hero cannot be leader-directed "because the hero is not in the same Location as the leader" (A7.531 & A15.24 Q&A).
- (A7.53-.531 & A10.72 Q&A) "These seem to imply that leader direction and the application of a leader's DRM can be declared independently of each other. Is this true? A. No; the two are synonymous in all cases." So the premise of withholding the DRM while still "directing" is not legal. (A 0-DRM leader can of course direct to prevent Cowering, since his DRM simply has no numeric effect.)
- (A7.9) Cowering and mixed FGs: per Q&A, when a FG contains units immune to Cowering and units that are not, an Original Doubles still Cowers the attack (1 column shift; 2 for Inexperienced), and Random Selection for the Final Fire marking is applied only among the units subject to Cowering. The same logic governs a multi-Location FG where only one Location's units are leader-directed.
References:
- (A7.53) Fire Direction — one leader, one attack/FG per phase
- (A7.531) Leader must be in the same Location as the units he directs
- (A7.53-.531/A10.72 Q&A) Direction and leadership DRM are synonymous
- (A7.9) Cowering — leader-directed units do not Cower; undirected FG members do, causing the column shift
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected ruling: it correctly states that a leader in only one Location cannot direct a multi-Location Fire Group and thus cannot prevent the entire FG from Cowering. It cites the relevant rules/Q&A (A7.53/A7.531/A10.72) and correctly explains that leader-direction is limited to units in the leader's Location and that direction and the application of the leader's DRM are linked per official Q&A. The model also correctly describes the cowering treatment for mixed-directed/undirected FG members (Original Doubles still cause Cowering and Random Selection applies among affected units). These points cover the key concepts in the expected answer.
A squad is beneath a stopped AFV and declares an Armored Assault; the AFV expends 1 MP to Start. Does that Start MP allow the enemy to make Defensive First Fire against the squad?
EXPECTED
No. Per the official A8.1 (and D9.31) Q&A, the AFV's Start MP does not permit enemy Defensive First Fire against the accompanying infantry. The trigger for fire against the infantry is the infantry's own expenditure of MF; the squad has spent none, so it cannot be First Fired on for the AFV's Start (the AFV itself may of course be fired on for that MP).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. The AFV's Start MP is a vehicular MP expenditure by the AFV, not an MF expenditure by the squad, so it does not make the squad a legal Defensive First Fire target. This is confirmed by official Q&A on A8.1 & D9.31: "A MMC stacked with a stopped AFV declares an armored assault. The AFV starts. Does this spent MP allow enemy units to defensive first fire at the MMC? A. No."
---
References:
- (A8.1) Defensive First Fire — the DEFENDER may fire on a moving unit based on its expenditure of MF/MP; here the Start MP was expended by the AFV, not by the squad
- (D2.11) Each time an AFV expends one MP to start it is subject to Defensive First Fire (since it has expended a MP to start) — but that exposure applies to the AFV itself, not to the Armored Assault infantry, which have not yet spent any MF
- (D9.31) Armored Assault — the infantry and AFV move together, but each expends its own MF/MP; Q&A (A8.1 & D9.31) explicitly rules that the AFV's Start MP does not open the accompanying MMC to Defensive First Fire
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states 'No', explains that the Start MP is expended by the AFV not the squad so it does not trigger Defensive First Fire against the infantry, and cites the relevant Q&A (A8.1 & D9.31). It also notes the AFV itself may be fired on for its own Start MP, which aligns with the expected explanation.
Must a Good Order MMC survive a minefield attack in a hex in order to gain Control of a building in that hex?
EXPECTED
No. The unit gains Control of the Location/building the instant it enters the hex; any attack that might affect it (such as the minefield attack) is resolved afterward, so it need not survive to gain Control (A26.11). This parallels the ruling that a unit broken by a Snap Shot as it enters an otherwise-empty Location still gains Control, because it "is considered to be in the Location entered" (A8.15/A26.11 Q&A).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. Control is gained during the act of movement, and A26.11 states a unit "need not end a phase (or even survive Defensive First Fire) in the Location/hex/building to gain Control of it." A minefield attack is resolved as a form of Defensive First Fire (A8.15), so the Good Order MMC gains Control of the building the moment it occupies it, even if the mines subsequently break or eliminate it.
---
References:
- (A26.11) Gaining Control — a side gains Control by occupying with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without an armed enemy ground unit present; "Control can be gained during the act of movement; a unit need not end a phase (or even survive Defensive First Fire) in the Location/hex/building to gain Control of it"
- (A8.15) Defensive First Fire — minefield attacks are handled as Defensive First Fire, which is exactly the category of attack A26.11 says the unit need not survive (see also the A8.15 & A26.11 cross-referenced Q&A)
- (Control chart, A26.1) "A moving unit need not survive Defensive First Fire in order to claim Control"
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected response: it correctly states 'No', explains that Control is gained the instant the Good Order MMC enters the hex (during movement), notes that a minefield attack is resolved as Defensive First Fire, and cites A26.11/A8.15 support. All key concepts from the expected answer are present and consistent.
Under a "set up Entrenched" SSR (B27.1) that specifies neither type nor size, may each crew or a lone SMC set up in its own 1S foxhole, and may a unit claim a foxhole larger than itself?
EXPECTED
Yes. A "set up Entrenched" SSR means foxholes (not trenches) unless it states otherwise, and if it does not specify a size, any size foxhole may be used. So each crew—or a lone SMC—may set up in its own 1S foxhole, and a unit may claim a foxhole larger than it strictly needs; units are not required to double up (B27.1, per Q&A for this SSR type).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes to the first part, no to the second. Under a "units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1)" SSR, each crew or lone SMC may claim its own foxhole, but only a 1S foxhole — a unit may not claim a foxhole larger than the size of the unit(s) actually setting up in it. This is per official Q&A on B27.1: "Can a unit claim a foxhole larger than the size of the unit(s) that will set up therein...? Can a lone SMC claim a foxhole of any size...? A. No. Only a 1S." (The same ruling limits dummies to a 1S as well.)
---
References:
- (B27.1) Foxhole — foxholes are listed by total squad capacity; official Q&A rules that under a "set up Entrenched" SSR a unit may not claim a foxhole larger than itself, and a lone SMC (or dummy stack) may claim only a 1S foxhole
- (B27.12) Capacity — a foxhole 1S counter has a capacity of one squad (or its equivalent), so a 1S is sufficient (and the maximum allowed) for a crew or lone SMC; the capacity of a foxhole counter can be exceeded by four SMC
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The expected answer says Yes to both parts: under a B27.1 "set up Entrenched" SSR that specifies neither type nor size, foxholes (not trenches) apply and any size foxhole may be used; thus each crew or lone SMC may set up in its own 1S foxhole, and a unit may claim a foxhole larger than it strictly needs. The model's response correctly affirms the first part but incorrectly denies the second, stating units may not claim a larger foxhole. That contradicts the expected ruling (and the cited Q&A) that, absent a size restriction in the SSR, foxholes of any size may be claimed and units are not required to double up. Therefore the model's answer is incorrect.
HUMAN NOTES
Per Q&A, the model answer is correct.
B27.1 Can a unit claim a foxhole larger than the size of the
unit(s) that will set up therein when an SSR says “units in suita-
ble terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1).” Can a lone SMC
claim a foxhole of any size by the above type SSR? Can dum-
mies claim a foxhole of any size by the above type SSR?
A. No. Only a 1S. Only a 1S. [K33]
Does the +1 bridge TEM benefit a unit located beneath the bridge, or only a unit on the bridge?
EXPECTED
Against Direct Fire, only a unit on the bridge gets the +1 TEM: B6.31 grants +1 to targets on a non-pontoon bridge whose LOF enters other than across the road depiction, and it does not cover units beneath the bridge. A unit beneath the bridge gains the +1 only against Indirect Fire, because B6.32 gives +1 to a non-pontoon bridge "or targets on or beneath that bridge" (reflecting the bridge's separation from the obstacle and the reduced effect of near misses). So: under-bridge unit → no +1 vs Direct Fire, but +1 vs Indirect Fire.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** For Direct Fire, the +1 bridge TEM applies only to a unit ON the bridge — B6.31 grants the +1 TEM (regardless of bridge construction type) to Direct Fire "against targets on a non-pontoon bridge" whose LOF enters the bridge other than across its road depiction. A unit beneath the bridge is in a separate Location and uses the TEM of the terrain it actually occupies instead. The one exception is Indirect Fire: B6.32 gives a +1 TEM against targets "on or beneath" a non-pontoon bridge, due to the bridge's separation from the obstacle it crosses.
---
References:
- (B6.31) Direct Fire against targets on a non-pontoon bridge, entering other than across the road depiction (road hexside), has a TEM of +1 regardless of bridge construction type — the rule is expressly limited to targets on the bridge
- (B6.32) Indirect Fire against a non-pontoon bridge/targets on or beneath the bridge has a TEM of +1 regardless of the LOF, reducing the effect of near misses and negating Interdiction
- (B6.2) A unit beneath a bridge is in a different Location from a unit on the bridge (placement beneath vs. on top of the bridge counter), so it does not share the bridge's in-hex TEM for Direct Fire purposes
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly states the core rule outcome: B6.31's +1 TEM for Direct Fire applies only to targets on a (non-pontoon) bridge, and a unit beneath the bridge does not get that +1 vs Direct Fire but does get +1 vs Indirect Fire under B6.32 (which covers targets on or beneath a non-pontoon bridge). However, the response incorrectly or confusingly asserts that B6.31 applies "regardless of bridge construction type," which contradicts the expected answer and the rule text that references non-pontoon bridges. Because the central semantic point (on-bridge vs beneath-bridge for Direct vs Indirect Fire) is correct but the model included a factual error about bridge construction type, the overall evaluation is partial.
A concealed unit is Pinned by a Sniper while it is out of the LOS of all enemy units. Does it lose its concealment?
EXPECTED
No—it keeps its "?". Becoming Pinned is not one of the concealment-loss conditions when out of LOS of enemy units: the loss list triggers on becoming broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured, using Non-Assault Movement, being Searched/Mopped Up, failing a PAATC, etc.—Pin is not among them. (Here the unit is also out of LOS of all enemy.) So a Sniper Pin result against an out-of-LOS concealed unit leaves its concealment intact.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes, it loses its concealment. Being attacked by a Sniper (a Sniper Activation dr of 1 or 2) is on A12.14's first list of concealment-loss causes — the list that applies immediately and unconditionally — not on the second list of actions that cost "?" only when performed "in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit within 16 hexes." So the LOS condition is irrelevant: the Pinned unit's "?" is removed even though no enemy unit has LOS to it.
---
References:
- (A12.14) Loss of Concealment — a concealed unit's "?" is lost immediately if it "is attacked by a Sniper (dr 1 or 2; 14.3)"; only the separate second list of actions (Non-Assault Movement, firing, etc.) carries the "in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit within 16 hexes" requirement
- (A14.2) Sniper Attacks — the Sniper counter's Random Location DR determines the target hex; the attack is resolved against the unit there regardless of any friendly unit's LOS to it
- (A14.3) Sniper effects — a Sniper dr of 2 Pins the target MMC, which is an "attacked by a Sniper" result and thus strips concealment
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The question is an Explanation/Procedure type. The model's answer contradicts the expected answer: it asserts that a Sniper Pin removes concealment by treating "attacked by a Sniper" as an immediate concealment-loss trigger, and ignores the LOS condition. The expected answer (and the correct rule interpretation) is that becoming Pinned alone is not one of the listed causes that strip concealment when the unit is out of enemy LOS, so the concealed unit retains its "?". The model therefore misses the key concept and gives the wrong outcome.
A concealed unit Advances (in the APh) through a wall/hedge gap (road) hexside toward an enemy that has LOS across that hexside. Does it keep concealment?
EXPECTED
No. According to Perry, this unit is considering moving and thus don't get the benefit of TEM (covered in B9.3).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No — assuming the enemy unit is Good Order and within LOS range for concealment loss, the unit loses concealment. When the LOS crosses a wall/hedge hexside through a road/gap depiction, the wall/hedge does not affect that LOS, and its TEM "can only apply if the target is a non-moving unit" (B9.3). Since the advancing unit is a moving target crossing via the gap, it receives no wall/hedge TEM, so it is Advancing in Open Ground in the LOS of an enemy unit and loses its "?" (A12.141).
---
References:
- (B9.3) Wall/Hedge TEM — if the LOS crosses the wall/hedge hexside through a road/gap depiction (such as 6W9-X9), the wall/hedge TEM can only apply if the target is a non-moving unit; an Advancing unit is a moving target, so no TEM applies.
- (B9.4) Gaps — wall/hedge hexsides with obvious gaps (e.g., 6W9-X9) can be crossed without paying the wall/hedge MF/MP penalty by using the road; the gap likewise leaves the LOS across that hexside unobstructed by the wall/hedge.
- (A12.141) Concealment Loss — a concealed unit that moves/advances in Open Ground (i.e., entitled to no TEM/Hindrance vs the viewing unit) while in the LOS of a Good Order enemy unit loses its concealment.
- (A10.531) Open Ground — with the wall/hedge TEM inapplicable through the gap, the crossing is treated as Open Ground for concealment purposes (unless the hex itself contains other Concealment Terrain).
Note: if the hex the unit advances into is itself Concealment Terrain (e.g., woods or a building), it would retain concealment for ending its Advance there; the loss occurs only because the movement takes place in Open Ground relative to the enemy's LOS through the gap.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states 'No' and correctly cites the key rule reasoning (B9.3) that wall/hedge TEM through a gap does not apply to a moving/advancing unit, so the unit is effectively in Open Ground relative to the enemy and loses concealment per A12.141. The response also correctly notes the gap/road LOS treatment (B9.4) and the caveat about ending in Concealment Terrain, covering the essential concepts.
A unit moves (non-Assault) into a bocage hex where it cannot claim an in-hex TEM of at least +1. Must it claim Wall Advantage, and does claiming WA at the bocage hexside then allow an enemy on the far side of that hexside to fire at it (when the bocage would otherwise block that LOS)?
EXPECTED
Yes to both. Per B9.323 (Mandatory WA), a unit unable to claim an in-hex TEM of at least +1 must claim Wall Advantage as soon as possible regardless of timing, and cannot voluntarily forfeit it. Although by B9.521 a unit with no WA in that hex would be out of LOS to a viewer across the bocage hexside, taking mandatory WA means it is claiming that bocage hexside's advantage — so it becomes visible to, and can be fired upon by, an enemy tracing LOS across that hexside. (If the hex had an in-hex TEM ≥ +1, e.g. woods/building, the unit could decline WA and remain out of LOS. A concealed unit forced into mandatory WA does not lose concealment even using non-Assault Movement, though FFNAM still applies — B9.55.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes to both. A unit unable to claim an in-hex TEM of at least +1 MUST claim Wall Advantage as soon as possible regardless of timing, and cannot voluntarily forfeit it (B9.323). Because a unit without WA over a bocage hexside cannot see — or be seen — through that hexside (B9.521), mandatorily claiming WA there places the unit into the LOS of the enemy on the far side, who may now fire at it across the bocage hexside (the target does receive the bocage TEM, however).
---
References:
- (B9.323) MANDATORY WA — a unit unable to claim in-hex TEM of at least +1 must claim WA as soon as possible regardless of timing (even with in-hex Hindrance) and cannot voluntarily forfeit it [EXC: 9.324]. Emplacement, Gunshield, Height Advantage, and a friendly AFV do not count as in-hex TEM for this purpose.
- (B9.521) Bocage LOS — lack of WA prevents LOS through a bocage hexside of the unit's hex (unlike normal walls/hedges, where lack of WA does not block LOS; B9.32). Gaining WA over the bocage hexside therefore opens LOS both ways.
- (B9.55) Rulebook example — a concealed 3-3-8 using Non-Assault Movement enters a hex where it must claim WA (9.323), "thereby moving within the 4-4-7's LOS"; the enemy attacks it with the +2 bocage TEM. Note that such movement is treated as Assault Movement for "?"-loss purposes, so a concealed unit retains concealment despite being forced into LOS.
- (B9.31) A target claiming WA receives the wall/hedge (here bocage) hexside TEM against fire crossing that hexside, though not in-hex TEM.
- (B9.324) Concealment exception — a concealed unit may forfeit WA (even mandatory WA) to an enemy unit claiming WA over a shared hexside in order to remain concealed.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly answered Yes to both parts and cited the correct rules: mandatory WA claim per B9.323 and that claiming WA over a bocage hexside opens LOS both ways (B9.521), with the target receiving the bocage TEM. These are the core points in the expected answer. Minor issues: the model's phrasing about movement being "treated as Assault Movement for '?'-loss purposes" is an imprecise wording compared with the expected wording that a concealed unit forced into mandatory WA does not lose concealment even with non-Assault Movement (B9.55). The model also did not explicitly state in its main answer the in-hex TEM ≥ +1 exception (that a unit in such a hex could decline WA), though that exception appears in its reference list. These are small omissions/wording imprecisions and do not contradict the central conclusion, so the response is judged correct.
A CE (crew-exposed) AFV enters a hex containing an enemy Good Order squad, stops, and both survive to the Close Combat Phase. Is the AFV held in Melee? When that hex is fired upon, which units are affected — only the squad, or the AFV as well?
EXPECTED
The AFV is not held in Melee — vehicles are never held in Melee (A11.71); a Melee/CC counter marks the infantry, and the AFV may move/rout away in its next turn. When the hex is fired on, normal Direct Fire affects only the unit(s) actually targeted (the squad in Melee), not the AFV; only fire that attacks the entire Location — OBA or an Area Target Type attack — affects both the squad and the AFV (A7.4). (A Sniper result could still hit the CE crew.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No — a vehicle is never held in Melee (A11.7) and is not even marked with a Melee counter, but as long as the non-Abandoned, unbroken AFV remains in the Location it DOES hold the Known enemy Infantry there in Melee after the CCPh. When the hex is fired upon as a Melee Location, the fire affects the Melee units — i.e., the squad — but not the AFV: the AFV is not a "Melee unit," so its (CE) crew does not undergo the resulting attack (per official Q&A on A7.4 & A11.15); the enemy would have to attack/target the AFV separately by normal means.
---
References:
- (A11.7) VEHICLE WITHDRAWAL FROM CC — "A vehicle is never held in Melee and, if Mobile, may move out of a CC Location normally in its MPh"; however, a non-Abandoned, unbroken vehicle "holds all Known enemy Infantry occupying the same Location after a CCPh in Melee as long as it remains in the Location." If the vehicle later leaves and no friendly units remain behind, the enemy Infantry are freed from Melee (and may Defensive First Fire on the movers).
- (A11.15) Melee — official Q&A: vehicles are not marked with a Melee counter while in the same Location as the opponent after CC has occurred.
- (A7.4) Fire vs a Melee Location — fire into a Location containing Melee affects the Melee units regardless of side; official Q&A (A7.4 & A11.15): infantry firing into a Melee containing an enemy squad and a friendly CE, stopped AFV attack the squad (e.g., a 1MC), but the AFV crew undergoes no MC because "the AFV is not a 'melee unit.'"
- (A11.71) By contrast, Passengers/Riders of an Immobile vehicle ARE held in Melee; those of a Mobile vehicle who survive the initial CC round are not.
- (A7.212) Target Selection Limits — while sharing a Location with a Known armed enemy unit, the units in that Location may only attack within it (the squad may use TPBF vs the AFV/its CE crew; D5.31 +2 CE DRM applies to Collateral Attacks).
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly states the central points: a vehicle is not held in Melee, is not marked with a Melee counter, and it 'holds' Known enemy infantry in the Location after CCPh while it remains there — and normal Direct Fire into the Location affects the Melee infantry (the squad) and not the AFV. However, the response omits two key exceptions from the expected answer: that Area-target attacks (including OBA) or other attacks that target the entire Location can affect both the squad and the AFV, and that a Sniper result could still hit the CE crew. Because those important caveats are missing, the answer is partial rather than fully correct.
A bogged fully-tracked AFV has created a partial Trailbreak in a woods hex. May another friendly vehicle use that partial Trailbreak to ease its own movement or Bog Check into that hex?
EXPECTED
No. A partial Trailbreak confers no movement or Bog benefit on any other vehicle — it cannot be used in any way by another unit (B13.421, per Perry Sez). It exists only to mark the possibility of creating a full Trailbreak and to indicate one hexside of the eventual two-hexside full TB. Only a completed (two-hexside) full Trailbreak provides the reduced cost/benefit that other vehicles may use.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. A partial Trail Break gives no benefit to any other vehicle — the movement/Bog benefits of a TB apply only after it becomes a full TB (placed when the creating AFV exits the hex via another hexside; B13.421). Worse, in this case the partial TB no longer even exists: a Bogged vehicle is Immobile (D8.2), and a wreck or Immobile vehicle on a TB counter removes that TB (B13.4211). The second vehicle must enter the woods hex by normal means (all of its MP per B13.41, or half its MP allotment with a +3 Bog DRM per B13.42), placing its own partial TB if fully-tracked.
---
References:
- (B13.421) TRAIL BREAK — a partial TB counter is placed when a fully-tracked AFV enters woods without Bypass/road/TB; only "once that AFV leaves the hex via another hexside" is a full TB placed, and only "thereafter" may other fully-tracked vehicles use the TB to traverse those hexsides at half MP without threat of Bog.
- (B13.4211) "A wreck or Immobile vehicle on a TB counter removes that TB" — a bogged AFV is Immobile, so its partial TB is removed (it does not prevent other fully-tracked vehicles from attempting to establish another TB in the same hex).
- (D8.2) BOG — a bogged vehicle may not exit its Location or change its VCA until freed "and therefore is Immobile."
- Official Q&A (B13.421/.4211-.12): a second fully-tracked AFV may NOT use a partial TB free of a Bog Check and may NOT "complete" another vehicle's partial TB; it places its own second partial TB when it enters — and if the first AFV had bogged, its partial TB is removed.
- (B13.42) FULLY-TRACKED — entry by expending half the MP allotment requires a Bog Check with a +3 DRM; (B13.41) any vehicle may instead enter by expending all of its movement capability, with a Bog DR.
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states 'No' (a partial Trailbreak confers no movement/Bog benefit to other vehicles) and cites B13.421 that only a completed two-hexside Trailbreak provides the reduced-cost benefit. It also correctly includes the additional, accurate detail from B13.4211 and D8.2 that a bogged (Immobile) AFV removes its partial TB, and correctly describes how a second vehicle must enter (full MP or half MP with +3 Bog DRM) and would place its own partial TB if fully-tracked. All required facts are present and correct.
A unit Bypasses a hill hex whose printed depiction spans several elevation colors. At what elevation is the Bypass figured — the colors the path visually crosses, or the level of the hex-center dot — and therefore what elevation-change MF must be paid?
EXPECTED
It is figured at the elevation of the hex-center dot, not the colors the path visually crosses. Per B10.1, although many hexes are printed with colors representing more than one elevation, units in a hex are always considered at the elevation level containing the hex-center dot, and other terrain (woods, building, etc.) is at that higher level throughout the entire depiction. So a unit Bypassing such a hill hex is at the center-dot level and must pay the elevation-change MF to reach it (e.g., +2 MF per intermediate and final level climbed, plus any Ground Snow/rain), then no extra cost to continue along at that same level — the multi-color base depiction is ignored for elevation and cost.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The Bypass is figured at the level of the hex-center dot — the multiple elevation colors are purely aesthetic (B10.1). Therefore an elevation-change cost is owed only if the center-dot level of the Bypassed hex is higher than the level of the hex just left: Bypassing into higher-elevation Open Ground costs 2 MF (1 MF Open Ground COT x 2 for entering one level higher), while a same-center-dot-level Bypass costs the normal 1 MF even if the Bypass path visually crosses higher or lower color shades.
---
Step 1: "Many hexes contain colors representing more than one elevation, but units therein are always considered at the elevation level containing the hex center dot" (B10.1) — so the colors the Bypass path crosses are irrelevant.
Step 2: The movement cost of Bypass becomes that of the other terrain in the Location — "usually one MF for Open Ground or two MF to enter higher elevation Open Ground" (A4.31).
Step 3: The MF cost is doubled when moving into a new hex one level higher than that previously occupied; there is no penalty for moving along the same level nor any reduction for moving downhill (A4.133).
Calculation: 1 MF (Open Ground) x 2 (hex-center-dot one level higher) = 2 MF; if the center dot is at the same level as the previous hex, 1 MF.
References:
- (B10.1) HILLS — units are always considered at the elevation level containing the hex center dot; extra color shades in a hex are aesthetic only.
- (A4.31) Bypass Cost — Bypass costs the COT of the non-obstacle terrain (usually 1 MF Open Ground; 2 MF for higher-elevation Open Ground); a third contiguous Bypassed hexside doubles the Bypass cost for that hex.
- (A4.133) ELEVATION CHANGE — entry cost doubled when moving into a hex one level higher; no penalty moving on the same level or downhill (barring Abrupt Elevation Changes, B10.51).
- (D2.3) For vehicles, VBM likewise doubles the non-obstacle terrain cost per hexside, including any elevation-change cost (e.g., (1 [Open Ground] + 4 [higher elevation]) x 2 = 10 MP).
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly states the central concept from B10.1: the Bypass is figured at the hex-center dot elevation and the multi-color depiction is ignored. It also correctly says you owe an elevation-change cost if the center-dot level is higher and that once at that level you continue with normal costs. However the model misstates the movement-cost arithmetic: it describes the cost as '1 MF x 2 = 2 MF' (i.e., doubling) for entering a hex one level higher, whereas the expected answer (and the cited rules) indicate an elevation-change MF is added (+2 MF per level climbed) to the COT (so entering Open Ground one level higher is 1 + 2 = 3 MF). The model also conflates/overstates the 'doubling' language (which applies in other contexts, e.g., third contiguous Bypassed hexside) with the elevation-change cost. Because it gets the key elevation-location concept right but errs in the MF calculation, the response is partial.
When firing at an Infantry unit using Bypass Movement (hugging a hexside rather than the hex center), where may the firer trace the LOF, and what DRM applies if the LOS is traced to the hex center across the bypassed hexside while the unit moved non-Assault in Open Ground?
EXPECTED
The firer may trace the LOF either to a hexside vertex the unit traverses during its Bypass, or to the hex center. If traced to the hex center, the LOS must cross a bypassed hexside before reaching that center (or the LOS is blocked) — A3.34/A4.34. Such a shot at a unit that used non-Assault Movement through Open Ground along that hexside usually qualifies for the −2 DRM (−1 FFMO and −1 FFNAM). So: fire to a traversed vertex, or to the center across the bypassed hexside, at a −2 DRM for a non-Assault-Moving unit in Open Ground.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The firer has two options: trace the LOF to either hex vertex along any hexside the unit traversed in Bypass (two vertices for a one-hexside Bypass, three for two hexsides, etc.), or trace it to the hex center dot — but a hex-center LOS must cross a bypassed hexside before reaching the center or it is blocked (A4.34). If the LOS is traced to the hex center across the bypassed hexside and the unit moved non-Assault in Open Ground, a -2 DRM applies (-1 FFNAM + -1 FFMO); the Bypassed obstacle's TEM does NOT apply to the unit in Bypass.
---
Step 1: A unit firing at a Bypassing unit "does not have to trace its LOS to the target hex center, but has the option to make its one allowed LOS check per attack to either hex vertex along a hexside traversed" — a choice of two vertices for one hexside Bypassed, three vertices for two hexsides, etc. (A4.34).
Step 2: If the firer traces the LOS to the hex center instead, "it must cross a bypassed hexside... before reaching that hex center or the LOS is blocked" (A4.34).
Step 3: A LOS reaching an Open Ground Bypass vertex (or crossing the bypassed Open Ground hexside to the center) against a non-Assault-moving unit qualifies for the First Fire DRM for Non-Assault Movement in Open Ground: -1 FFNAM plus -1 FFMO (A4.34, A8.13).
Calculation: -1 (FFNAM) + -1 (FFMO) = -2 DRM.
References:
- (A4.34) BYPASS LOS — firer's options: any vertex along a traversed hexside, or the hex center provided the LOS crosses a bypassed hexside first; unobstructed Open Ground LOS earns the -2 First Fire DRM for non-Assault Movement in the open.
- (A8.13) DEFENSIVE FIRST FIRE DRM — the -1 FFNAM and -1 FFMO DRM apply only to Defensive First Fire attacks.
- (A4.34) A wall or hedge in the target hex is not an obstacle to this LOS, but its TEM would apply (negating FFMO) if the LOS crosses that wall/hedge hexside.
- (A6.12) ATYPICAL LOS — Bypass (A4.34) is one of the cases where LOS is traced to a vertex/hexside instead of the hex center dot.
Note: a unit in Bypass receives no TEM from the building/woods obstacle it is Bypassing — it is in the non-obstacle (usually Open Ground) portion of the hex while moving.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer includes the required key points: the firer may trace LOF to a traversed vertex or to the hex center, the hex-center LOS must cross a bypassed hexside before reaching the center (or it is blocked), and such a shot at a unit that used non-Assault Movement through Open Ground carries the -2 DRM (the two first-fire DRMs: -1 FFNAM and -1 FFMO). Minor extra remarks (about TEM and specific citation numbers) do not contradict the expected answer and do not change the substantive ruling, so the response matches the expected answer.
In a Gun Duel, firer-based DRMs determine who fires first. If those firer DRMs are tied, how is the tie broken, and do target-based DRMs enter into resolving whether that first shot hits?
EXPECTED
The firer-based (Gun Duel) DRMs only set the firing order; if both sides' total Gun Duel DRM are equal, the tie is broken by a full To Hit DR using every final DRM, including target-based ones, and the lower Final TH (or non-ordnance IFT) DR fires first and voids the opponent's return shot if it eliminates/breaks/stuns/shocks it (C2.2401). So once order is settled, the first shot is resolved by the normal To Hit process with all target DRMs applied. If the two Final DR are also equal, both shots resolve simultaneously.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** If the two sides' Gun Duel DRM totals are equal, both make their TH DR and the lower Final TH DR (or Final IFT DR for non-ordnance) fires first — and that first shot voids the opponent's return shot only if it eliminates, stuns, or Shocks him; if the two Final DR are also equal, both shots are resolved simultaneously (C2.2401). Target-based DRMs never count toward the Gun Duel DRM comparison, but they DO apply in full to each TH DR, so they both determine whether the shot hits and (because the tie-break compares Final DRs) can influence who fires first in a tie.
---
The Gun Duel DRM is defined narrowly: it is each side's total Firer-Based (C5) TH DRM plus Acquisition (C6.5) TH DRM only — with the further exclusions of the Gyrostabilizer +1 and the Case C4 doubling of the lower dr (C2.2401). Leadership modifiers (Infantry or Armor Leader) do count as Firer-Based DRM in this calculation. Target-based DRM (Cases J, K, P, Q, R, etc., of C6) are ignored when comparing totals to establish the order of fire.
Once the order-of-fire question falls to the tie-break, each side rolls its actual TH DR with ALL applicable DRM — Firer-Based and Target-Based alike — and the lower Final result fires first. So while target-based DRMs play no role in the DRM comparison, they fully affect the resolution of the shot itself and, in the tied case, effectively help break the tie via the Final DR comparison.
References:
- (C2.2401) GUN DUELS — the Gun Duel DRM is the total Firer-Based (C5) and Acquisition (C6.5) TH DRM; if the totals are equal, "the lower Final TH (or non-ordnance IFT) DR fires first," and if those Final DR are equal both shots are resolved simultaneously
- (C2.2401) Exclusions — neither the +1 Gyrostabilizer DRM nor the Case C4 doubling of the lower dr (C5.35) is included in the Gun Duel DRM calculation
- (C5) Firer-Based Hit Determination DRM — leadership modifiers count as Firer-Based DRM for Gun Duel purposes (per official Q&A)
- (C6) Target-Based Hit Determination DRM — apply to the TH DR of the shot itself, not to the Gun Duel DRM comparison
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states that firer-based Gun Duel DRMs set firing order, that target-based DRMs are excluded from the initial Gun Duel DRM comparison, and that if those firer-based totals tie both sides roll full To-Hit DRs with all applicable DRMs (including target-based ones). It correctly notes the lower Final TH (or non-ordnance IFT) DR fires first and can void the opponent's return shot only if it eliminates/stuns/shocks, and that equal Final DRs resolve simultaneously. The response also correctly lists the included/excluded DRM categories (firer-based + acquisition included; gyrostabilizer and Case C4 doubling excluded) and that leadership modifiers count as firer-based — all consistent with the expected answer and cited rule (C2.2401).
An AFV moves to a new hex in its MPh, then fires ordnance in the AFPh. Does To-Hit Case B (+2, firing in AFPh without moving) apply, and how does it relate to Case C (Bounding Firer)?
EXPECTED
A vehicle that entered a new hex this Player Turn fires as Bounding (First) Fire, which is To Hit Case C, and Case C is defined on the TH Table as "Case B plus..." so the +2 of Case B is automatically included (C5.3, Cases B & C). For a turreted vehicle that is +2 (B) +2 (C, T/ST) = +4; for a non-turreted vehicle it is +2 + +3 = +5. Your opponent is correct: long usage matches the rules text here.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No — Case B by itself applies only to ordnance firing in the AFPh that did NOT enter a new hex/hexside during that Player Turn (C5.2). An AFV that entered a new hex in its MPh and fires in the AFPh is a Bounding Firer and instead uses Case C (C5.3), which is built ON TOP of Case B: Case C = the +2 of Case B plus the Gun Type DRM (Stabilized Gun +1, T/ST +2, NT or Passenger +3).
---
Step 1: Case B (+2) covers "Fire in AFPh without entering a hex in that Player Turn" (C5.2) — its trigger condition excludes a vehicle that moved to a new hex, so it never applies alone to this AFV.
Step 2: A vehicle (including Passengers) that entered a new hex/hexside during its MPh but does not fire until the AFPh is using Bounding Fire and always uses Case C when firing ordnance (C5.3).
Step 3: Case C is defined as "Case B plus" the Gun Type DRM, so the +2 of Case B is embedded inside Case C rather than added as a separate Case.
Calculation: Stabilized Gun: 2 + 1 = +3; T/ST Gun: 2 + 2 = +4; NT Gun or Passenger: 2 + 3 = +5 (per the C5.3 example). A MA AAMG would add only +2 (Case B component only).
References:
- (C5.2) Case B; Fire in AFPh — +2 for ordnance firing in the AFPh "which did not enter their current hex/hexside during that Player Turn" (+3 if in woods/building/rubble)
- (C5.3) Case C; Bounding Firer — a vehicle that entered a new hex/hexside in its MPh and fires in the AFPh always uses Case C; the DRM is Case B's +2 plus the applicable Gun Type DRM
- (C3 To Hit Table, Case C) "Case B plus [Stabilized Gun: +1] [T/ST: +2] [NT: +3]" — the chart entry showing Case C incorporates Case B
- (C5.31/C5.32) Cases C1/C2 — the Restricted/Limited Aim add-ons apply only to Bounding FIRST Fire in the MPh, not in the AFPh
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer. It correctly identifies the question as an explanation/procedure type, states that a vehicle which entered a new hex and fires in the AFPh uses To-Hit Case C (Bounding Firer) rather than Case B, and explains that Case C is defined as Case B's +2 plus the Gun Type DRM. The numerical examples (Stabilized = 2+1 = +3; T/ST = 2+2 = +4; NT/Passenger = 2+3 = +5) match the expected answer, and the response notes that Case B alone does not apply when the AFV entered a hex that turn. Therefore it covers all key concepts from the expected answer.
Can an AFV use Bounding First Fire at the very start of its MPh before expending any MP, and what are the consequences?
EXPECTED
Yes, an AFV may Bounding First Fire before spending any MP, but it cannot then sit out the MPh -- a vehicle must use all its MP (any MP left at MPh end are assumed spent in that hex; D2.1). Firing before expending any MP can invoke the rarely-seen DEFENDER Gun Duel (C5.33). The shot still pays all applicable ordnance TH DRMs, including Bounding Fire Cases B & C (so +4 turreted / +5 non-turreted), and a non-stabilized Gun loses its Acquisition for Bounding/Motion fire (C6.55).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A vehicle may Bounding First Fire at the start of its MPh before expending any MP, provided the target is in a hex it can already fire on (i.e., prior to entering a new hex, or vs a target in its continuous LOS since before the MPh), and it does so using the plain Case C To Hit DRM — it does NOT need to expend Delay MP first to avoid Cases C1/C2 (C5.33). The main consequence: because it declared a shot before any MP expenditure, the DEFENDER may still declare a Gun Duel (C2.2401) that he might well win — since the vehicle is saddled with Case C — and thus fire first, before the vehicle has spent a single MP.
---
The details of the 0-MP Bounding First Fire shot:
- Case C (not C1/C2) applies: a vehicle "wishing to fire at the start of its MPh prior to entry of a new hex (or one that has had a continuous LOS to its target since before the MPh) may do so using Case C; it need not expend Delay MP first to avoid having to use Case C1 or C2" (C5.33).
- Gun Duel exposure: "If the Bounding First Firer vehicle declares a shot prior to any MP expenditure, a DEFENDER can still declare a Gun Duel (C2.2401) that he might win (due to the Bounding First Firer's use of TH Case C), and thus he could fire before the vehicle expends any MP" (C5.33). Only the target of the shot may respond this way — third parties cannot intervene in that Gun Duel (per official Q&A on C2.2401 & C5.33).
- Normal Bounding First Fire consequences also attach (D3.3): the vehicle is marked with a Bounding Fire counter and may not fire in its AFPh; any non-ordnance weapon (MG/Canister/FT) fires at half FP (D3.31); Case A is never applicable and it must fire within its current CA (C5.13); and if it fires any weapon other than its MA during the MPh, its other weapons/PRC may not fire in the AFPh (D3.31). It may still move afterward in the same MPh if it has sufficient MP (D3.3).
References:
- (C5.33) Bounding First Fire — may fire at the start of the MPh prior to any MP expenditure using Case C; no Delay MP needed to avoid C1/C2; DEFENDER may declare a winnable Gun Duel
- (C2.2401) Gun Duels — the DEFENDER's mechanism for firing first against the declared shot
- (D3.3) Bounding First Fire — any fire during the MPh is BFF; Bounding Fire counter; no AFPh fire; may expend Delay MP at the outset of the MPh one at a time
- (D3.31) MG/Canister/FT Fire — non-ordnance FP is halved in Bounding (First) Fire; firing non-MA weapons in the MPh bars other weapons/PRC from the AFPh
- (C5.13) Bounding First Fire and Case A — Case A is never applicable; a Bounding First Firer must always fire within its current CA
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly states the central allowance (an AFV may Bounding First Fire at the very start of its MPh) and correctly identifies the potential for a DEFENDER Gun Duel and many normal BFF effects (Bounding Fire counter, no AFPh fire, halved non-ordnance FP, must fire within current CA, may still move if it has MP). However the response omits several key consequences from the expected answer: it fails to state that the vehicle cannot then sit out the MPh and must expend all its MP (any remaining MP at MPh end are assumed spent), and it does not mention the applicable ordnance TH DRMs for Bounding Fire (the +4 turreted / +5 non-turreted B/C ordnance DRM) nor the loss of Acquisition for a non‑stabilized gun (C6.55). Because these are substantive omissions, the answer is partial rather than fully correct.
A target AFV has been in the firer's LOS continuously since the previous turn and then makes only a Starting MP expenditure. Does the firer pay the Case J "lost LOS" To-Hit penalty, and is the target yet a moving target?
EXPECTED
No penalty: Case J (J1/J2) applies only if LOS to the target was ever broken, and here LOS was continuous, so the DRM is +0 / NA (C6.15). The Starting MP is also considered expended in the currently occupied hex, making the target non-stopped but not yet a C.8 moving target (D2.12), so no moving-target DRM applies until it actually enters a new hex.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No on both counts. The Case J1/J2 "lost LOS" penalties never apply here because the AFV began its MPh already in the firer's continuous LOS (C6.15), and a Start MP expenditure by itself does not make the vehicle a moving (C.8) target — so not even the basic Case J (+2) applies to this shot, although the Start MP does give the firer a Defensive First Fire opportunity.
---
On the J1/J2 question: Cases J1 (+3 total) and J2 (+4 total) measure the moving target's expenditure of time in the firer's LOS "since the last hex occupied by that target out of the firer's LOS" (C6.15). A target that begins its MPh in the firer's LOS is unaffected by these Cases until it has been out of that LOS after entering a new Location/vertex; momentary interruptions between center-dots/vertices in LOS do not break continuous LOS (C6.15). Since this AFV has been continuously visible since the previous turn, J1/J2 cannot apply. Moreover, J1/J2 apply only vs a "moving (C.8) vehicle" in Defensive First Fire (C6.11-C6.12), and this target is not yet moving.
On moving-target status: per C.8, a vehicle is a moving target for To Hit/Effects purposes only if during the current Player Turn it has entered a new hex, used VBM (D2.3), began its MPh in Motion (D2.4), or is currently in Motion. Expenditure of MP for other purposes does not by itself qualify a vehicle as a moving target, "although they too allow Defensive First Fire shots vs it" (C.8). So the firer may shoot at the AFV after its Start MP, at a stationary target with no Case J family DRM at all; the AFV becomes a moving target only once it enters a new hex/uses VBM (or is in Motion).
References:
- (C6.15) Continuous LOS — a target beginning its MPh in the firer's LOS is unaffected by Cases J1/J2 until it leaves that LOS after entering a new Location/vertex
- (C6.11/C6.12) Cases J1/J2 — Defensive First Fire penalties vs a moving (C.8) vehicle that has just expended ≤3/≤1 MP in the firer's continuous LOS
- (C6.1) Case J — +2 only vs a vehicle that entered a new hex, used VBM, or is/was in Motion status that Player Turn
- (C.8) Moving Vehicular Target — a Start MP (D2.12) alone does not confer moving-target status but does permit Defensive First Fire against the vehicle
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer conveys the two key points from the expected answer: (1) continuous LOS since the previous turn means Case J (J1/J2) lost-LOS penalties do not apply, and (2) a Starting MP expenditure in the same hex does not make the AFV a C.8 moving target (so no moving-target To-Hit DRM until it actually enters a new hex). The model adds that Defensive First Fire opportunities may be allowed when MPs are expended, which is extra context and not contradictory to the expected answer. Overall the semantic content and ruling match the expected answer.
When a small-caliber mortar scores an ATT hit on an AFV, when does the C1.55 "-1 TK DRM vs AFV with AF <= 4" apply, and is AF otherwise used in the TK resolution?
EXPECTED
The -1 TK DRM applies only if every Armor Factor printed for the vehicle -- on all facings and aspects, including the turret -- is <= 4 (C1.55, D1.6). The mere existence of any AF >= 5 (e.g. a 6-AF turret on a [4] hull) voids the -1, and the DRM is independent of which facing/aspect was actually hit. Other than determining this DRM, AF is not used in resolving the mortar's TK DR on the IFT.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Mortar fire is always resolved on the IFT and never uses a To Kill Table (C7.345), so the C1.55 "-1 vs AFV with all AF ≤ 4" is actually an IFT DRM (not a TK DRM) — it applies to the Effects DR whenever an armored AFV's fate is being determined via the C1.55 Indirect Fire procedure, i.e., on any mortar Area Target Type hit resolved against it as an armored vehicle. Beyond those coarse C1.55 brackets (-1 if all AF ≤ 4, -1 if OT, +1 if all AF ≥ 8), AF is NOT otherwise used: no TK DR is made and no AF is subtracted from any TK#.
---
How it works:
- A mortar hit — including an ATT (Area Target Type) hit — is "always resolved on the IFT (C1.55) and therefore never uses the HE (or any other) To Kill Table" (C7.345); likewise "OBA and Area Target Type fire is resolved on the IFT... as per C1.55" (C7.34).
- On that IFT resolution vs an armored vehicle, the C1.55 INDIRECT FIRE vs AFV IFT DRM chart applies: -1 if all of the AFV's AF are ≤ 4, -1 if the AFV is OT, +1 if all AF are ≥ 8 (C1.55). This is the only way armor thickness enters the resolution — as a coarse DRM bracket rather than an AF subtraction.
- The Original IFT DR also doubles as the hit-location DR for the C7.7 AFV Destruction Table result (note E: "Use Original IFT DR for Hit Location (C1.55)").
- Limit on applicability (per official Q&A on B13.3-.31, C1.55 & D5.311): the C1.55 DRM apply "only vs armored vehicles that are using C1.55 to determine [their] fate." If the AFV is instead treated as an unarmored vehicle for that attack (e.g., an OT AFV whose CE DRM is negated by Airburst per D5.311, resolved on the IFT as unarmored per A7.308), the -1 AF ≤ 4 and -1 OT DRM do NOT apply.
- Note also that an Area Target Type hit is an exception to the normal rule that a hit in an unarmored Target Facing/Aspect is resolved as an unarmored vehicle with a TK# (C7.1/C3.332) — the ATT hit stays on the IFT.
References:
- (C1.55) Indirect Fire vs AFV IFT DRM — -1 all AF ≤ 4; -1 OT AFV; +1 all AF ≥ 8; Original IFT DR used for hit location
- (C7.345) Mortars — mortar fire, being indirect in trajectory, is always resolved on the IFT (C1.55) and never uses any To Kill Table
- (C7.34) HE To Kill Table — OBA and Area Target Type fire is resolved on the IFT per C1.55
- (C7.1) Final TK# — AF subtraction happens only in TK resolution (Vehicle Target Type/LATW hits), which a mortar ATT hit never reaches
- (D5.311 / A7.308) — when the AFV is resolved as unarmored, C1.55 DRM are NA (per Q&A)
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that mortar/ATT hits are resolved on the IFT (not a TK table), that the C1.55 DRM is applied as a coarse bracket (−1 if all AF ≤ 4, −1 for OT, +1 if all AF ≥ 8), and that AF are not otherwise used (no TK DR and no AF subtraction). The model's wording 'all of the AFV's AF are ≤ 4' semantically covers the expected point that every printed AF on all facings/aspects (including turret) must be ≤4 to get the −1; the response also correctly notes the DRM is independent of which facing was hit and mentions the unarmored exception. Therefore the response is correct.
A gun has a large (Area) acquisition on a hex. The target later loses concealment and leaves the hex. Can the firer bracket the large acquisition down to a small acquisition and fire at the unit in its new hex?
EXPECTED
No. Acquisition can be transferred to a new target/Target-Type only if the target Location (or hex, for Area Target Type) remains the same during the transfer (C6.52). Once the unit leaves the hex, the old large acquisition stays with the vacated hex and cannot be converted/used for a shot at the unit in its new hex -- regardless of switching to ATT, VTT or ITT.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. Bracketing (C6.52) allows an Acquisition DRM to be transferred to another target/Target Type only if the target Location (or hex, for the Area Target Type) remains the same during the transfer — and an Area Acquired counter cannot track a unit into a new hex (C6.521). Since the target has left the acquired hex, the firer cannot convert the 5/8" Area Acquisition to a 1/2" Acquisition and follow it; he keeps the Area Acquisition on the original hex and must re-acquire the unit in its new hex.
---
The target's loss of concealment is irrelevant here. The concealment restriction in C6.52 only prevents transferring Area Acquisition to another Target Type for use *against a concealed unit* (C6.57); it does not create any new permission once concealment is lost. The blocking rules are:
1. Bracketing is legal only "provided the target Location (or hex, if using the Area Target Type) remains the same during the transfer" (C6.52). The unit is now in a different hex, so no transfer is possible.
2. "An Area Acquired counter cannot track a moving/routing/advancing/Withdrawing unit as per 6.51; the firer would have to re-acquire such a unit each time it enters a new hex" (C6.521).
3. The C6.52/C6.521 illustrative example confirms this exact situation: when a squad moved out of the Area-acquired hex M2 into N2, "it would no longer be acquired, nor could the [tank] transfer its Area Acquired counter to a 1/2" Acquired counter to track that squad into" the new hex.
The Area Acquired counter simply remains on the hex the target vacated (assuming the firer does not otherwise lose it per C6.5), where it still applies to any occupants of that hex in the firer's LOS. To fire on the unit in its new hex, the Gun fires without the Acquisition DRM and begins acquiring anew.
References:
- (C6.52) Bracketing — Acquisition DRM may transfer between targets/Target Types only if the target Location/hex remains the same; Area Acquisition cannot be transferred to another Target Type and used vs a concealed unit
- (C6.521) Area Acquisition — the 5/8" Area Acquired counter applies to a hex and cannot track a moving unit; the firer must re-acquire in each new hex
- (C6.51) Acquired counter remains in the last acquired Location; it still applies to Known units occupying that Location
- (C6.5) Conditions for retaining/losing Acquisition
- (C6.57) Concealed targets — a concealed target is acquired only via the Area Target Type, or if the acquiring shot strips concealment
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states 'No', correctly cites C6.52 and C6.521, explains that an Area Acquired counter remains with the vacated hex and cannot track a unit into a new hex, and notes that loss of concealment does not permit converting/transferring the Area Acquisition to follow the unit. All key concepts from the expected answer are covered and no incorrect statements are introduced.
A gun breaks a unit and gains a unit Acquisition there; that unit then routs out of the hex. Must the 1/2" Acquired counter follow the target, or may it stay to keep the Location acquired?
EXPECTED
It must track the target: per the official Q&A on C6.51, a 1/2" Acquired counter cannot remain in a hex when all target units leave it (even if some remain in LOS) and must follow one of the target units. To acquire a Location independently of any particular unit, you must instead use the Area Target Type / Area Acquisition.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The 1/2" Acquired counter must follow the routing target — it may not be left behind to keep the vacated Location acquired. An official C6.51 Q&A states directly that a 1/2" Acquired counter "cannot remain and must follow" the target unit(s) when they move to a new Location still in the firer's LOS. Only if the routing unit leaves the firer's LOS does the counter stay behind, and then it remains in the last Location the target occupied prior to leaving LOS (C6.51) — not by the firer's choice.
---
The 1/2" Acquired counter tracks a specific acquired unit, not a Location. As long as the routing unit remains in the Gun's LOS, the counter moves with it (C6.5, C6.51). A related Q&A confirms the firer has no option here: when an acquired squad moved on to another in-LOS Location, the Defender could not choose to leave the acquisition marker behind on other units in the original hex.
The only way the counter "stays" is the LOS exception: if the routing unit enters a new Location/vertex and is thereby no longer in the firer's LOS (C6.15), the counter remains in the last in-LOS Location that target occupied, and (if not otherwise lost per C6.5) it will apply to any other Known unit that later occupies that acquired Location (C6.51). Note that only an Area (5/8") Acquired counter is Location/hex-based and cannot follow a routing unit at all (C6.521); the 1/2" counter is the opposite — it follows the unit.
Also beware: if the Gun uses Interdiction against a different routing unit (or its crew fires Inherent FP to Interdict), the Acquisition is lost entirely (C6.5).
References:
- (C6.51) Q&A — a 1/2" Acquired counter cannot be left in the vacated Location; it must follow the target unit(s) still in LOS
- (C6.51) If the acquired target leaves its Location and thereby goes out of the firer's LOS, the counter remains in the last Location occupied prior to leaving LOS, and applies to Known units later occupying that Location
- (C6.5) Case N; Acquired Target — the target remains acquired until a listed loss condition; if the target is no longer in LOS after entering a new Location, the last in-LOS Location remains acquired
- (C6.521) Area Acquisition — by contrast, a 5/8" Area Acquired counter is hex-based and cannot track a moving/routing unit
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states the 1/2" Acquired counter must track the target and cannot be left behind to hold the Location, cites the C6.51 Q&A, and notes the LOS exception (counter remains in the last in-LOS location if the target leaves LOS). It also correctly contrasts the 1/2" unit acquisition with the 5/8" Area (location-based) acquisition. Extra correct details (e.g., loss via interdiction per C6.5) do not contradict the expected answer.
Can an AFV fire SMOKE (S) or White Phosphorus (WP) during a Movement Phase, and may other units already have fired in that phase?
EXPECTED
Vehicular SMOKE (S) may be fired only at the start of the owner's own PFPh or DFPh, before anything else has fired, so it cannot be fired in a Movement Phase (C8.5). WP, however, may be fired during any friendly fire phase -- including the enemy MPh as the first shot -- but only before any non-SMOKE ammo has fired that phase (C8.6, official Q&A). Note vehicular SMOKE/WP uses the Area Target Type, which is NA as Bounding First Fire.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** SMOKE (s) — no: ordnance Smoke may be placed only at the start of the owner's PFPh/DFPh, never in the MPh (C8.5). WP — yes: an AFV (or Gun) may fire WP during any friendly fire phase, which includes Defensive First Fire during the enemy MPh, but only if no friendly unit has yet fired anything other than SMOKE in that phase, and MPh placement is Dispersed WP (C8.6). Prior friendly SMOKE/WP fire is fine; any prior non-SMOKE fire shuts the door.
---
Key points:
- Smoke (s) is restricted to the start of the PFPh/DFPh; once any unit fires anything other than SMOKE during that PFPh/DFPh, no more SMOKE may be fired in it (C8.5). It therefore cannot be fired during a MPh at all.
- WP, unlike Smoke, may be fired by ordnance during *any* friendly fire phase — "not just the PFPh/DFPh" — but must come prior to any friendly unit firing anything other than SMOKE in that phase (C8.6). Firing SMOKE (Smoke or WP) beforehand does not prevent it.
- A Q&A confirms the DEFENDER may fire WP as Defensive First Fire against a moving unit during the ATTACKER's MPh, "however, the WP would still have to be fired before any non-SMOKE ammo in that phase" (C8.6 Q&A).
- WP placed in any phase other than the PFPh is Dispersed WP (C8.6, A24.5); Smoke fired outside its window would likewise be Dispersed (C8.51).
- Note the moving AFV itself may NOT fire WP as Bounding First Fire or Motion Fire during its own MPh using the Area Target Type — a Q&A rules this out because the Area Target Type cannot use Bounding First/Motion Fire (C8.6 Q&A, C3.3).
References:
- (C8.5) SMOKE (s) — placed by ordnance/OBA only at the start of the owner's PFPh/DFPh; barred once any non-SMOKE fire occurs that phase
- (C8.51) Smoke fired in any other phase is placed as white Dispersed smoke
- (C8.6) WHITE PHOSPHORUS — may be fired during any friendly fire phase, prior to any friendly non-SMOKE fire; non-PFPh placement is Dispersed WP (A24.5)
- (C3.3) Area Target Type — cannot be used with Bounding First/Motion Fire, so a moving AFV cannot place WP that way
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states vehicular SMOKE (S) may only be placed at the start of the owner's PFPh/DFPh (so not in the MPh), and that WP may be fired in any friendly fire phase (including Defensive First Fire in the enemy MPh) but only before any non-SMOKE ammo has been fired that phase. It also notes non-PFPh WP/SMOKE is Dispersed and that Area Target Type cannot be used for Bounding First/Motion Fire (so a moving AFV cannot place WP that way). All key points from the expected answer are covered.
C4.4 says ordnance firing SMOKE at <=12 hexes on the C3 To-Hit Table must "add two to its Basic TH#." Is this literally +2 to the Basic TH#, making the shot easier?
EXPECTED
Yes, literally: a +2 to the Basic TH# raises (e.g.) a 7 to a 9, which makes the SMOKE shot easier, not harder (C4.4 -- additions to the Basic TH# are an advantage to the firer). The "must" wording is just awkward phrasing; that +2 (and similar "must add/subtract" wording) is sprinkled through C4. In practice the benefit is often capped by the ammo's SMOKE Depletion Number (usually < 9).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — it is literally +2 to the Basic TH#, and since a hit is scored on a Final To Hit DR ≤ the (Modified) TH#, raising the TH# by two makes the SMOKE shot *easier* to hit with (C4.4, C4.5). It is a TH# modification, not a +2 DRM to the dice roll — take care not to lump the two together.
---
Step 1: C4.4 states that ordnance using the C3 To Hit Table to fire SMOKE at ≤ 12 hexes "must add two to its Basic TH#" (C4.4).
Step 2: Gun & Ammo Type modifications (C4.1-C4.4) are "distinct from all others because they modify the Basic TH#—not the To Hit DR—to achieve the Modified TH#" (C4 heading note, C4.5). A higher TH# means more DRs will hit.
Step 3: All other factors are DRM applied to the To Hit DR, not the TH# (C4.5) — so this +2 is not a penalty DRM.
Calculation: e.g., Basic TH# 7 + 2 (SMOKE ≤ 12 hexes) = Modified TH# 9 — you now hit on a Final DR ≤ 9 instead of ≤ 7.
References:
- (C4.4) SMOKE — ordnance firing SMOKE at ≤ 12 hexes on the C3 To Hit Table adds two to its Basic TH#
- (C4.5) MODIFIED TH# — Gun & Ammo Type modifications are cumulative and transform the Basic TH# into the Modified TH#; all other factors are DRM on the To Hit DR
- (C4) Gun & Ammo Type Basic TH# Modifications — these modify the TH#, not the DR, and must not be confused with DRM
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's answer exactly matches the expected answer: it affirms the +2 is applied to the Basic TH# (making, e.g., a 7 become a 9 and thus easier to hit), and correctly distinguishes TH# modifications from DRMs to the roll. The response includes the correct example and cites C4.4/C4.5. Omission of the practical note about the SMOKE Depletion Number capping the benefit does not change the factual correctness required for this question.
A HIP gun rolls for special ammo (e.g. APCR), boxcars the roll (so it has none and malfunctions). Does it lose HIP/concealment, i.e. does that count as having "fired"?
EXPECTED
Yes -- it counts as having fired and so loses HIP/concealment. Normally rolling above the Depletion Number means the firer had no such ammo and is "considered not to have fired yet for any purpose," but C8.9 makes an explicit exception when Gun Malfunction or Low Ammo (D3.71) occurs, which a boxcars (12) does. Because that is treated as a shot, the HIP gun is revealed.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes, it loses HIP/concealment. A DR > the Depletion Number normally means the Gun "is considered not to have fired yet for any purpose" — but that grace is explicitly *"unless Gun Malfunction or Low Ammo occurs"* (C8.9). Boxcars malfunctions the Gun, so the exception applies: the Gun has fired, is placed onboard (marked with the malfunction and appropriate fire-phase counter), and its HIP/"?" is gone.
---
Key points:
- C8.9: if the Original To Hit DR is > the Depletion Number, "the firer had no such ammunition and is considered not to have fired yet for any purpose unless Gun Malfunction or Low Ammo (D3.71) occurs" (C8.9). Rolling a 12 triggers Gun Malfunction, so the "not fired" fiction does not apply.
- The Q&A on (A12.34 & C8.9) confirms the flip side: a HIP Gun that fails a depletion roll may remain HIP only "while not causing malfunction or low ammo." With a malfunction, it cannot remain HIP.
- A further Q&A (C8.9 & D3.7) confirms a Gun that malfunctions by rolling 12 on the TH table during the PFPh is marked with the appropriate Prep Fire counter — even when it was attempting to use Special Ammo — i.e., it counts as having fired.
- Firing a Gun is a concealment/HIP-loss activity, so once the shot "counts," the HIP Gun is placed onboard unconcealed (A12.34; retention only via the low colored-dr provision when the shot resolves normally).
References:
- (C8.9) Depletion Numbers — DR > Depletion # means "not fired yet for any purpose" EXC: Gun Malfunction or Low Ammo (D3.71)
- (A12.34) HIP Guns — firing is a HIP/concealment loss activity; Gun remains HIP after a failed depletion roll only if no malfunction/low ammo occurred (per Q&A)
- (D3.7/C8.9 Q&A) A Gun malfunctioning on an Original 12 TH DR is marked with the appropriate fire counter even on a Special Ammo attempt
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The expected answer is a binary Yes/No. The model answered Yes and gave the correct rule basis: C8.9's exception for Gun Malfunction/Low Ammo, a 12 on the TH roll causes a Gun Malfunction, and a malfunction counts as a shot for HIP/concealment purposes (so the HIP gun is revealed). The model's reasoning and citations match the expected answer.
A non-emplaced AT Gun with a gunshield and Wall Advantage is hit by ITT and resolves a Near-Miss on the IFT. If the crew uses the gunshield DRM, do they forfeit Wall Advantage?
EXPECTED
No. The gunshield is only a DRM, not an in-hex TEM, so applying it does not cause the Gun to lose Wall Advantage (C11.4; B9.31). A unit claiming WA forgoes in-hex TEM but keeps wall/hedge TEM (and may instead elect Emplacement or shared-AFV TEM); since a gunshield is not a TEM at all, there is nothing to give up.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. Choosing the +2 gunshield DRM on the Near-Miss IFT DR is simply the target's per-attack choice between the gunshield DRM and a positive TEM (C11.5) — it is not a forfeiture of Wall Advantage. Forfeiting WA is a separate, deliberate act done by removing the "Wall Advan" counter at permitted times, and it can never occur in the middle of resolving an attack (B9.322); since the Gun is already non-emplaced, there is no Emplaced status at stake either (C11.3).
---
The crew keeps its Wall Advantage; it has merely declined the wall TEM in favor of the gunshield DRM for this one attack resolution. The gunshield DRM is never cumulative with a positive TEM, so on any Near Miss the crew picks whichever single modifier it prefers (C11.4, C11.5). Note also that a gunshield is not considered an in-hex TEM (B9.323), so using it does not conflict with holding WA the way claiming an in-hex TEM (e.g., a shellhole) would. The C11.3 penalty for voluntarily forfeiting WA — loss of the Emplaced To Hit DRM — applies only to Emplaced Guns and is moot here.
References:
- (C11.4) Direct Hit/Near Miss — if the hit is not a Direct Hit, it is a Near Miss and the gunshield DRM (if applicable) is applied to the same DR to determine the effect on the manning Infantry
- (C11.5) Gunshields — the gunshield DRM is never cumulative with a positive TEM; the target has its choice of accepting the gunshield DRM or the positive TEM of the terrain in that Location
- (B9.322) Wall Advantage claiming/forfeiting — forfeiting WA is synonymous with removing the "Wall Advan" counter, and claiming/forfeiting WA can never be done between an action being declared and that action being completed
- (B9.323) Mandatory WA — Emplacement, Gunshield, and Height Advantage are not considered to provide an in-hex TEM for WA purposes
- (C11.3) Loss of Emplacement — voluntarily forfeiting WA costs a Gun its Emplaced To Hit DRM, which is irrelevant for a non-emplaced Gun
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states 'No', explains that the gunshield is a DRM not an in-hex TEM and so does not force forfeiture of Wall Advantage, and notes that forfeiting WA is a separate deliberate action (and that Emplaced status is irrelevant for a non-emplaced gun). The response covers the same key concepts as the expected answer and adds relevant supporting detail. (Minor differences in citation formatting do not affect the substantive correctness.)
To convert an already-placed SR to FFE, does the onboard observer need LOS to the target hex's Location (hex base), or is seeing the SR's blast height enough?
EXPECTED
To convert an SR to an FFE, the observer must be able to see the SR's current Blast Height (where it sits before making radio contact); if he cannot, he may only Correct it and it stays an SR (C1.63). Separately, to place the AR in the first place the observer needs LOS to a Location in the AR's hex (an offboard observer traces as if a Location existed at its designated spot). Seeing the blast height is what enables the conversion.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Seeing the SR's Blast Height alone is not enough to Convert it to a FFE in place. To Convert, the Observer needs either a LOS to the Base Level of the SR's hex, or a LOS to the SR's Blast Height *plus* a LOS to a Known (to him) enemy unit in a non-Aerial Location in/adjacent-to the SR's hex (C1.333). Blast Height LOS by itself only lets him leave the SR in place or Correct it (C1.331).
---
With only a LOS to the Blast Height, the Observer may also predesignate a Correct-then-Convert (C1.332), but the actual Conversion still requires meeting the C1.333 LOS conditions at that time. The Blast Height is the visible effect of the SR rising from the Base Level of its hex through the next two higher levels (C1.32), so it is common to see the "smoke" of the SR without seeing the hex itself — that sighting alone does not permit a Fire For Effect in that hex. This is illustrated in the C1.62 example, where the Observer can see the SR in W4 via its Blast Height but cannot Convert it there because he has no LOS to W4's Base Level and the adjacent Russians are not Known to him.
References:
- (C1.333) Convert SR to FFE:1 in place — requires LOS to the Base Level of the SR's hex, OR to its Blast Height and a Known enemy unit in a non-Aerial Location in/adjacent-to the SR's hex
- (C1.331) LOS to the SR's/FFE's Blast Height — allows only leaving the SR in place or Correcting it
- (C1.332) Predesignated Correct-and-Convert — allowed with Blast Height LOS, but the Conversion is off if the C1.333 requirements are not met at that time
- (C1.32) Blast Height — the SR's visible effect rises from the Base Level of its hex through the next two higher levels
- (C1.335 Q&A) An Observer with LOS to the Blast Height but no Known enemy in/adjacent need not Correct/Cancel — and may Convert in place only if he has LOS to the Base Level of the SR's hex
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response asserts that blast-height LOS alone is insufficient and adds extra LOS requirements (e.g., a Known enemy in/adjacent or LOS to base level). The expected answer states the observer must be able to see the SR's current Blast Height to convert it to an FFE (and if he cannot see the blast height he may only Correct it). The model therefore contradicts the core point of the expected answer and adds incorrect additional conditions, so the response is incorrect.
HUMAN NOTES
Per the flow chart, to convert you need los to blast height and LOS to base level or LOS to blast height and to known enemy unit in/adjacent
A gun in woods/building fires and keeps ROF, killing one target. May it then turn its CA to fire at a different target in another direction during the same Prep Fire Phase?
EXPECTED
No. Once a Gun other than a mortar fires from woods/building/rubble, it may continue to fire that phase from that hex only inside its current CA (C5.11). So even with ROF retained it cannot turn its CA to engage a target in a different direction during that same Prep Fire Phase. (It could change CA without firing only at the end of the phase, per C3.22.)
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. Once a Gun (other than a mortar) fires from a woods/building/rubble hex, any further fire from that hex during that phase must be inside its current CA — even if it retained ROF and its first target was destroyed (C5.11). The Gun may still use its ROF to fire again, but only at targets within that now-fixed CA; a CA counter is placed to mark it. The only exceptions are Bounding First Firers and vehicles on the road in a woods-road hex.
---
References:
- (C5.11) Once a Gun (other than a mortar) fires from woods/building/rubble, it may continue to fire during that phase from that hex only inside its current CA [EXC: Bounding First Firers and vehicles on the road in a woods-road hex]; if it retains Multiple ROF, a CA counter is placed to indicate its fixed CA for the remainder of that phase. Also, the Case A DRM is doubled for a firer in woods/building/rubble.
- (C3.21) Firing Within CA — normally a Gun may change its CA to fire outside it by taking the Case A TH DRM (C5.1), but the C5.11 woods/building restriction removes that option for subsequent shots in the same phase.
- (A9.21) Field of Fire — the parallel restriction for SW MMG/HMG in woods/rubble/building: a MG entitled to another shot may continue firing that phase only inside the CA of its prior shot.
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's binary answer is 'No', which matches the expected answer. It correctly cites C5.11 that a non-mortar gun firing from woods/building/rubble is limited to its current CA for additional shots that phase (even with retained ROF) and mentions placement of a CA counter. The model also notes the explicit exceptions (Bounding First Firers and vehicles on a road in a woods-road hex) that appear in C5.11; this additional detail does not contradict the expected answer. The slight difference in cross-reference (the model cites C3.21 where the expected answer cites C3.22) does not change the substantive ruling, so the response is correct.
May a non-vehicular Gun change its CA during its own Movement Phase if it took no action in the PFPh?
EXPECTED
No. A Gun may change its CA without firing only at the end of a friendly fire phase -- explicitly NOT the MPh (C3.22). The C5.x "firer-based" DRMs (the C5.2 argument) presuppose actually firing and apply to a vehicle's Bounding First Fire, not to a non-vehicular Gun freely pivoting in the MPh, so C3.22 is the controlling rule and the answer is no. This is the settled reading; if the Gun does push or (un)limber, those are governed by their own rules (C10.22/C10.3).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. A Gun may change its CA without firing only at the end of a friendly fire phase — the rule explicitly states "not MPh" (C3.22). Having taken no action in the PFPh does not create a MPh CA-change option; that Gun's opportunity for a free CA change was at the end of the PFPh (or later, at the end of the AFPh).
---
The freedom to change a CA during the MPh via MP expenditure applies only to vehicles (VCA per D2.11, TCA per D3.12), not to non-vehicular Guns. A non-vehicular Gun's facing can otherwise change during the MPh only as part of Gun movement such as Manhandling/Pushing (C10.3) or (un)limbering (C10.22), which are the exceptions noted in C3.22.
References:
- (C3.22) Changing CA Without Fire — a Gun may change its CA without firing "only at the end of a friendly fire phase (not MPh)", and only if its crew could still fire it without Intensive Fire [EXC: (un)limbering (C10.22), Pushing (C10.3), turreted guns with other turreted armament (D3.51)]
- (A3 ASOP 2.31) End of PFPh — the sequence of play lists the free CA change of Guns able to fire without Intensive Fire at the end of the PFPh, not during the MPh
- (D2.11)/(D3.12) VCA/TCA Changes — only vehicles may change their CA during the MPh via MP expenditure, which does not apply to a non-vehicular Gun
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states 'No', cites C3.22 that free CA changes for Guns occur only at the end of a friendly fire phase (not the MPh), notes the PFPh/AFPh timing, rejects the C5.x vehicle-based argument for non-vehicular guns, and identifies the movement exceptions (pushing, manhandling, (un)limbering) and the vehicle VCA/TCA distinction. It covers the key concepts from the expected answer without contradiction.
When a Flamethrower (or an HE/HEAT To-Hit attack) resolves a TK DR against a vehicle, is Residual FP left in the target hex?
EXPECTED
Yes. Attacks against vehicles leave Residual FP whenever a To Kill DR is made, except if AP (other than from a MG), ATR, APCR or APDS was used, or a Dud resulted (A8.2; C7.35). A Flamethrower, and HE/HEAT TH attacks, are not in that exception list, so they leave Residual FP just as they would versus infantry (the common reason TH/TK shots leave none is that AP was used).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A Flamethrower attack, or an HE/HEAT hit that is resolved with a TK DR vs a vehicle, also leaves Residual FP in the target hex (C7.35) — based on the FT's FP or the round's HE Equivalency (C8.31) and reduced one column per applicable positive DRM (A8.26) — unless the TK DR is a Dud, which leaves no Residual FP. Residual FP is left even if the vehicle is destroyed, but AP/APCR/APDS/ATR and PF/PFk/H#[9] attacks never leave Residual FP.
---
References:
- (C7.35) Residual FP / Duds — a FT or HE/HEAT attack resolving a TK DR vs a vehicle leaves Residual FP; a Dud result leaves none (see also W.8, which treats certain HEAT TK DR results as a Dud per C7.35)
- (A8.25) Ordnance — an ordnance weapon must secure a hit to exert Residual FP; Intensive Fire, AP-type ammo, and PF/PFk leave no Residual FP
- (C8.31) HE Equivalency — HEAT's HE Equivalency FP is used vs Personnel/Collateral Attack purposes; table notes: "No AP-type attack can leave Residual FP" and "PF/PFk/H#[9] cannot leave Residual FP"
- (A8.26) Effect of DRM — Residual FP is reduced one IFT column per positive DRM from conditions outside the target hex that modified the To-Hit/IFT DR
- (A8.1/A8.2/A23.6 Q&A) Confirms Residual FP is still left "if the AFV is targeted and destroyed," while a dud TK DR "will not leave any residual"
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it states 'Yes,' notes that Flamethrower and HE/HEAT TK results leave Residual FP (using FT FP or HE equivalency), specifies that a Dud leaves no Residual FP, and cites reduction by one IFT column per applicable positive DRM (A8.26). It also lists the correct exceptions (AP/ATR/APCR/APDS) and additionally mentions PF/PFk/H#[9] as non‑leaving attacks (extra correct context). All key points from the expected answer are present, so the response is correct.
A unit rolls a 6 on its Panzerfaust check and is pinned. May it attempt a second PF the same phase, what fire counter results, and can it still use SFF/FPF afterward?
EXPECTED
It may attempt a second PF that phase if it hasn't fired its inherent FP, but rolling another 6 while already pinned breaks it (C13.31). Making two PF attempts marks the squad with a First Fire counter (not Final Fire), so it still has its inherent FP for Subsequent/Final/FPF IFT fire afterward. A PF itself is NA in SFF/FPF, with the lone exception that a Final-Fire-marked unit may use an as-yet-unfired PF as FPF Non-CC Reaction Fire (D7.221).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No second PF attempt — an Original 6 PF Check dr pins the unit (C13.31), and PF Checks are available only to unpinned, unbroken infantry, so the now-pinned unit is done checking. The failed Check still counts as use of a SW (A7.35), so the unit is marked with the appropriate fire counter for that phase (First Fire during the enemy MPh, Prep Fire in the PFPh) in addition to its Pin counter. It cannot make a PF Check in SFF/FPF in any case (C13.31), and as a pinned unit it may not fire again with SFF/FPF at all (A7.82).
---
Key points:
- Original 6 result: "If the PF Check dr is an Original 6, the unit has no PF in position to fire and is pinned (even if heroic or berserk). If already pinned, the unit is broken instead (or suffers Casualty Reduction if berserk or heroic)" (C13.31).
- Second PF: the "second PF in the same phase" allowance (which costs the squad its inherent FP as use of two SW per A7.351) applies only to a unit still eligible to make a PF Check — the PF Check is "Available only to unpinned, unbroken German Infantry" (C13.31 and the Chapter C PF chart note, which also flags "* Original 6 Check dr pins the unit, even if Berserk"). Pinned = no further PF Check.
- Fire counter: "Even if a unit's PF Check dr fails to result in a shot, that PF Check constitutes use of a SW (A7.35)" (C13.31) — so the unit is marked as having fired a SW in that phase.
- SFF/FPF: "A unit may not make a PF Check in Subsequent First Fire or FPF (A8.3-.31) — regardless of whether it made a PF Check during First Fire" (C13.31). The chart note likewise states a LATW marked with First Fire may not fire in SFF/FPF. Moreover, being pinned bars the unit from Subsequent First Fire/FPF entirely (A7.82); pin also halves any FP it is otherwise still allowed to use (A7.8).
References:
- (C13.31) PF Usage — Original 6 Check dr = no PF and pinned (broken if already pinned); failed Check still counts as SW usage (A7.35); no PF Check in SFF/FPF; second-PF allowance per A7.351
- (A7.35/A7.351) SW usage — a PF Check is SW use; two SW in a phase forfeits inherent FP
- (A7.8/A7.82) Pinned — halved FP; pinned units may not use SFF/FPF
- (Chapter C PF chart) "Available only to unpinned, unbroken German Infantry"; LATW marked with First Fire may not fire in SFF/FPF
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer conflicts with the expected answer on the central point. The expected answer states the unit may attempt a second PF that phase (subject to the condition about inherent FP) and that making two PF attempts marks the squad with a First Fire counter (so it retains its inherent FP for Subsequent/Final/FPF), and notes the special FPF exception for a Final-Fire-marked unit. The model instead flatly denies any second PF attempt and implies the PF Check use always prevents further SFF/FPF fire, omitting the allowance for a second PF attempt and the explanation about First Fire vs Final Fire and the FPF exception. While the model correctly notes that an Original 6 pins (or breaks if already pinned) and that a PF Check counts as SW use and that PF is not available in SFF/FPF, its answer omits and contradicts key points from the expected answer (second-attempt allowance and the First-Fire marking consequence and the FPF exception). Therefore the response is incorrect.
A DEFENDING squad already marked with a Final Fire counter is about to be overrun. May it use an as-yet-unfired SW (e.g. ATR) and how -- can an ATR be used as Intensive/Subsequent Fire?
EXPECTED
An ATR cannot Intensive Fire (Case F Intensive Fire is for Guns, not SW; C5.6) nor be used as Subsequent First Fire to make a To Hit shot. However, a unit already marked with a Final Fire counter may use a SW that has not yet fired this MPh as FPF Non-CC Reaction Fire (D7.221, confirmed by the official Q&A) -- so the unfired ATR can fire that way, but an ATR already fired earlier cannot.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes — a Final-Fired DEFENDER that is overrun must make FPF Reaction Fire, and per official Q&A it may fire an ordnance SW such as an ATR in that Non-CC Reaction Fire *provided the weapon itself has not already fired earlier in that MPh* (D7.221). It is not fired as Intensive or Subsequent/Sustained Fire — an ATR without a printed ROF cannot use Intensive or Sustained Fire (A8.41 Q&A) — it fires as FPF Non-CC Reaction Fire, and the To Hit DR also acts as a NMC against the firing unit (A8.31/C5.64).
---
Key points:
- D7.221 FPF NON-CC REACTION FIRE: each DEFENDER Personnel unit eligible for Non-CC Reaction Fire "and marked by a Final Fire counter when OVR by other than an unarmored vehicle with no PRC, must use (as per 7.22) TPBF, an ordnance SW, a FT or a Thrown DC vs that vehicle [EXC: if pinned, it cannot use FT or DC (A7.81); if otherwise allowed, it may use CC Reaction Fire (7.212) instead]" (D7.221).
- Q&A confirms both halves: an ordnance SW/FT may be used in non-CC RF by a Final-Fire-marked unit if the weapon has NOT been used earlier in the MPh (Yes), but not if it already fired earlier that MPh (No). A second Q&A on ordnance SW (ATR, PIAT, BAZ, PSK) carried by a Final-Fired MMC: usable in FPF RF "if the ordnance had not fired before" (D7.221 Q&A).
- Mechanism/cost: each FPF Reaction Fire TH (or TPBF/FT/IFT or DC) DR also acts as a NMC DR vs the attacking DEFENDER as per A8.31 (per C5.64 for ordnance) — the usual FPF self-risk (D7.221).
- Intensive/Sustained Fire is not the vehicle for this: an ATR with no printed ROF "cannot use Sustained Fire or Intensive Fire" (A8.41/C13.2 Q&A); Intensive Fire in the OVR context applies to crewed Guns marked with a First Fire counter (D7.23), not to an unfired SW. Nor is this Subsequent First Fire — SFF/FPF proper covers Small Arms/MG/IFE (A8.3, A8.31); the ATR shot rides on the D7.221 Reaction Fire allowance for ordnance SW.
References:
- (D7.221) FPF Non-CC Reaction Fire — Final-Fired defender OVR must use TPBF/ordnance SW/FT/Thrown DC; each such DR is also a NMC vs the firer (A8.31; C5.64 for ordnance)
- (D7.221 Q&A) Unfired ordnance SW (e.g., ATR) usable by a Final-Fire-marked unit in non-CC RF; already-fired ordnance SW is not
- (A8.41/C13.2 Q&A) An ATR without printed ROF cannot use Sustained or Intensive Fire
- (D7.23) Gun Crews — Intensive Fire in OVR Reaction Fire applies to Guns marked with First Fire
- (A8.31) FPF — the attack DR doubles as a NMC vs the firer
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that an unfired ATR may be used as FPF Non-CC Reaction Fire (D7.221 / Q&A) when a Final-Fire-marked defender is overrun, that the SW must not have fired earlier in the MPh, and that an ATR cannot be used for Intensive or Subsequent/Sustained Fire. It also correctly notes the To-Hit DR acting as a NMC vs the firer (A8.31 / C5.64). The response thus covers all key points from the expected answer.
If a vehicle declares an Overrun but becomes Immobile or is destroyed before the OVR resolves, how much FP does the OVR deliver?
EXPECTED
The total FP of the OVR is halved if the vehicle becomes Immobile or is destroyed before it can resolve its OVR (D7.1). The OVR still completes once declared -- at that halved FP, with any further applicable halvings (e.g. vs a concealed target) also applied -- regardless of what then happens to the vehicle.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** The OVR is still resolved, but at half of its total FP. Per D7.11, the total FP of an Overrun is halved if the overrunning vehicle becomes Immobile or is destroyed before it can resolve the OVR (and this halving is in addition to any halving vs a concealed target per A12.13).
---
Step 1: Compute the normal OVR FP base: 1 FP for an unarmored vehicle, 2 FP for an AFV, or 4 FP for an AFV whose functioning MA is manned and is not a MG/FT/MTR/ATR/IFE weapon (D7.11).
Step 2: Add tripled (TPBF) then halved (Bounding First Fire) FP of all manned, functioning MG/IFE armament [EXC: RMG do not add], plus any allowed Passenger/Rider FP; FT FP adds normally (D7.11).
Step 3: Because the vehicle became Immobile or was destroyed before resolving the OVR, halve that total FP (D7.11). This stacks with the halving vs a concealed target (A12.13), but combat results vs Passengers/Riders after the OVR declaration do not affect the OVR FP.
Calculation: Total OVR FP × 1/2.
Note: the OVR only fails to occur entirely if the vehicle never legally enters the OVR hex — e.g., a per-rulebook Q&A example where the vehicle Bogs while crossing a hedge and remains in the hex it tried to leave (D7.1, B9.4); in that case there is no OVR at all. A vehicle destroyed by Defensive First Fire after entering the OVR hex still resolves the OVR at half FP (D7.11 Q&A), and its blazing wreck grants the target no SMOKE DRM against that OVR.
References:
- (D7.11) OVR FP — total OVR FP is halved if the vehicle becomes Immobile or destroyed before resolving the OVR
- (D7.11) FP base — 1 FP unarmored vehicle / 2 FP AFV / 4 FP AFV with manned, functioning non-MG MA, plus TPBF-then-halved MG/IFE FP
- (A12.13) Concealment — additional halving vs a concealed target
- (D7.1) OVR procedure — Bog Check made prior to OVR resolution; a vehicle that Bogs out of the hex makes no OVR
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model states the Overrun resolves at half its total FP if the vehicle becomes Immobile or is destroyed before resolution, and that this halving stacks with other applicable halvings (e.g., concealed target) and the OVR still completes. This matches the expected answer and includes correct details about base FP calculation and the exception where no OVR occurs if the vehicle never legally enters the hex (bog).
An unmarked defender is overrun by an AFV. May it make multiple Close Combat Reaction Fire attacks during that overrun, and how are subsequent ones treated?
EXPECTED
Yes. Except as stated otherwise, a DEFENDER may use Reaction Fire as often as it could use the various forms of First/Final Fire (D7.2), so the cap is the number of MP the vehicle spends in the Location. The first CC-RF attack is a normal Reaction Fire attack, the second is treated as Subsequent First Fire, and the third and any further attacks are FPF (CC-RF).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A defender may use Reaction Fire as often as it would be entitled to use the various forms of First/Final Fire (D7.2), and it need not pass more than one PAATC to attack the same vehicle more than once in the same phase (D7.21). Subsequent CC Reaction Fire attacks made while the unit is marked with a First/Final Fire counter have their CCV reduced by one (D7.213), and once the unit is marked with a Final Fire counter, any further attempt is FPF CC Reaction Fire — which is mandatory vs an OVRing vehicle (other than an unarmored vehicle with no PRC) and acts as a NMC DR against the attacking defender (D7.212).
---
How the sequence works:
- Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR, and after making its Reaction Fire attack(s) the defender must await further MP expenditure by that vehicle (or its Personnel Escort) before conducting other Reaction Fire vs that unit (D7.2).
- After completing a CC Reaction Fire attack, the defender and all its possessed SW/Guns are marked with a CC counter (if the vehicle survived) to prohibit further Non-CC Reaction Fire, plus a First or Final Fire counter as appropriate for that attack (D7.21).
- Only one PAATC vs an AFV is required: a unit need not pass more than one PAATC to attack the same vehicle more than once during the same phase (D7.21; A12.41 exemption if already taken when the AFV entered earlier in the MPh).
- A subsequent CC Reaction Fire attack by a unit already marked with a First/Final Fire counter has its CCV reduced by one (D7.213).
- Once marked with a Final Fire counter, the unit MUST attempt FPF CC Reaction Fire vs the OVRing vehicle (other than an unarmored, no-PRC vehicle); being currently pinned does not cancel this mandatory attack, and each FPF CC Reaction Fire attack acts as a NMC DR vs the attacking defender(s) per A8.31 (D7.212).
References:
- (D7.2) Reaction Fire — usable as often as First/Final Fire; must await further MP expenditure between attacks; resolved after the OVR
- (D7.21) CC Reaction Fire — eligibility, PAATC (one per phase per vehicle), CC + First/Final Fire markings after the attack
- (D7.212) FPF CC Reaction Fire — mandatory once marked with Final Fire vs an OVR; each attack acts as a NMC vs the defender
- (D7.213) Differences from normal CC — CCV reduced by one when attacking while marked with First/Final Fire
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response conveys the essential points from the expected answer: a defender may make multiple CC Reaction Fire attacks as often as allowed by the First/Final Fire rules (D7.2); the first CC-RF is a normal Reaction Fire; subsequent attacks while marked progress to Subsequent First Fire characteristics (including the CCV reduction per D7.213); and once the unit is marked Final Fire further attacks are FPF CC-RF and are mandatory vs an OVRing AFV (with the NMC DR effect per D7.212/A8.31). The response also correctly notes PAATC handling and the requirement to await further MP expenditure, which implicitly ties to the cap based on MPs spent. These cover the key concepts in the expected answer, with additional correct detail, so the response is correct.
A squad makes CC Reaction Fire against an overrunning AFV, fails its PAATC and is pinned, but still destroys the AFV. Does the Pin remain? Is CC-RF (and the PAATC) mandatory for an unmarked unit?
EXPECTED
CC Reaction Fire is optional unless the unit is already marked with a Final Fire counter (then it is mandatory); an unmarked unit may decline it (D7.2). If it does elect CC-RF it must first take the PAATC, and a Pin resulting from a failed PAATC remains even if that very attack destroys the AFV (D7.1/D7.2). This is exactly why a unit might choose not to react -- to avoid being pinned for the upcoming CCPh.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes, the Pin remains — destroying the AFV does not remove a Pin caused by a failed Reaction Fire PAATC. Note, however, that an unmarked unit which fails its PAATC is pinned and may NOT make that CC Reaction Fire attack at all (D7.21); only a unit under a Final Fire counter using mandatory FPF CC Reaction Fire still attacks after a failed PAATC (D7.212). And no — for an unmarked unit, CC Reaction Fire is entirely voluntary ("may attempt"; D7.21), so the PAATC is only taken if the unit chooses to attack.
---
Breaking the situation down:
- Voluntary vs mandatory: D7.21 says each unbroken, unpinned Infantry/Cavalry DEFENDER "may attempt" CC Reaction Fire — may is not must, so an unmarked unit is never forced to attack or to take the PAATC. CC Reaction Fire becomes mandatory only under D7.212: a unit already marked with a Final Fire counter that is OVR by other than an unarmored vehicle with no PRC MUST attempt the FPF CC Reaction Fire attack.
- Effect of a failed PAATC (unmarked unit): the unit is pinned and can neither make that CC Reaction Fire attack nor opt for a Non-CC Reaction Fire attack instead (D7.21). Per Q&A, it receives only a Pin counter — not a First Fire counter. So the stated scenario (failed PAATC yet the squad still attacks and kills the AFV) can only occur via FPF CC Reaction Fire.
- Failed PAATC in FPF CC Reaction Fire: the unit must still attack, with its CCV reduced for being pinned (−1) and for its Final Fire counter (−1) — e.g., a squad with CCV 5 attacks at 5 − 1 − 1 = 3 (D7.212, D7.213).
- The Pin persists: nothing in D7.21/D7.212 removes the Pin if the attack succeeds; the destruction of the AFV does not "undo" the failed PAATC result, and the unit remains pinned for the rest of the player turn.
- One PAATC per phase: a unit need not pass more than one PAATC to attack the same vehicle more than once during the same phase (D7.21), and it is exempt if it already took one when the AFV entered its Location earlier in the MPh (A12.41) or is otherwise PAATC-exempt (A11.6).
References:
- (D7.21) CC Reaction Fire — "may attempt"; PAATC required vs AFV; failure pins the unit and prohibits both CC and Non-CC Reaction Fire
- (D7.212) FPF CC Reaction Fire — mandatory for a Final-Fire-marked unit; a failed PAATC pins it but it must still attack with reduced CCV
- (D7.213) CC Reaction Fire differences — CCV −1 while marked with a First/Final Fire counter
- (A11.6) PAATC — exemptions from taking a PAATC
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states CC Reaction Fire is voluntary for unmarked units and mandatory only for units under a Final Fire counter; it notes an unmarked unit must take the PAATC if it elects CC-RF and that failure pins the unit and prevents that CC-RF attack; it also correctly explains that a unit forced to make FPF CC-RF still attacks despite a failed PAATC and that the Pin from a failed PAATC remains even if the AFV is destroyed. The response covers all key concepts from the expected answer and contains no substantive contradictions.
When riders fire their inherent FP on the IFT, is that FP halved or quartered if the vehicle has moved or is in Motion?
EXPECTED
Riders fire their inherent FP halved as Mounted Fire (and may not use SW), and that FP is quartered instead if the vehicle has moved or is in Motion, inclusive of OVR attacks; they also add +1 to their CC DR (D6.22, A11.611). So a stationary vehicle's riders fire at 1/2 FP, a moved/in-Motion vehicle's riders at 1/4 FP.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** It is quartered. Riders firing their inherent FP on the IFT always use halved FP as Mounted Fire, but if the vehicle has moved or is in Motion (inclusive of OVR attacks), that FP is quartered instead (D6.22).
---
Step 1: A Rider's inherent FP on the IFT is halved as Mounted Fire (D6.22, per the Mounted Fire penalty of D6.1).
Step 2: If the vehicle has moved or is in Motion — including OVR attacks — the Rider's FP is quartered rather than merely halved (D6.22).
Calculation: FP × 1/2 (Mounted Fire) × 1/2 (vehicle moved/in Motion) = FP × 1/4 (quartered).
References:
- (D6.22) ATTACKS — Riders may not use SW, must use halved FP as Mounted Fire when firing their inherent FP on the IFT (quartered if the vehicle has moved or is in Motion, inclusive of OVR attacks), and must add one to their CC DR.
- (D6.1) Mounted Fire — Passengers/Riders have their FP halved for Mounted Fire, in addition to any penalties for Bounding (First) Fire/Motion.
- (A7.2) Firepower Modifiers — FP modifiers are cumulative; fractions of halved FP are retained and subject to further modification.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states riders' inherent FP is halved as Mounted Fire normally and is quartered if the vehicle has moved or is in Motion (including OVR attacks). It also notes the FP multiplication (1/2 × 1/2 = 1/4) and cites D6.22; the response also references the +1 to CC DR in its quoted material. All key concepts from the expected answer are covered.
A squad dismounts (unloads) from a moving tank that paid 1 MP to stop. How many MF does unloading cost the squad, and can it claim CX while still aboard?
EXPECTED
Unloading itself always costs 1 MF, but the unit is additionally considered to have already spent 1 MF for every full one-fourth (FRU) of the vehicle's MP allotment used before unloading, and the MP paid to stop counts toward that (D6.5). With only the 1 stop MP spent first, that is 1 MF (prior) + 1 MF (unload) = 2 MF. It may not use Double Time / claim CX while it will mount, ride or dismount that turn (A4.5), and a PRC unit is limited to 4 MF.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Unloading costs the squad 1 MF to be placed beneath the tank, plus it is considered to have already expended 1 MF for every one-fourth (FRU) of the tank's MP allotment the tank used that turn prior to unloading (D6.5) — so with the 1 MP stop expenditure counting toward that total, the squad has spent a minimum of 1 + 1 = 2 MF of its 4 MF when it hits the ground. No — it cannot claim CX while still aboard; as a Passenger it is being moved by the vehicle's MP, not its own MF, and D6.5 explicitly holds the unloading unit to its overall limit of four MF. CX could only be declared once it is moving as Infantry after unloading (A4.5).
---
Step 1: The tank must be stopped to unload, and paying 1 MP to stop is a legal prerequisite — a vehicle disembarks Passengers at a cost of one-fourth (FRU) of its MP allotment per disembarking stack, but only while stopped during its own MPh (D6.5).
Step 2: The squad pays 1 MF to be placed beneath the vehicle (D6.5).
Step 3: The squad is additionally considered to have already expended 1 MF for every one-fourth (FRU) of the tank's MP allotment used during that turn prior to unloading (D6.5). The 1 MP spent to stop counts: any MP expenditure up to one-quarter of the allotment = 1 MF (FRU).
Calculation: 1 MF (placement) + 1 MF (≤ 1/4 allotment spent, FRU) = 2 MF minimum; more if the tank had spent more MP while moving.
Worked Q&A example (D6.5): a ZIS-5 truck (21 MP) spends 5 MP moving + 1 MP to stop = 6 MP, which is more than one-quarter (5.25) of its allotment — FRU gives 2 MF already spent, +1 MF to unload = 3 MF, leaving the squad exactly 1 MF to move with.
On CX: Passengers may not unload at all after the vehicle has spent more than 3/4 of its printed MP allotment (ESB MP grant no extra MF), and any remaining movement must respect the squad's overall 4 MF limit less MF "spent" during vehicle movement (D6.5). CX status (A4.5) is a declaration by Infantry expending its own MF, so it cannot be claimed while riding — only after the squad has unloaded and is moving as Infantry.
References:
- (D6.5) UNLOADING — 1/4 MP (FRU) vehicle cost per stack while stopped; 1 MF placement; +1 MF per 1/4 of the vehicle's MP allotment (FRU) used before unloading; overall 4 MF limit; no unloading after >3/4 MP spent
- (D6.5 Q&A) ZIS-5 example — 6 MP spent = 2 MF pre-spent + 1 MF unload = 3 MF total
- (A4.5) CX — declared by Infantry using its own MF, not available to Passengers aboard a vehicle
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model correctly states that unloading always costs 1 MF plus that the squad is treated as having already spent 1 MF for each one-quarter (FRU) of the vehicle's MP used prior to unloading (and that the 1 MP paid to stop counts toward that). It correctly computes 1 MF (prior FRU) + 1 MF (unload) = 2 MF in the given scenario, notes the 4 MF cap, and correctly states the unit cannot claim CX while still aboard (CX can only be declared once moving as Infantry after unloading). The response matches the expected answer semantically and numerically; any omitted mention of "Double Time" is not material to the required numeric and CX conclusions.
May a passenger-carrying vehicle drive into an enemy-occupied hex and unload its passengers there, and does it matter if the enemy infantry are broken?
EXPECTED
Yes -- PRC may unload (or Bail Out) in an enemy-occupied hex with no special rules or consequences, unless they do so from a vehicle in Bypass (D6.5, A4.14); place a CC counter to show they are not held in Melee. It does not matter that the enemy are broken: broken enemy will simply rout away in the RtPh, whereas Good Order enemy could CC-Reaction Fire the vehicle and the unloading passengers.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. A vehicle may drive into an enemy-occupied hex and, while stopped during its own MPh, unload its Passengers/Riders there "with no special rules or consequences" — a CC counter is placed to show the unloading units are not held in Melee (D6.5). The only exception is unloading from a vehicle in Bypass (A12.151). The rule makes no distinction based on the enemy infantry's state, so it does not matter whether they are broken or unbroken — the procedure is identical either way.
---
References:
- (D6.5) UNLOADING — "PRC may unload or Bail Out in an enemy-occupied hex with no special rules or consequences unless they do so from a vehicle in Bypass (A12.151); place a CC counter to show they are not held in Melee." No mention of any restriction based on enemy broken status.
- (D6.5) UNLOADING — the vehicle must be stopped during its own MPh and expends one-fourth (FRU) of its MP allotment per disembarking stack; disembarking Personnel expend 1 MF to be placed beneath the vehicle.
- (D6.24) BAILING OUT — "Bailing out into an enemy-occupied hex is allowed," confirming the same principle for Riders.
- (A12.151) Bypass — the lone exception: PRC unloading from a vehicle in Bypass are treated differently (assumed in the vehicle's CAFP terrain for Defensive First Fire, per D6.5).
- (D7.1) OVERRUNS — a vehicle entering an enemy-occupied Location during the MPh *may* also announce an OVR by spending an additional one-fourth of its printed MP, but this is optional and separate from unloading.
JUDGE REASONING
[Calculation] The model correctly answers the yes/no: a PRC may enter an enemy-occupied hex and unload (or bail out) and correctly notes the need to place a CC counter and the exception for unloading from a vehicle in Bypass. However the model incorrectly states the procedure is "identical either way" regarding broken vs. unbroken defenders. The expected answer points out the practical difference: broken defenders will rout in the Rout Phase, while good-order defenders can make CC reaction fire against the vehicle and/or unloading passengers. Because the model omitted that consequential distinction (and thus gave an incomplete/partially misleading statement), the response is scored as partial.
Can an AFV that starts the MPh Buttoned-Up go CE, move, and then voluntarily go BU again all in the same MPh?
EXPECTED
No. CE counters may be placed or removed only in the owner's MPh/APh, but may not be both placed and voluntarily removed (or vice versa) during the same phase (D5.53). So you get one voluntary BU/CE change per MPh (and another in the APh); you could go CE in the MPh and then BU again only if the BU is forced by a combat result, not voluntarily.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes. Vehicle CE counters may be placed or removed only during the owner's MPh/APh, but they may be both placed and voluntarily removed (or vice-versa) during the same phase (D5.33) — so a BU AFV can go CE, move, and then go BU again in one MPh, provided it has not Prep Fired or used Bounding First Fire first, and it is not currently a named target with unresolved fire against it.
---
References:
- (D5.33) CE Movement — vehicle CE counters may be placed or removed (except due to combat results) only during the owner's MPh/APh, but may be both placed and voluntarily removed (or vice-versa) during the same phase.
- (D5.33) Restrictions — the placement/removal of a vehicle CE counter cannot occur in the phase following Prep or Bounding First Fire by that vehicle/its PRC, nor between the time it is named as a target and the time all fire against it triggered by its last MP expenditure is resolved.
- (D5.33) Separate action — each BU/CE change is a separate action that allows Defensive First Fire attacks vs the vehicle based on its preceding MP expenditure (including Residual FP/OBA if a CE counter is placed), but does not itself constitute movement for moving target/firer penalties.
- (D5.33 Q&A) A BU/CE change may even be announced simultaneously with an MP expenditure (with the new status applying to that MP, e.g., for road rate), though it may not be declared together with a Bounding First Fire shot.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The question is an explanation/procedure type. The model's answer directly contradicts the expected rule: you may not both voluntarily place and voluntarily remove CE in the same MPh/APh. The correct rule is that only one voluntary BU/CE change is allowed per MPh (with another possible in the APh); a second change in the same phase can occur only if forced by a combat result. The model asserts the opposite (that a vehicle can go CE, move, then voluntarily go BU again in the same MPh) and thus fails to match the key concept from the expected answer, even though it references related restrictions (Prep Fire/name-as-target). Therefore the response is incorrect.
When a vehicle is in VBM/Stationary Bypass straddling a hexside, is there one CAFP or both a front and rear one, and can an enemy trace LOS to a rear vertex for the rear armor?
EXPECTED
There is only one Covered Arc Focal Point (CAFP): the vertex of the hexside in the direction the vehicle is facing, and all fire to and from the vehicle is traced to that single vertex (D2.32). There is no separate rear CAFP, so an enemy cannot trace LOS to the rear vertex. However, any facing -- front, side, or rear -- can be hit at the CAFP, so a LOS that reaches the CAFP through the rear Target Facing still grants the rear-armor DRM (D2.32, D1.6).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** There is only one CAFP — the single vertex on which the VCA corner of the counter rests — and ALL fire to and from a vehicle in VBM/Stationary Bypass is traced to/from that one point (D2.32); official Q&A confirms LOS is drawn to the front CAFP in all cases, even if the vehicle is in Reverse Motion. An enemy therefore cannot trace LOS to a "rear vertex" to target the rear armor: a rear hit is determined solely by whether the shot originated from a hex in the vehicle's rear Target Facing, with the LOS still traced to the single CAFP.
---
The "reverse of the CAFP" exists only as one of the four points a Bypassing vehicle may use to base its TCA (Front = CAFP, Rear = reverse of the CAFP, Sides = the two straddled hexes) (D2.321) — it is a turret-facing reference, not a second focal point for LOS. Any shot not originating from within the Bypass target's front or rear Target Facing strikes the side Target Facing (e.g., a hull hit from a weapon in the hex being Bypassed) (D2.32).
References:
- (D2.32) VCA & Target Facing — the VCA corner rests on the vertex of the straddled hexside; "This vertex is called the Covered Arc Focal Point (CAFP) and is the point in the hex where all fire to and from the vehicle is traced while using VBM or Stationary Bypass in that hex."
- (D2.32) Target Facing of a hit vs a Bypass vehicle is based on the hex the shot originated from; to score a rear hit the shot must originate from a hex in the target's rear Target Facing.
- (D2.32 Q&A) "Is LOS drawn from the front CAFP in ALL cases for both fire from and to the vehicle in bypass? Even if the vehicle is in reverse motion? A. Yes. Yes."
- (D2.321) Bypass TCA — the reverse of the CAFP is merely one of the four points for basing the TCA (Rear), not an LOS focal point.
- (B9.42) Vertex LOS — during bypass movement (including VBM), LOS is drawn to a vertex.
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states there is a single CAFP (the vertex where the VCA corner rests), that all LOS is traced to that single point (including in reverse motion), that there is no separate rear CAFP and an enemy cannot trace LOS to a rear vertex, and that rear hits are determined by the hex of origin (rear Target Facing). It also correctly notes the 'reverse of the CAFP' exists only as a TCA reference point, not a second LOS focal point. All key concepts from the expected answer are present.
A stopped, buttoned-up AFV in side Bypass fires its MA at another AFV. Beyond the case DRMs, what extra To-Hit DRM applies for firing in the side-bypass TCA against a non-acquired target?
EXPECTED
There is an extra +1 To Hit DRM for firing in the side-bypass TCA at a non-acquired target, applied on top of the +1 Case A DRM for the one CA change (D2.321). So for a non-stabilized, non-turreted situation those two combine to a net +2 from the bypass-facing fire (before BU, hindrance, range, etc.).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** An extra +1 To Hit DRM applies (D2.321). A TCA change to or through a Bypass side Target Facing suffers an additional +1 DRM on top of the normal Case A DRM — and because the target is non-acquired, the AFV must also pay Case A for firing within the enlarged side-TCA Field of Fire even if it does not change its TCA.
---
Step 1: A vehicle in Bypass bases its TCA on only four points; a side TCA covers a much larger Field of Fire (all hexes on that side between the front and rear Target Facings) (D2.321).
Step 2: Firing within this enlarged side CA requires normal Case A (C5.1) penalties even with no TCA change [EXC: a weapon with an already earned Target Acquisition DRM, or a CMG/IFE/Canister vs the same Known target in the same Target Facing as last fired on]. The target here is non-acquired, so the exception does not apply (D2.321).
Step 3: A TCA change to or through the Bypass side Target Facing adds a further +1 To Hit DRM in addition to the normal Case A DRM, with Case A measured in Target Facings moved, not hexsides (D2.321).
Calculation: Case A DRM + 1 (extra Bypass side-TCA DRM) = total To Hit DRM beyond the other case DRMs.
References:
- (D2.321) Bypass TCA — side Target Facing TCA must pay Case A even without a TCA change vs a non-acquired target; a TCA change to/through a side Target Facing adds +1 to the normal Case A DRM
- (C5.1) Case A — Change of CA To Hit DRM, measured for Bypass vehicles in Target Facings moved rather than hexsides
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected response: it identifies the extra +1 To-Hit DRM for a TCA change to/through a bypass side Target Facing (D2.321), notes that firing in the enlarged side TCA also triggers the normal Case A DRM when the target is non-acquired (so the exception does not apply), and correctly combines them (Case A +1 plus bypass +1 = net +2 in the non-stabilized, non-turreted example). It also correctly references that Case A is measured in Target Facings moved for bypass vehicles. All key concepts from the expected answer are present.
A vehicle enters a Woods hex that also contains Wire. Does it make one combined Bog Check or two separate ones?
EXPECTED
Generally it makes a single Bog DR, with the Terrain Chart DRMs for the multiple causes combined (e.g. +3 woods + the wire DRM), per the official Q&A on D8.2. A few specific cases do force a second, separate Bog Check -- notably Barbed Wire (O7.3) and leaving a Stream (B20.46) -- but the ordinary Wire-in-Woods entry is one Bog DR with cumulative DRMs.
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** One combined Bog Check. Multiple Bog-causing conditions in the same hex are resolved with a single Bog Check DR whose DRM are cumulative (D8.2, D8.21) — here the vehicle rolls once, adding the +2 "Moving into Wire" DRM and the +3 "entry of woods at half MP allotment" DRM (a fully-tracked vehicle; D8.21, B13.42) together, plus any ground-pressure or other applicable DRM.
---
Supporting detail:
- D8.2 requires a vehicle to make a Bog Check "as dictated by the Terrain Chart" for entering (or exiting/changing VCA in) Bog hexes, and D8.21 lists the Bog Check DRM as cumulative modifiers to a single Original Bog Check DR — e.g., +1 Normal Ground Pressure / +2 High Ground Pressure, +2 Moving into (changing VCA in) Wire, +3 entry of woods/graveyard/wooden-building/rubble at half MP allotment.
- This is confirmed by official Q&A (D8.2): asked whether a vehicle facing three Bog checks in one hex takes one combined check or three separate ones, the answer is "One Bog Check" (with all applicable DRM; none in that example, assuming Low Ground Pressure).
- If the Final (combined) Bog Check DR is ≥ 12, the vehicle Bogs, is marked with a Bog counter, and must end its MPh immediately (D8.21).
- The main exceptions to combining are Mud/Deep Snow (which use their own separate Secret Bog Check mechanism for the entire MPh; D8.23) and Wall/Hedge crossings, which require a separate Bog Check (as noted, e.g., in B32.33's exception list).
References:
- (D8.2) BOG — a vehicle makes a Bog Check as dictated by the Terrain Chart; Q&A: multiple Bog conditions in one hex = one combined Bog Check
- (D8.21) BOG CHECK — cumulative DRM: +2 Moving into (changing VCA in) Wire; +3 entry of woods at half MP allotment; Final DR ≥ 12 = Bog, MPh ends immediately
- (B13.42) FULLY-TRACKED — woods entry by expending half MP allotment requires a Bog Check per D8.21
- (D8.23) MUD & DEEP SNOW — separate Secret Bog Check DR for the vehicle's entire MPh (exception to combining)
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model correctly states the central rule: a vehicle makes one combined Bog Check with cumulative DRMs (citing D8.2/D8.21) when entering a Woods hex that also contains Wire. That matches the expected answer's main point. However, it fails to list the specific exceptions named in the expected answer (Barbed Wire O7.3 and leaving a Stream B20.46) and instead cites other exceptions (Mud/Deep Snow and Wall/Hedge crossings) that are not the notable exceptions called out in the expected response. Because the core concept is correct but the exception coverage is incorrect/misdirected, the response is graded partial.
A tank inside a wooden building changes its VCA one hexspine during the DFPh. Is a Bog Check required, does the +3 "entry at half MP" DRM apply, and what happens on a failed check?
EXPECTED
Yes -- any VCA change in woods/building/rubble requires a Bog Check (one Bog DR per hexspine), even outside the MPh (D8.2). The +3 "entry of woods/building/rubble at half MP allotment" DRM does NOT apply, because this is an in-hex VCA change, not an entry; you use only the applicable in-hex DRMs (e.g. +1 for Normal Ground Pressure). If the Bog Check is failed, the VCA change does not occur -- C5.11 requires passing the Bog Check first, so the tank does not turn (D8.2/D8.21, C5.11).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** Yes, a Bog Check is required — D8.2 mandates one Bog DR per hexspine for *any* VCA change in Bog terrain (which includes building hexes), even outside the MPh. No, the +3 DRM does not apply: that DRM is only for *entry* of a wooden building at half MP allotment, not for a VCA change in place. If the Final DR is ≥ 12, the tank bogs — the VCA change does not occur, and the tank is Immobile (may not move or change VCA until freed) though it may still change its TCA.
---
Step 1: A vehicle must make a Bog Check "for entering, or exiting or making any VCA change (one Bog DR per hexspine) in" Bog hexes; buildings are Bog terrain (D8.2). A one-hexspine change = one Bog DR. This applies to the VCA change made during the DFPh just as in the MPh.
Step 2: The D8.21 DRM list gives "+3 *Entry of woods, graveyard, wooden building, or rubble at half MP allotment*". The tank is not entering the building — it is only pivoting — so this DRM is not applicable. (Compare the official Q&A on D2.15/D2.24/D8.21: even a Minimum Move reversing into woods does not take the +3, because the DRM is tied to the half-MP-allotment *entry* case.) Other applicable DRM (e.g., +1 Normal / +2 High Ground Pressure, +1 non-fully-tracked) still apply per D8.21; note that the soft/mud/snow ground DRM are NA in a building hex (D8.21 footnotes).
Step 3: On a Final Bog Check DR ≥ 12, the vehicle bogs and is marked with a Bog counter (D8.21). A bogged vehicle "may not exit its current Location or change its VCA until freed, and therefore is Immobile, but may change its TCA if otherwise able to" (D8.2) — so the attempted VCA change fails and the tank keeps its original facing. (The D8.21 requirement to end the MPh immediately is moot here, since the check occurs in the DFPh.)
References:
- (D8.2) BOG — Bog Check required for entering, exiting, or any VCA change (one Bog DR per hexspine) in Bog hexes; bogged vehicle may not move or change VCA (Immobile) but may change TCA
- (D8.21) BOG CHECK — Final DR ≥ 12 bogs the vehicle; cumulative DRM list, including "+3 Entry of woods, graveyard, wooden building, or rubble at half MP allotment"
- (D8.21 Q&A on D2.15/D2.24) — the +3 half-MP-allotment DRM does not apply when the vehicle is not making a half-allotment entry (e.g., a Minimum Move)
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's response matches the expected answer: it states a Bog Check is required for a VCA change in a building (D8.2), it correctly says the +3 "entry at half MP" DRM does not apply because this is an in-hex VCA change (not an entry), and it explains that a failed Bog Check (Final DR ≥ 12) bogs the vehicle and prevents the VCA change (vehicle remains facing the original way and is Immobile until freed). The extra details the model gave (bog counter, note that TCA changes may still be allowed, and reference to applicable in-hex DRMs) are consistent with the rules and do not contradict the expected answer.
May a dug-in, non-turreted AFV change its Vehicle CA?
EXPECTED
No. A Dug-In AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola (D9.54), which is the equivalent of an Immobile tank (D9.5); an immobile/immobilized vehicle cannot change its VCA (D8.1). Absent an SSR granting it, a dug-in NT AFV therefore may not change its VCA (it could only change TCA if it had a turret).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No. A Dug-In AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola (D9.54), which is "considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below" (D9.5) — and an Immobile vehicle may not change its VCA, only its TCA (D8.2). Since a non-turreted AFV has no turret, its Covered Arc is fixed in the direction it was dug in; it cannot pivot to bring its armament to bear elsewhere.
---
Key points:
- A Dug-In AFV "is treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise" (D9.54).
- An Armored Cupola is the equivalent of an Immobile tank; "although it cannot leave or be pushed out of its hex, it is free to change its TCA 360 degrees" (D9.5) — the freedom granted is to the *Turret* CA only, not the VCA.
- An Immobile vehicle "may not exit its current Location or change its VCA until freed... but may change its TCA if otherwise able to" (D8.2).
- A non-turreted AFV's weapons all fire through the VCA (D3.12 defines the TCA as differing from the VCA only via turret-mounted weapons). With no turret and no legal VCA change, a dug-in non-turreted AFV (e.g., an assault gun) therefore has a permanently fixed CA. A dug-in *turreted* AFV, by contrast, may still rotate its TCA freely.
References:
- (D9.54) DUG-IN AFV — treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise
- (D9.5) ARMORED CUPOLA — equivalent of an Immobile tank; may change TCA 360 degrees but cannot leave its hex
- (D8.2) Immobile vehicles — may not change VCA until freed, but may change TCA if otherwise able
- (D3.12) TURRET COVERED ARC — TCA governs turret-mounted weapons only; a non-turreted AFV's Field of Fire is its VCA
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer semantically: it states that a dug-in AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola (D9.54/D9.5), that this is equivalent to an Immobile vehicle which may not change its VCA, and that only TCA changes (applicable to turreted vehicles) are allowed. It also correctly notes that a non-turreted AFV's weapons fire through the VCA (D3.12), so a dug-in non-turreted AFV cannot change its VCA. The only minor issue is a citation difference (model cites D8.2 where the expected referenced D8.1), but this does not affect the correctness of the substantive ruling.
Must an AFV fire all of its weapons before another unit fires, and may it fire its MGs, let another unit fire, then fire its MA later in the phase?
EXPECTED
There is generally no rule forcing an AFV to fire all its weapons before another unit fires, so in a normal fire phase it can fire its MGs, let another unit fire, and fire its MA later. The one relevant restriction is Bounding First Fire: a vehicle must fire all its weapons from the same hex (Location), unless the MA retains a Multiple ROF (D3.51).
MODEL RESPONSE
**Answer:** No — an AFV's weapons must all fire in the *same fire phase*, but they do not have to fire consecutively or before any other unit fires. Yes, it may fire its MGs, let another friendly unit fire, and then fire its MA later in that same phase; the rule only requires that "if any weapon is fired from a vehicle, the remaining weapons must fire in the same phase or forfeit their non-CC fire attack opportunity for that Player Turn" (D3.5).
---
Key points:
- D3.5: Non-CC vehicular MG fire is limited to the same fire phase (A.15) as the vehicle's other weapons; any weapon not fired in that phase forfeits its fire for the Player Turn [EXC: Bounding (First) Fire; D3.31-.32]. Nothing requires the shots to be back-to-back or to precede other units' fire.
- D3.5 also states "It makes no difference which weapon fires first" — MGs may fire before or after the MA, at the same target or different ones.
- The constraints that do carry over between the vehicle's separate shots are those of D3.51 (MAINTAINING CA): once any vehicular weapon fires, its other weapons may fire that phase only from that same hex [EXC: OVR; MA retaining Multiple ROF after Bounding First Fire], and later shots must respect the CA established by the first shot (paying the same Case A CA-change penalty, with further CA changes allowed only if the preceding shot was at a Known enemy unit).
- So in your example: MGs fire, another unit resolves its attack, then the MA fires later in the phase — fully legal, provided the MA fires from the same hex and observes the D3.51 CA restrictions.
References:
- (D3.5) Vehicular weapons — all must fire in the same fire phase or forfeit their fire for the Player Turn; firing order among the vehicle's weapons is free
- (D3.51) MAINTAINING CA — once any vehicular weapon fires, remaining weapons fire only from that same hex and pay the established CA-change penalty
- (A.15) Fire phase definition referenced by D3.5
JUDGE REASONING
[Explanation] The model's answer matches the expected answer: it correctly states that an AFV is not required to fire all weapons consecutively or before other units, that all vehicular weapons must be fired in the same fire phase (D3.5), and it cites the relevant restriction that remaining weapons must be fired from the same hex (D3.51) with the Bounding First Fire exception. The response includes some additional correct detail about CA and exceptions but contains the key concepts the expected answer required.
No items match the current filter.