Risk to Leader question

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Post Reply
User avatar
sjwalker51
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:01 pm
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Risk to Leader question

Post by sjwalker51 »

Opinions, please, on a slightly unusual situation that arose today...

A badly shot-up section has been reduced to a 1-man rifle team in light cover and a 3-man LMG team in hard cover, within 4” of each other and with a JL nominally with the LMG team.

In the next round of enemy fire, they score 2 Kills on the rifle team and 1 Kill on the LMG team.

1) What is the risk of the Leader being one of the casualties - is it 1-3 (the total number of Kills scored) or 1-2 (the actual number of Kills that can be inflicted).

2) if the former, should the JL casualty be in addition to the 2 inflicted on the squad (1 per team) or instead of the 1 inflicted on the LMG team?

Hope that makes sense!

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7519
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by Truscott Trotter »

I would say 1-2 the actual number of casualties.
(Do not have book with me ATM so cannot check wording on 9.1.1)
Being nominally with one team is irrelevant as long as the JL is within 4" of a team receiving a kill.

User avatar
Capt Fortier
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:49 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by Capt Fortier »

Variants of this question or something very similar have come up before - see for examples relatively recently: Anomalies when apportioning casualties to LMGs and Leaders and
4 Kill results on 2 riflemen and attached junior and senior leader; the latter including a ruling from Richard, although perhaps somewhat contested!

Given the JL is within 4" of a team or section that has taken kills, and the round of firing saw three kills, I'd say you would do 1D6 check and the leader is hit on 1-3. An alternative reading of Rich's ruling would be that the leader is an automatic hit from the surplus kill on the rifle team (but still test for effect).
Capt Fortier

“Un optimiste, c'est un homme qui plante deux glands et qui s'achète un hamac.” - Jean de Lattre de Tassigny

ianh
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by ianh »

That's pretty much what we did - 1-3 chance and 1 man dead from each team.
Resulted in a knocked out JL and a wiped out team - but due to poor dice rolling only one off the Force Moral

naash
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:32 pm

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by naash »

The fact that the leader and the 1st team don’t benefit the same cover has no impact ?

When you fire at a team, hits are shared with other teams which are up to 4” of it.
If another team is at 4” but in another cover, hits aren’t automatically shared : the shooter has to split his fire.

In my mind : the same mechanism should rule leaders.
They can be hit and killed if they are up to 4” and in the same cover.
Don’t you think ?

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7519
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by Truscott Trotter »

No cover has nothing to do with it.

The leader is tested against the number if kills in teams within 4".

Also bear in mind when 2 teams are within 4" but in different cover the shooter has the choice to concentrate on the one is least cover or not.

Either way it is the total number of kills within 4" that counts not hits.
Last edited by Truscott Trotter on Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

naash
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:32 pm

Re: Risk to Leader question

Post by naash »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:09 pm
Also bear in mone when 2 teams are within 4" but in different cover the shooter has the choice to concentrate on the one is least cover of not.

Either way it is the total number of kills within 4" that counts not hits.
My mistake (and misread)...

Post Reply