Volley Fire - hindrance, right?

[Alexandre Leal]

Volley mechanic seems to be written giving the sense that it is an hindrance to side that has to implement it, correct?

But first things first: Is Volley mandatory (as it seems to be)?
Secondly, given the fact that when using (and if it's mandatory it will always happen every time you Direct Fire with one of the Heavy Armor units in the stack) volley fire BOTH units are marked Ops Complete, it seems that we are "trading" the entire FP dice of the second unit in the stack for just a +1 to FP dice of the first (and only) unit to Fire (and indeed act). This is quite detrimental and would force such forces to heartily avoid having 2Heavy Armor units stack in the same hex. What is the rational for this mechanic?

 

[Starman]

It is a boon not a hinderance it provides an extra FP , it's use is to swing the odds against particularly hard targets, it's not mandatory and its use should be calculated.

It certainly won't be worth taking risks to achieve, including the risk of being stationary.

It's probably best used as it would have been e.g. early in an engagement when you have 3-5 stacks to bring overwhelming FP on forward IP positions.

 

[Alexandre Leal]

If it's not mandatory then I think the text should be slightly change to reflect it more clearly, adding, for instance, a "(...)ONLY may add one dice to a Heavy Armor vehicle unit FP dice in a stack (...)".

It can indeed be used to bolster one direct attack against unit with high defense stats (armor value and/or Save) but still you should end up loosing 2 to 3 FP dice in the process, but being optional (and not mandatory as I thought it may be) a player will be able to ponder the best tactical choice.

Cheers Starman.

 

[Keith Tracton]

Hi Alexandre, FYI Volley Fire is in fact Optional, and once again you are correct and I appreciate your attention to detail! Thanks!

I will clarify by specifying that Volley Fire is optional.

Thanks again, Gentlemen!!