MMP Published Journal 16 this month. In the Debriefing section, new Errata changed the way Street Fighting DRM applies to Close Combat attack DR for units in a bypassed Location. On paper, the change seems innocent. But if you take the time to look at what this means, it becomes pretty apparent that Vehicular Bypass Movement (VBM) has become more deadly than it was before, albeit at a cost.
What Changed
The change is hard to spot. I knew the intent and I still struggled to find it in my patched rule book. D7.211 now reads (in part):
“However, Street Fighting CC Reaction Fire vs a vehicle not in Bypass (A11.8) may not be attempted by a unit that is, and/or possesses a SW-(including Inherent)/Gun that is, already marked with a First/Final/Intensive/No Fire counter.”
The bold portion is the change. In context, it says you cannot use the Street Fighting DRM when marked with a First/Final/Intensive/No Fire counters versus a vehicle NOT in bypass. Against a vehicle in bypass, the restriction does not apply. Now the -1 DRM for Street Fighting (SF) applies when used against a bypassing vehicle when using Subsequent First Fire (SFF) and Final Protective Fire (FPF). I do not blame you if you have not spotted that before now.
A Working Example
First, calling this DRM “Street Fighting” when applied to an AFV using VBM was not the greatest label. However, the last sentence in A11.8 makes vehicles using Stationary Bypass or VBM subject to a SF DRM.
Imagine an AFV that is using VBM to invoke Target Selection Limits on an enemy squad (Figure 1). In doing so, the AFV spends its last 5 MP and remains in Motion. A squad’s Close Combat Value (CCV) is 5. There is a +2 DRM against a Moving/Non-Stopped AFV. There is a -1 DRM for SF. The AFV is Immobilized (or better) on an Original DR ≤ 4. This represents a 6 in 36 chance, or 16.7% chance. Of course, to attack the MMC would have to pass a Pre-AFV Attack Task Check (PAATC). A morale seven unit needs an Original DR ≤ 7, a 21 in 36 chance, or 58.3%. When considered together, a seven morale unit has a 9.7% chance to Immobilize (or better) the bypassing AFV. This is exactly what it was before the J16 Errata. There is nothing new here.
What About Further Fire?
This is where the change gets interesting. Once the unit passes its PAATC, it does not have to take subsequent PAATCs to attack the same vehicle. Because the unit is marked First Fired, the squad’s CCV is now 4. The +2 DRM for Moving/Non-Stopped AFV is unchanged. Now, however, the SF DRM applies to Final Fire where before it did not. Before, the squad could only affect the AFV on an Original DR ≤ 2. This yielded a 2.8% chance to Immobilize the AFV (1/36). The addition of the -1 DRM means that an Original DR ≤ 3 can now affect the AFV (3/26). This is 3 times as likely (1/36 vs 3/36). And it does not have to stop here. You can continue to attack the bypassing AFV for as many MPs as it spent in bypass. In this case, you could attack five times. The table below shows the cumulative odds of affecting the AFV for each possible attack.
| Number of Attacks | Unit Morale |
CCV | PAATC chance | Chance attack Immobs AFV (before/now) |
Cumulative Chance (before/now) | Change | Pass NMC |
| 1 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 16.7% / 16.7% | 9.7% / 9.7% | 0% | NA |
| 2 | 7 | 4 | NA | 2.8% / 8.3% | 11.2% / 14.1% | + 4.9% | NA |
| 3 | 7 | 4 | NA | 2.8% / 8.3% | 12.6% / 18.3% | + 5.7% | 58.3% |
| 4 | 7 | 4 | NA | 2.8% / 8.3% | 14.0% / 22.3% | + 8.3% | 34.0% |
| 5 | 7 | 4 | NA | 2.8% / 8.3% | 15.4% / 26.1% | + 10.7% | 19.9% |
Downsides
There is no free lunch. The rows colored in red are attacks where the squad is also using FPF. Such attacks also count as a Normal Morale Check (NMC) against the attacking unit. With a seven morale, a unit will pass this NMC 58.3% of the time. So about six times out of ten, you will survive this third attack and attack again. If you attack again, you have a 58.3% chance of passing the NMC and attacking a fifth time. Taken altogether, you have about a 35% chance of getting four attacks and about a 20% chance of getting all five. I have ignored Pin results here so the chances for attacks beyond the third are slightly less than represented here.
Conclusion
While the change does not seem like much on the surface, you can see for yourself that the math begins to add up. The attack possibilities have not changed with the updates. You could have made all the same attacks in the past. What has changed is the increased probability of affecting the AFV.
I personally will be rolling more often against units in bypass. Units with 8 or more morale will not get better attack odds, but they will pass the NMC more often and thus average more attacks overall. Rolling more makes even more sense if a leader or Hero can stack with the squad. If you plan to Voluntarily Break the unit in the Rout Phase, why not roll until the AFV is eliminated or your units are broken?
— jim
GET TO THE CHOPPA…!!! 
Jim has graciously given us permission to publish and archive “The Bishop Says,” so it never disappears as an ASL resource. The articles, containing invaluable ASL insights and learnings, will appear here, over time, unchanged from their original versions.
This article was originally published November 3, 2025 (v1.1).
Article © 2025-2026, Jim Bishop. All Rights Reserved. Copyright & Fair Use Notice.
ASL-Players.net is not affiliated with Hasbro, AH Games, Inc., or MMP, Inc.
Advanced Squad Leader is a trademark of AH Games, Inc.
These Articles Might Interest You
The Bishop Says: AFV Combat In ASL: Tank vs. Tank
The Bishop Says: AFV Combat – Motion Escape Example
The Bishop Says: AFV Combat – Entering Enemy Locations Example
The Bishop Says: AFV Combat – Bypass Movement Example
The Bishop Says: Defending Against “Sleaze Freeze” – A First Example
The Bishop Says: Defending Against “Sleaze Freeze” – Second Example
The Bishop Says: Missing Example – Moving Vehicular Target
The Bishop Says: Stop And Go Traffic: A Synopsis
Thank you to Jim for another great article breaking down the meaning of this rule change. Thank you, Neal for providing the platform to share these great articles.
You’re most certainly welcome.
I am grateful for Jim’s detailed breakdown of the rule change, and wish to confer that he has presented it well. However, I am forced to admit I have always prescribed to the notion that when unescorted vehicles of any type come into close proximity of infantry, the danger level to an unescorted vehicle should exponentially increase with the decrease in proximity, and anything that makes that possible reflects a more realistic and effective rule. Speaking of vehicle close proximity (if I may) IMHO, anything (including vehicles) that do not enter a structure or concealment terrain feature should not be allowed to strip concealment from a concealed unit contained therein. First of all, vehicle crews are poor searchers from inside a vehicle, and no one should be able to avoid a search of a concealed location.
I missed this response when this article was originally posted. The J16 rules now allow a unit in a bypass Location to take a PAATC to remain concealed. If the remain Concealed then in the CCPh, each side will roll for Ambush (A11.4). The Concealed units receive a -2 and the AFV recieves a +2 (+3 if BU) to their Ambush dr. This makes the situation very much deadlier that it was before for the AFV. Now it could face a -2 DRM where before it would face only a -1. What’s more, this -1 DRM moves the Final DR into the 6,7,8 range where the -1 DRM has the greatest effect.
Great article! Hope you write some more detailing other rule changes from the latest journal 🙂
I might. I am not sure many of them make that much of a difference. The “biggest” other rule change is the FH rule. Talking about that is going to take a lot more thinking and a lot more examples. I don’t think there is really enough of a change to worry too much about it. The more I think about FH the more I think they are just delayed action Death Traps now. I doubt I will change the way I play them much, if at all.
I have submitted a new table to Neal for this article. Originally, I did not account for the PAATC on second and later attacks. The first attack is chance to harm X chance to pass a PAATC. The second attack is (PAATC * ((1 – first attack chance) * attack chance) + first attack chance. This means the cumulative chance to harm grows as a percentage of attack chance * PAATC chance. I sent Neal a new table to insert into the article when he gets a chance.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
The table has been corrected.
Thanks Jim. This article realy cuts to the chase on this important rule change. In the last game I played, I declined an offer to play with these updated rules as they had only been seen as notes on gamesquad, by the time the game came around, J16 was out but I had made the call. Had I agreed to play with the updates, then my SFF CC RF vs a T34 would have an Elim and not an Immob. Just goes to demonstrate this will make a difference in some games. Especially when there are Assault Engineers or ATMM possibilities as the odds start to stack up.
As an addition … I think the big difference here is that a SQ can DFF at an adjacent tank as part of sleaze freeze defence (leaving Residual Fire) and not worry about a reduced CC RF should the vehicle come into bypass. But I agree about the CC RF as DFF/FPF options it gives the defender – especially if they are OK to rout if the FPF roll is 7+.
This isn’t quite right. A squad that fires its Inherent FP has a CCV of 4. This is a significant decrease compared to the 5 it has normally. This is the “fat” part of the distribution where some DRM have outsized impact compared to others. There are 4 ways to roll a 5. There are 6 ways to roll <= 4.
Apologoes Jim … yes I forgot the -1 CCV for halved FP, i.e. SFF. At least there is only one reduction (halved FP) compared to First Fire and not two (halved FP and no Street Fighting) – I guess.
Great article! Thanks.