The Incremental Infantry Fire Table (Mini) Quick Reference Data Card, IIFT(M)QRDC, is a reference card that contains the Incremental IFT and some of the most used charts in updated/corrected versions.
The IIFT(M)QRDC consists of two pages that is meant to be mounted on a cardboard and used instead of the QRDC. [I laminated mine and it's great! -jds] All charts are up to date, including all additions, changes and erratas from chapter A-P and the ASL Annuals.
Page one consists of the Incremental IFT, the Ambush, Close Combat, Heat of Battle and Leader Creation tables. Page two consists of the To Hit Table, the Firer-Based and Target- Based Hit Determination DRM tables, all To Kill tables and the AFV Destruction Table. The pages are in the following files:
| Letter format: | |
| IIFTMQRDC1.ps | page one |
| IIFTMQRDC1ctc.ps | page one with the CTC variant for the IIFT |
| IIFTMQRDC2.ps | page two |
| A4 format: | |
| IIFTMQRDC1A4.ps | page one |
| IIFTMQRDC1ctcA4.ps | page two with the CTC variant for the IIFT |
| IIFTMQRDC2A4.ps | page two |
A "CTC" result has the following effect: Vs a non-HIP, unconcealed target a CTC is a normal PTC. Vs HIP or Concealed targets the CTC is treated as No Effect, and will therefore neither strip Concealment or generate a PTC.
The IIFT is always used instead of the IFT; all rules applying to the IFT apply to the IIFT with changes noted below:
When the rules demand a column shift (for Cowering, Fire Lane, Barrage, HEAT HE Equivalency, etc.) always use "standard" IFT columns, which are marked on the IIFT with a box around the FP# (as opposed to the "incremental" columns which are not so indicated). When a one-column shift is required, an attack that would otherwise have used a "standard" IFT column simply shifts to the next-lower FP "standard" IFT column; an attack that would otherwise have used an "incremental" IFT column first shifts to the next- lower-FP "standard" column, then shifts again to the next- lower-FP "standard" column. A two column shift follows these same principles, but drops yet again to the next-lower-FP "standard" column. The actual effect of column shifts is that the IFT column that would have been used if playing with the IFT will also be the column that is used when playing with the IIFT.
Doubling, halving and such of FP is based upon the actual FP (both before and after increasing/decreasing it), regardless of whether the columns involved are "standard" or "incremental" [EXC: Residual FP uses the highest-FP counter that is <= the FP used in the attack]. DRM are applied normally, regardless of outcome.
Consider an ASL game consisting of two opposing squads firing at each other until one of the squads breaks, gets reduced or eliminated, the other squad wins the scenario. The squads have equal DRM and both fire on Normal Range. The phases of a normal ASL game are followed, but they consist of PFPh & DFPh only. Pin and Cower apply normally.
If the two squads use the same column on the IFT, they will both have 50% probability of winning (assuming they have 50% probability of having the first PFPh), but if one of the squads gets a higher incremental column using the IIFT, this squad will surely have an advantage when using the IIFT. The question is; how big is the advantage, or how much more often will the squad with the "incremental" FP win?
I programmed a computer to compute the probabilities; this is not a test throwing dice hundreds of times, but an exact probability, all squads have a morale of 7:
| Squad 1 FP | Squad 2 FP | TEM | % victories w/IFT | squad 1 using IIFT | advantage w/ IIFT |
| 5 | 4 | 0 | 50.0 | 51.2 | 1.2 |
| 5 | 4 | 1 | 51.9 | 1.9 | |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | 50.3 | 0.3 | |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 50.6 | 0.6 | |
| 6 | 7 | 0 | 51.9 | 1.9 | |
| 6 | 7 | 1 | 51.8 | 1.8 | |
| 6 | 7 | 2 | 52.3 | 2.3 | |
| 6 | 7 | 3 | 51.0 | 1.0 | |
| 3 | 4 | 0 | 36.1 | 37.8 | 1.7 |
| 3 | 4 | 1 | 33.0 | 33.2 | 0.2 |
| 3 | 4 | 2 | 31.5 | 31.8 | 0.3 |
| 7 | 4 | 0 | 62.0 | 63.6 | 1.6 |
| 7 | 4 | 1 | 62.5 | 63.9 | 1.4 |
| 7 | 4 | 2 | 66.6 | 68.4 | 1.8 |
| 7 | 4 | 3 | 68.3 | 69.0 | 0.7 |
Credit goes to Jay Kaufman, who created the original Incremental IFT, that was modified by Charlie Kibler and Bob McNamara, into the version found in the I