(Answered) Spotting and Unit attack order sequencing

[Kilter]

At what point in the combat sequence can the unit designated as “the spotter” for multiple IF attackers against a single IF target make their attacks?

Does the IF spotter requirement for “has not attacked” that was added in the 6th edition errata require that the spotter unit shoot after all IF units that will be using them as a spotter for their Indirect Fire attack?

It appears that RAW, if a unit that has been defined as the spotter makes an attack that they would not meet the criteria to spot for a secondary attacker making an IF attack against the target that they are acting as “the spotter”.

Based on the New verbiage for IF spotters in 6.02:
“To use indirect fire, there must be a unit friendly to the attacker, that has not yet made an attack this turn, with valid LOS and within 42” of the target.”

RAW if they spot, and then the spotter makes an attack then by RAW that unit can’t be selected as the spotter for the shot by the 2nd unit making an IF. Because they already attacked.

However, we know that they can spot for multiple attacks because “A unit used as a spotter for an indirect fire attack may be used to spot for more than one IF attack in a turn, but cannot choose more than one target to spot in that same turn.”

EG. Unit A, will make an IF shot on Unit D.
 
Player needs unit that has not attacked per RAW. Unit B has not yet attacked.

Player declares that they will use Unit B to spot Unit D for the IF attack by Unit A and will also be making an attack with unit B.

The player ALSO wants to make an IF attack with Unit C and attack Unit D, and wants unit B to be the spotter. 

RAW, the requirement is “is friendly and has not yet attacked this turn”.

If the player attacks with Unit B, after Unit A performs their IF attack before they use unit B to be the IF spotter for Unit C, then RAW they would be unable to use Unit B to “be the friendly spotter” for Unit C.

Because unit B no longer meets the requirements to be the spotter. (Because they attacked.)

This feels like an unintended consequence of attempting to avoid folks who were not applying the appropriate modifiers for the spotter attacking and not adding “+1 when the spotter makes an attack”.

It FEELS like there needs to be an errata fix that is “has not yet attacked, or has already been designated as the spotter for that target”.

I understand that the stipulation for “not having fired yet”  was added to prevent players from attacking *and* spotting and not applying the applicable penalties for both.

As referenced in another question about spotting:

The Spot “doesn’t happen” until the IF attack.

“Spotting for indirect fire is declared when the indirect fire attack is being made, and the spotter must not have attacked yet this turn. The indirect fire attacker is the one declaring an attack at this time. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,82354.0.html

Which doesn’t align with the possibility to “declare all my spots first”.

The conundrum appears to be: how can a spotter spot without an indirect attacker declaring for one?

[nckestrel]

If a unit is already spotting the target, that overrides the requirement that the spotter not yet made an attack this turn.  TAG is one way of doing this, if you successfully (or unsuccessfully) paint a target with TAG earlier during that unit's attack, it is spotting for later indirect fire attacks.  Multiple indirect fire attacks like you mention is another example.

Thanks for posting the following errata to clarify that if something else has already allowed the unit to be a spotter, it can spot...
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,65710.msg1985214.html#msg1985214

And yes, you got the intent.  Too many players make their "spotters" attack, then get to their indirect fire attacks and declare the unit's to be spotting, but the "spotters" didn't take the modifier to their own attacks for being a spotter.  The intent was to try and force players to think about their indirect fire attacks first, and determine then if the spotter is also going to attack or not.  But if they're already a spotter (from TAG, an earlier indirect fire attack against the same target) this isn't intended to make them unable to continue spotting.