Here's where you see the violence inherent in the system....I don't care about the small target moving unit...it's a freaking unarmored/unarmed jeep with Gomer Pyle at the helm and Beetle Bailey riding shotgun...I do care about the .50 cal x 3 w/Gavin directing it 120 m behind the jeep...and I want to put smoke in that 1600 sqaure meter patch of dirt the jeep is doing doughnuts in...it should not matter wtf is in the jeep hex if I only care about getting smoke IN that huge patch of turf...BUT with the current position being championed here, I CAN'T because Beetle and Gomer have some kind of new-fangled smoke repelling forcescreen that they conveniently placed in front of the Kill stack position.
Ordnance SMOKE and Target Size
- Thread starter Steven Pleva
- Start date
Steven Pleva
Elder Member
I'm with Fort on this one. I hope that Perry rules you can fire Smoke at a hex and are not forced to fire at a unit in the hex.
I agree with Hersh that the bypass concealment stripping is a joke of a rule...
Steve
Yes to both...you still can't touch my 'lucky' dice.
hershmeister
Member
Lets be clear what we are debating - you want to place the SMOKE on TOP OF asmall, moving vehicle to gain the extra +1 hinderance for firing OUT OF SMOKE. Yes, I know that the rules say that SMOKE "fills the hex", but this is just another design for effect type of thing - we all know that smoke doesn't perfectly billow in a 40m hexagonal shape, nor is is always perfectly symetrical. And who is to say exactly how many rounds of SMOKE were really fired and if there are multiple targets, then hey - lets get hyper realistic and have the SMOKE only apply to specific units...or not - that would be an overly comlicated bit of chrome and a royal PITA to keep up with...so SMOKE like residual FP getting in hex TEM vs bypassing units has its own weirdness to simplify play.
Given that, following the current rules and being forced to use the size and moving mods are a nice design for effect, which makes it a little harder for you to get the dream shot of SMOKE landing perfectly on top of a hard to hit unit well enough to obscure its vision by the extra +1 DRM.
If you want an "easier" shot, you can fire the SMOKE round at an intervening hex along LOS to act as a "Screen" and get just the +3 DRM.
To me this rule as is stands works just fine for balancing hyper control of the game with a functional ease of play.
MMP - Don't mess with it.
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
I don't care about the extra +1 for in hex...I don't care about the jeep...
I WANT the smoke in the intervening hex...you drive your jeep to that intervening hex and make it harder for me to place the smoke in that same intervening hex...and the ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED IS GOMER AND BEETLE ARE SIGHTSEEING IN THAT PARTICULAR PATCH OF GROUND.
for clarity....I DON't CARE IF THE JEEP IS AFFECTED OR NOT....I JUST WANT SMOKE THERE TO SCREEN THE MG POSITIONS TO THE REAR. (not concerned with the jeep at all).
This is a rule subject to abuse....btw, (Speaking to your jeep being harder to hit) the smoke obscures the entire location for all fire even along the hexsides, so what the hell does it matter if there is jeep in there or a MG platoon, or 10 KINGTIGERS? I want to just hit the hex.
I am 100% sure when smoke is ordered they don't say.."put a round on the windscreen of that jeep...they say...see that patch of trees over there, screen that from my axis of advance here....thanks treadhead...over out."
And, if you think ASL players don't/won't take that little bit of esoterica and ram it up your tailpipe during play, then you have another think coming....
Hey, we got a great field of fire here, we don't want no stinking smoke blocking our fire..you guys take all those useless jeeps and drive'em around down the hill there between us and the Jerry's make sure you don't stop...that'll really screw'em.
Last edited:
Steven Pleva
Elder Member
Furthermore Hersh, it is rare when you want to smoke out a motion vehicle. Usually, you are putting smoke in front of a unit behind it. I agree with Fort, the rule is more subject to abuse than it is some elaborate design for effect. Firing smoke at a concealed unit is a design for effect and is clearly intentional...
Steve
Steve
hershmeister
Member
The example of placing a jeep in between smoke capable ordnance and a real threat (MG nest in this case) is certainly unusual, but still retains the point of my original post - that is is it likely now EASIER to hit the MG Nest threat than the smaller jeep.
I hear what you guys are saying, but I just don't see how often this intervening small target tactic would come into play for abuse vs. the actual target being small or (moving) losing that benefit for shots against it. If you give up the one you give up both.
Yes, I know you can make all sorts of explanations for more hinderances along LOS, etc, etc which would make firing at the small intervening target moe attractive.
I remain convinced that the player as g-d element here is successfully marginally diminished without serious gameplay implications, and in fact it retains the game play inplications that one want still.
I hear what you guys are saying, but I just don't see how often this intervening small target tactic would come into play for abuse vs. the actual target being small or (moving) losing that benefit for shots against it. If you give up the one you give up both.
Yes, I know you can make all sorts of explanations for more hinderances along LOS, etc, etc which would make firing at the small intervening target moe attractive.
I remain convinced that the player as g-d element here is successfully marginally diminished without serious gameplay implications, and in fact it retains the game play inplications that one want still.
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
If I can shoot an hit a hex--instead of a having to shoot the unit there in--would a vehicle in said hex be subject to a General Collateral attack? It seems D.8B suggests they would (When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc., by) FP which is not required to pre-designate it as the target). Suddenly your double small motion Wasp isn't such a good place after all. If I designate the Wasp as a target in Prep Fire, it would be base 7 +4 for a X/2 +2 on the effects DR. If I designate the Hex as the target, I am 7 +0 for an X/2 +2 on the effects DR. Seems to me like you need to add even more rules to alleviate your grudge. -- jim
-- jim
hershmeister
Member
Ps. If you shoot at the jeep and burn it you still get your smoke even if you run out of SMOKE.
ATT HE would need to hit a target in the hex to affect it. SMOKE should only have to hit the HEX, or ANY target in the hex including the hex itself to be placed.If I can shoot an hit a hex--instead of a having to shoot the unit there in--would a vehicle in said hex be subject to a General Collateral attack? It seems D.8B suggests they would (When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc., by) FP which is not required to pre-designate it as the target). Suddenly your double small motion Wasp isn't such a good place after all. If I designate the Wasp as a target in Prep Fire, it would be base 7 +4 for a X/2 +2 on the effects DR. If I designate the Hex as the target, I am 7 +0 for an X/2 +2 on the effects DR. Seems to me like you need to add even more rules to alleviate your grudge.
Jeeps don't leave wrecks, burning or otherwise.Ps. If you shoot at the jeep and burn it you still get your smoke even if you run out of SMOKE.
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
It did hit a target: the hex. Now that I have hit a target--specifically one that wasn't the AFV--D.8B should kick in and allow me to do the 2+2 General Collateral attack. I guess you could just limit "firing at a hex" to SMOKE shots but the fact that you have to add rule after rule to get the affect that you want and the idea that you tell me HE has to hit "something in the hex" but the SMOKE doesn't and is simply allowed to fall into the hex should tell you that what you're asking for is not only silly, is counter-intuitive to the rules as a whole. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'll tell you what, we can play it your way if you share dice.
-- jim
hershmeister
Member
And this is the problem isn't it. But the rules are clear that a concealed unit in the hex makes it harder to place smoke, so we already have one rule which defies the "I'm just shooting at the hex" argument so i shouldn't be penalized just because I cant see who is there.
PS : Nice catch on the burning jeep - I havent played a scenario with one in so long I had forgotten that!
Sigh....It did hit a target: the hex. Now that I have hit a target--specifically one that wasn't the AFV--D.8B should kick in and allow me to do the 2+2 General Collateral attack. I guess you could just limit "firing at a hex" to SMOKE shots but the fact that you have to add rule after rule to get the affect that you want and the idea that you tell me HE has to hit "something in the hex" but the SMOKE doesn't and is simply allowed to fall into the hex should tell you that what you're asking for is not only silly, is counter-intuitive to the rules as a whole. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'll tell you what, we can play it your way if you share dice.
If I shoot ATT HE at a hex, the only target affected are the ones hit...including the hex itself...it's perfectly consistent and works with SMOKE. I hit the hex and viola! there's smoke.
The vehicle you speak of is NOT subject to D.8B BECAUSE it was not subject to the HE, because it was not hit by the HE...the rest of the HEX and it's contents could be hit, however.
With HE, I hit the hex and don't roll low enough to hit the vehicle or the concealed squad in the basement and I don't get to roll an effect on them.
C3.33 All (including friendly) non-Aerial units in the target hex can be hit (even by WP), except for those immune as per 3.4.
C3.4 A hit obtained on any TH Table affects only the target hex and, depending on the Target-Type/applicable-DRM, not necessarily all the occupants of that hex.
This tells me that if I hit the Hex with SMOKE of any sort that it is a HIT...does not matter if there is small target vehicle in the location or not.
If I shoot HE ATT at the hex, then I might not hit the vehicle but could still hit something else...including the Hex.
This is not 'the problem'. I don't see what you are trying to get at.
I have zero problem with a concealed unit (only target in Location) being harder to hit with smoke as that is clearly explained in the rules...trying to limit player knowledge.
This rule does not defy the shooting at the hex rule...it reinforces it.
Players should not be rewarded with cheap rules-lawyer tricks, such as I outlined above. I have seen it before...it's very prevalent in KGP and is used just as I described to prevent/make more difficult SMOKE placement in locations that you don't want hit with SMOKE...Park a HD small target there with several hexes of hindrances and you gotta get a Turret hit with a Small target to get smoke in the hex....it is counter-intuitive and illogical.
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
Exactly my sentiment when you tell me vehicle size shouldn't count when shooting SMOKE.
Blah, blah, blah. If you let me shoot at the hex and I acheive a hit, then a vehicle becomes the subject of a General Collateral attack once I roll the effect on the IFE. Maybe its my intention to blaze the hex with a KIA or rubble the building with a lucky shot. We can always share dice. -- jim
You shoot smoke using ATT...there are rules specifically for resolving that (ATT HE) vs target hit and targets not hit....
The way you want to play....If I have a hex that contains a small target vehicle I need a certain number to hit the hex with SMOKE...now...I add a SMC and it suddenly become easier to hit the hex with SMOKE?
It does not make sense.
You don't affect the vehicle if you don't hit it with ATT.
And, we will ALWAYS share dice from now on Jim....count on it.
Last edited:
Sparafucil3
Forum Guru
I don't disagree, but what you're asking for is a rules change and that change is inconsistent with everything else in the game when it comes to shooting ITT/ATT. I argue for consistency.
Right, but it does hit any vulnerable PRC with GCA by rule D.8B when you roll the attack on the IFT. When it comes to a motion Wasp which can never go BU, I don't think this is the intent of what you're asking for, but it is an unintended consequence of allowing a player to shoot to hit the hex instead of forcing them to hit a target within the hex. If you're intent is to change the rules anyways, just make sure you account for this when you're chatting with Perry (or at least mention it so he is aware of it otherwise he will miss it for sure).
Whatever you want, I am just pulling your chain about it and could really care less ... count on it. I am more than sure my losses to you have more to do with my crappy play than it does dice ... you can count on that too (although I am trying to get better). -- jim
James Taylor
I love women with brains
I think the rules chain that The Bishop has provided demonstrates that target size modifiers apply to ATT shots, smoke or otherwise.
I've NEVER encountered the small target sleaze Fort is describing in a game, but maybe I just don't play enough ASL. I don't deny it can happen, but just don't think it is that much of a problem.
Smoke already gets a +2 TH helper bonus... we don't need a rules change that makes it more powerful.
Hopefully Perry sees fit to leave this one alone.
Pass the dice.
JT
I've NEVER encountered the small target sleaze Fort is describing in a game, but maybe I just don't play enough ASL. I don't deny it can happen, but just don't think it is that much of a problem.
Smoke already gets a +2 TH helper bonus... we don't need a rules change that makes it more powerful.
Hopefully Perry sees fit to leave this one alone.
Pass the dice.
JT