Recent content by Bill Kohler

  1. Bill Kohler

    Can this vehicle change his CA in the AFPh?

    One changes one's CA in this manner because one is fixing to fire elsewhere. If you're BU in an OT machine, by definition you're not fixing to fire anywhere. (At least that's my rationale for it.)
  2. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    So you don't think the unflinching C3.32 and C3.41 prohibitions against ITT harming AFVs overrules the Index argument you made? (I could see this going either way, BTW.)
  3. Bill Kohler

    Can this vehicle change his CA in the AFPh?

    Also D5.3 and D5.33.
  4. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    That is my take as well. But I was wondering if Klas saw the "hit in an unarmored aspect" as effectively turning a partially armored vehicle into a non-AFV for the resolution of that shot, thus enabling ITT to destroy partially armored vehicles under certain conditions.
  5. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    Klas: so how would you treat the partially armored vehicles themselves, if in a Location that is hit with HE using the Infantry Target Type--as vulnerable to destruction, or as invulnerable to destruction?
  6. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    That's that case for Small Arms and Fire Lanes, I agree. But with VTT/ATT (and ITT if it applies), you would of course still need to roll for hit, and for hit Location. With MGs, if you treat it as Small Arms, then no hit location is needed. But if you do a To Kill attack, then hit Location is...
  7. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    That's my interpretation. Valuable engine and control and gasoline and steering and whatnot is exposed. Take that out, and the vehicle loses its functionality.
  8. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    How are you reading the "and"? (I think that if the meaning you suggest were all that was intended, the sentence could have safely ended just before the "and".)
  9. Bill Kohler

    Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

    I agree that a partially armored vehicle, if struck in an unarmored facing by Small Arms fire (even if only the turret is unarmored), can be destroyed by that fire. This is definitively answered in A9.51: A9.51 vs VEHICLE: Spraying Fire (like all forms of Area Fire) has no effect vs an AFV, but...
  10. Bill Kohler

    D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

    And I find the Fire Lane question entirely answered within the rules and very obvious. For me, it was the AFV/Wreck Hindrance "being replaced by" the Wreck Blaze Hindrance, and whether in so doing it went from "+1 Hindrance for many" to "+2 Hindrance for one" or "+2 Hindrance for many" that I...
  11. Bill Kohler

    D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

    Hold your horses. The first rule question discussed in this thread, at the top of page 1, had to deal with AFVs inside Buildings and how that inherent AFV Hindrance differed from the non-inherent obstacle of an AFV-occupied building. The second rule question discussed in this thread, at the...
  12. Bill Kohler

    AFV/Blazing Wreck Hindrances

    For simplicity, assume . . . --The LOS is level and at the same height as the AFVs/Wrecks. --We are not dealing with Fire Lanes. --Each AFV/Wreck is in the LOS of both the firer and the target. --No AFV/Wreck is in bypass. --No AFV/Wreck would be subject to Case J if fired on by Ordnance. --No...
  13. Bill Kohler

    D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

    Perry replied: For simplicity, assume . . . --The LOS is level and at the same height as the AFVs/Wrecks. --We are not dealing with Fire Lanes. --Each AFV/Wreck is in the LOS of both the firer and the target. --No AFV/Wreck is in bypass. --No AFV/Wreck would be subject to Case J if fired on by...
  14. Bill Kohler

    D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

    I agree. But the underlying wreck is still there. And D10.3 says the underlying wreck no longer provides a TEM to Infantry (presumably because they won't get that close to a hot fire and so can't crowd in behind it), nor a LOS Hindrance . . . except for Fire Lanes! I agree. I agree. Yes, you are...
  15. Bill Kohler

    D9.4 AFV/Wreck LOS Hindrance

    I'm not certain what we're arguing about here. When you place a Fire Lane, whatever Hindrances are there affect the shot in the standard way: a Wreck Blaze is +2 Hindrance. (A9.22, B25.2) When you resolve a Fire Lane that has been placed, you treat any Wreck Blaze as a hard Hindrance Wreck...
Top