Recent content by Treadhead

It is amazing to me that nobody in this thread has even quoted the pertinent rule itself. (A8.15) It would be so helpful, and might actually help solve the problem, which really is no problem at all. And by the way, the Perry Sez could apply to that situation, but that is stated right in A8.15...

A Dug-In AFV can lose Wall Advantage by becoming Shocked. But TEM applies to the To Hit attempt. A Dug-In AFV is always HD and cannot apply TEM. A Dug-In AFV will also have WA, but loses it when it becomes Shocked or Stunned. The wall is not protecting the hull, so WA has no effect on HD...

I am not sure of your exact question, but whether or not to apply Case Q TEM is a question of HD status, not necessarily Wall Advantage. A Dug-In AFV is always considered HD (the hull not even visible being dug into the ground, hence the instruction to place a West of Alamein turret on there)...

Always and forever, of course. It's how Chapters F and G could be introduced, which altered all kinds of things. Would you really apply a Chapter A rule that contradicts a Chapter G rule? Example? Rules Order Precedence is the norm and always has been. It's not a "precedent". It's an...

That is your personal preference, of course, but it is how we are instructed to apply the rules. To you... Bad rules? Like what? So, you are say that the people who actually wrote the rules, and also wrote the original Rules Order Precedence, assumed that they themselves lacked rules...

Just to say here, it really depends on the what and the where involved, doesn't it? Am I in the desert? The PTO? If I am dealing with AFV, then most certainly I will look somewhere in Chapter D. Likewise when dealing with Guns, or maybe a terrain. I most certainly will consult the appropriate...

That is incorrect. "Rules Order Precedence (Higher alphanumeric rule case takes precedence): Intro. pg. ii, E.2" The last sentence of the Introduction from the section called "THE NUMBERING SYSTEM". "Lastly, whenever a seeming contradiction appears between rules cases, the higher alpha-numeric...

This.

A9.22 "... after resolving the First Fire attack in the normal manner... " [in other words, applying the Wreck Blaze Hindrance to the original attack] "However, neither NVR (E1.1) nor any SMOKE... affects LOS for Fire Lane placement/attack purposes." A Wreck Blaze (B25.2) is a type of SMOKE, so...

D9.54 "A Dug-In AFV is HD to all Direct Fire attacks... has a +1 Target Size ... " The "is HD to all Direct Fire attacks" does not allow for any exceptions, the HD must always be used. D4.2 "A HD target may not also claim a Case Q TH DRM but it may claim an in-hex Case Q TEM DRM in lieu of HD...

But why, though? I really do not understand this sentiment. I have always seen E.2 as a good way to create exceptions without having always to say it's an exception. Chapter B trumps Chapter A, Chapter C trumps Chapters A and B, and so on. For me it is a first refuge, especially during the heat...

FWIW, I wasn't answering your question. I was affirming an assertion made by someone else. Since his statement, and my reply, were "NOT what [you] asked", then why did you quote me and bother to reply, since it wouldn't be of interest to you? < shrug >

Excellent call. Experience talking, there... But it's "DEFENDER Gun Duel", not "Defender Declared Gun Duel". ("Defender" and "DEFENDER" are different, and "Declared" capitalized is not a thing.) Did you just create another acronym? < groan > We have enough already, please no more! I, for...

This situation is covered in C.8, C5.33, and C5.35. A vehicle is considered a moving target for To-Hit purposes if it began its MPH in Motion (C.8) Bounding First Firer uses Case C4 for being a Non-Stopped vehicle... (C5.35) The DEFENDER can declare a Gun Duel against a Bounding First Firer...

Indeed it does.