Not using an MA in an overrun

Houlie

CEO of HoulieDice (TM)
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
1,602
Location
Minnesota, USA
Country
llUnited States
Can a player elect to NOT use an AFV's functioning MA in an overrun by using the lower overrun "base" FP strength of 2 instead of 4 to avoid potentially breaking an MA? I think I know the answer, but am curious to get other thoughts, or if this has come up before.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Can a player elect to NOT use an AFV's functioning MA in an overrun by using the lower overrun "base" FP strength of 2 instead of 4 to avoid potentially breaking an MA? I think I know the answer, but am curious to get other thoughts, or if this has come up before.
I don't think that's an option.
I think even if you could, to avoid malfunction, the vehicle would still be marked bounding fired.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I would say that you could opt to not use the main gun and overrun with base 2 instead. Yep
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
And this is based on......?

I don't see the rule gives one the option?
I tend to agree with Bob here as COWTRA. It allows one to include the MA but does not disallow its non-use nor does it mandate its use, it simply gives the additional FP available should one opt to utilize that aspect. Based upon paragraph 5 of the introduction to the ASLRB. As always JMHO.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
D7.15 says an Overrun is subject to TEM, unless the AFV is using only a FT as weapon. I'm not sure there are any vehicles with just FT as weapons (though it is certainly possible to end up with an AFV that has only a FT as a functioning weapon), but this IMHO is an indication that the player can opt to not use all available weapons (though I cannot find a rule that says so).
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
I tend to agree with Bob here as COWTRA. It allows one to include the MA but does not disallow its non-use nor does it mandate its use, it simply gives the additional FP available should one opt to utilize that aspect. Based upon paragraph 5 of the introduction to the ASLRB. As always JMHO.
You quote COWTRA, but then say that it should be allowed because it is not disallowed.

Where in the rules does it allow one to exclude the MA in an overrun?

Can't have it both ways.

Not saying that it should not be allowed. Just saying that as the rules stand there is no rules structure that supports that. As far as I can see, a Q&A by Perry is called for if this is really something that needs to be resolved. I would love to be proven wrong.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,736
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
The only option to not use the MA is to unman it. Any AFV that cannot use the MA while CE and is both CE and conducting an OVR would use 2 not 4. Other than that, I agree with Jazz.
 

Houlie

CEO of HoulieDice (TM)
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
1,602
Location
Minnesota, USA
Country
llUnited States
...a Q&A by Perry is called for if this is really something that needs to be resolved.
Oh, Perry! I believe this is an important clarification. It certainly seems reasonable for a tank commander to attack a soft target, for example, without employing its main armament at the lower base FP of 2 versus 4. I may be missing something, but I struggle to think of why it couldn't. How do we get this in front of Perry?
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Oh, Perry! I believe this is an important clarification. It certainly seems reasonable for a tank commander to attack a soft target, for example, without employing its main armament at the lower base FP of 2 versus 4. I may be missing something, but I struggle to think of why it couldn't. How do we get this in front of Perry?
Because the rules do not grant you that power is the only real reason that you could not do so, but it is enough when it comes to the game.

You get this in front of Perry the same way you always do it....submit to MMP by using the link provided in the ASL Q&A page, which sends email to <asl_qa@multimanpublishing.com>
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
My view is that if an AFV commander decides to carry out an OVR, he will do it with all weapons available. If he is worried about busting his MA, the answer is to refrain from the OVR and use bounding fire with his MG armament instead.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
My view is that if an AFV commander decides to carry out an OVR, he will do it with all weapons available. If he is worried about busting his MA, the answer is to refrain from the OVR and use bounding fire with his MG armament instead.
Where is it in the rules that a tank has a commander? Some tanks were run as anarcho-syndicalist communes, with members taking turns to act as the executive-officer-of-the-week. Declining to use the MA in an OVR would have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in a special bi-weekly meeting.

JR
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Where is it in the rules that a tank has a commander? Some tanks were run as anarcho-syndicalist communes, with members taking turns to act as the executive-officer-of-the-week. Declining to use the MA in an OVR would have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in a special bi-weekly meeting.

JR
That only applies by SSR to the Russians post-October 1942 [Exc: can apply to all nationalities in AFVs marked by a stun counter at any time on a DR of less than or equal to 5 after application of relevant modifiers].
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If an American tank, the crew could be second amendment anti government guys who would refuse that their commander should control their gun.
So whether he wanted to use it or not, they would dissent.
The tank would stop and a brawl inside the vehicle would develop, with no OVR occurring.
There should be a Shock or Unlikely Kill result for the rules to be realistic.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
A tank subject to Commune rules also has to make a straying DR at the start of its MPh to reflect potential disagreement among crew members as to which direction to take and all TH/MG attacks are subject to possible temporary weapon malfunction (determined by random selection if >1 MG is used) if the coloured TH/IFT DR is a 6 to reflect the possibility that there is an argument as to who should be firing the weapon.
 

volgaG68

Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
1,549
Location
La Crosse, KS
First name
Chris
Country
llUnited States
If an American tank, the crew could be second amendment anti government guys who would refuse that their commander should control their gun.
So whether he wanted to use it or not, they would dissent.
The tank would stop and a brawl inside the vehicle would develop, with no OVR occurring.
There should be a Shock or Unlikely Kill result for the rules to be realistic.
If a Swiss tank, the crew would pull over to the side of the road and stick their heads in the sand until the war passed by. [I hope this post was as passive-aggressively puerile as yours.]
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
If a crew can choose unmanning the main gun then manning a Rmg , why does a crew without a Rmg need a Rmg to 'unman' a main gun? So a precedent has been established that it is possible for crews to 'unman' weapons.
 
Last edited:

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
If a crew can choose unmanning the main gun then manning a Rmg , why does a crew without a Rmg need a Rmg to 'unman' a main gun? So a precedent has been established that it is possible for crews to 'unman' weapons.
You can play it however you see fit.

The rules do not let you do that and we are told that in the game we can only do what the rules allow, as opposed to being to do everything that the rules do not disallow. The rules allow you to a crew into a position where it cannot fire the MA. They do not allow you to exclude the MA from an Overrun.

Do I think in the real world an AFV would have that option? You bet'cha. Alas, we are talking about a game and not the real world.

Play it as you see fit. Nobody is gonna stop you except possibly your opponent across the table. ......<shrug>

Bring it up with Perry. He may just rule that you can exclude the MA, and if he did, I would sit and watch you play it all day that way.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
For those who think that the vehicle conducting the OVR can decline to use its MA, does this mean that it can subsequently use it to conduct a bounding first fire attack against an enemy vehicle?
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
D7.15 says an Overrun is subject to TEM, unless the AFV is using only a FT as weapon. I'm not sure there are any vehicles with just FT as weapons (though it is certainly possible to end up with an AFV that has only a FT as a functioning weapon), but this IMHO is an indication that the player can opt to not use all available weapons (though I cannot find a rule that says so).
This rule suggests that an attacker can disregard the two base FP for an AFV when using the FT. That certainly adds weight to the argument that other attacks can disregard the base 4 FP.
 
Last edited:
Top