Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

[PresterJohn]

They are different, just not in this context. When speaking about "Target Facing", they are the same as long as the LOF crosses at least one unarmored Aspect. When speaking about Aspect, they are different such that is possible to either armored or unarmored depending on which Aspect is hit. Only Ordnance is concerned with which Aspect is hit. Small arms only cares about Target Facing. -- jim

And that is where I disagree completely. A small arms attack against the rear of a * is an unarmoured vehicle attack resolved on the IFT *, but that was not the original question. For the original question I read it that a small arms attack against a *T is attacking an armoured target and can only affect the vulnerable crew. This is what the rules allow using the rules I have cited in linear logic.

I have said this multiple times and you don't acknowledge that, instead reverting to reverse logic. We shall see what answer we get but at least I can see two options for the final rule. In this small arms VS AFV context either * and *T are the same, or they are different.

 

[Actionjick]

Really not wanting to inject realism into a rules discussion but here we go. If the crew is vulnerable to small arms fire the interior of the vehicle is probably going to be exposed to that fire also. Enough small arms fire to the interior could render it inoperable effectively destroying it.

At work so cannot continue this train of thought. Great thread!!

 

[DVexile]

If your reverse logic is correct then we will know that * and *T are the same as far as the rules are concerned. Okay I can accept that even if it takes a little bit away from the differences of the AFVs.

Just playing devil’s advocate, * T allows for an otherwise unrepresentable armor arrangement for ordnance attacks on a few vehicles (British and Japanese examples exist at least). A vehicle with 3/2/* is different from 3/2/*T when it comes to ordnance but would be the same for Small Arms if we take Jim’s interpretation.

Not a huge difference, but a difference I guess.

I would sure like there to be some more explicit wording in the RB for Jim’s position, but I note there is another Q&A for DC attacks against a *T that also interpret it as unarmored and attacked on the IFT. Again, not a direct answer at all but another case with a single unarmored Aspect being treated as unarmored for an IFT attack.

EDIT: Fixed forum turning my stars into italics formatting!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

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?

The vehicle itself would need to hit, I think....but if if hit in an unarmored facing/aspect it would be a lot easier to knock out....

 

[PresterJohn]

Just playing devil’s advocate, * T allows for an otherwise unrepresentable armor arrangement for ordnance attacks on a few vehicles (British and Japanese examples exist at least). A vehicle with 3/2/* is different from 3/2/*T when it comes to ordnance but would be the same for Small Arms if we take Jim’s interpretation.

Not a huge difference, but a difference I guess.

I would sure like there to be some more explicit wording in the RB for Jim’s position, but I note there is another Q&A for DC attacks against a *T that also interpret it as unarmored and attacked on the IFT. Again, not a direct answer at all but another case with a single unarmored Aspect being treated as unarmored for an IFT attack.

EDIT: Fixed forum turning my stars into italics formatting!

Yes, I half expect the "group think" position that * and *T are the same for small arms attacks to be written down as official. In the end it's not a huge deal at all. But when the rules can flow in one logical direction or have to be reverse deducted with no logical rule flow "because" then perhaps there's more than a few grains of salt involved. And especially when you're told "judgement" is required.

 

[Bill Kohler]

The vehicle itself would need to hit, I think....but if if hit in an unarmored facing/aspect it would be a lot easier to knock out....

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.)

 

[Sparafucil3]

Actually no, I said specifically or the rules said "those in an AFV that for a particular reason is treated as unarmored [for that attack]):". [For that attack] being the attack against the crew, not necessarily the AFV. This inserts into the logic quite straight forwardly that the attacks are not necessarily linked.

The attack is against the AFV. The Crew is Vulnerable because the attack on the AFV is against an unarmored Target Facing. Ergo, the attack is against an unarmored vehicle.

At this point, I am bowing out. Best of luck. -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

the "group think" position

Speaking of people who disagree with you, while you are alone holding your opinion, as "group thinking" is an ad hominem, rather insulting l, argument.
In this debate, there is no "group thinking" phenomenon.
People speak as individuals, not as a wolf pack hunting down a lone victim.
I wouldn't call your being in disagreement with others as "paranoid thinking", for an example.
Everyone tries to interpret the rules the best way, that's all.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

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.)

I (for now, without a deeper rules dive) think the AFV is treated as an unarmored target it hit in an unarmored facing/aspect...


When I get home, I will take a dive into my Q&A archive and see if any of this has been asked before....

 

[PresterJohn]

Speaking of people who disagree with you, while you are alone holding your opinion, as "group thinking" is an ad hominem, rather insulting l, argument.
In this debate, there is no "group thinking" phenomenon.
People speak as individuals, not as a wolf pack hunting down a lone victim.
I wouldn't call your being in disagreement with others as "paranoid thinking", for an example.
Everyone tries to interpret the rules the best way, that's all.

Are there really a collection of individual arguments for and against as you say?
Or is it just that most forms of consensus end up with an opinion that the majority of the group contribute to. The opposite of this groupthink would instead be an opinion that is deliberated on by one individual and the majority then accept without contributing.

 

[DVexile]

Are there really a collection of individual arguments for and against as you say?
Or is it just that most forms of consensus end up with an opinion that the majority of the group contribute to. The opposite of this groupthink would instead be an opinion that is deliberated on by one individual and the majority then accept without contributing.

We have a fairly international group here, so language misunderstandings can sometimes be an issue. Groupthink is not the same as a consensus opinion.

Wikipedia - Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

Webster - a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

Oxford - In group decision making, the tendency to drift into ill-conceived policies or decisions without adequate debate. This can be a result of various pressures, including the illusion of ingroup superiority and the wish to achieve consensus and avoid painful disagreements.

If you follow the thread a number of people expressed a range of opinions, considered those of others and their supporting evidence, and in some cases altered their opinions based on said evidence and argument. That’s not “groupthink”.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Yes, I half expect the "group think" position that * and *T are the same for small arms attacks to be written down as official. In the end it's not a huge deal at all. But when the rules can flow in one logical direction or have to be reverse deducted with no logical rule flow "because" then perhaps there's more than a few grains of salt involved. And especially when you're told "judgement" is required.

The bottom line is you recognize the vehicle is attacked through an unarmored Target Facing since you acknowledge the Crew is Vulnerable to that attack. You cannot target PRC separate from the vehicle. You can only attack the vehicle and then affect Vulnerable PRC via a General/Specific Collateral Attack. A partially armored vehicle is treated as unarmored if attacked through an unarmored Target Facing and since the crew is Vulnerable to the attack on the vehicle, the vehicle itself must be unarmored against that attack. You seemingly accept all of this right up to the point you think the vehicle cannot be destroyed by Small Arms fire. I wish I could find the words to explain it to you. I really wish I could. -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

Are there really a collection of individual arguments for and against as you say?
Or is it just that most forms of consensus end up with an opinion that the majority of the group contribute to. The opposite of this groupthink would instead be an opinion that is deliberated on by one individual and the majority then accept without contributing.

FYI, I chimed in even before you.
I am not a group and I am quite sure nobody "followed" me.
No herd nor any wolfpack here.

 

[Blaze]

Hello all

Small arms shoots at AFV with unarmored rear turret. If I remember correctly location of hit is determined by IFT DR, but I can't find where it is stated in the rulebook. Can I get some help?

Thanks
Alan

Just to reset to the OP before diving into this rabbit hole further.

Small Arms is not Ordnance and does not determine Hit aspect location as it attacks the entire location. Let's say there is a squad in the same location as the Partially Armored Vehicle. Bot the Vulnerable crew and the Squad are both attacked with the same IFT DR with applicable modifiers. That part is straight forward, and we'll all agree on it. BUT, what about potentially killing the Vehicle?

Index:





Right then, it is treated as an Armored Target useless [Specifically] attacked through a non-armored facing.

Can I specifically attack a vehicle with Small Arms? I don't think so. Since IFT Small Arms is a General Collateral attack. I think the only way is if a Machinegun doing a TK attempt which would be a Specific attack (A9.61 AFV KILL) which leads you through hit location ETC.

I see the only way of killing that Martin with small arms (A7.308) according to 5.311 the only way to do this is by reducing the CE modifier to less than its normal modifier.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Right then, it is treated as an Armored Target useless [Specifically] attacked through a non-armored facing.

Can I specifically attack a vehicle with Small Arms? I don't think so. Since IFT Small Arms is a General Collateral attack. I think the only way is if a Machinegun doing a TK attempt which would be a Specific attack (A9.61 AFV KILL) which leads you through hit location ETC.

"unarmored Target Facing/Aspect". Target Facing is defined (D3.2). Aspect is defined (in the Index, Hit Location as determined by C3.9).



Refer to the vehicle in X3. The vehicle has frontal armor but no side or rear. This AFV is immune to Small Arms from the American squad since the LOF does not cross an unarmored Target Facing. Every other shot has either a hull Aspect, turret Aspect, or both which is unarmored. As such, every other AFV is an unarmored target and could be attacked on the * line of the IFT by the American squad. Smalls Arms attacks everything in the Location that it can hurt, which includes unarmored vehicles. -- jim

Edit to add:

Partially Armored Vehicle (This unit is treated as an armored target unless specifically attacked through a non-armored Target Facing inclusive of Elevation Advantage that reduces its CE DRM to +1)

Every vehicle other than X3 is attacked through a non-Armored Target Facing.

 

[DVexile]

Smalls Arms attacks everything in the Location that it can hurt, which includes unarmored vehicles. -- jim

But we aren’t talking about unarmored vehicles. We are talking about Partially Armored Vehicles. So the general rules for Unarmored vehicles aren’t actually relevant. What matters is when are unarmored rules applied to Partially Armored Vehicles.

What Brian is pointing out, which I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet, is that the definition of Partially Armored Vehicle which tells under which conditions we can treat it as unarmored uses the words “specifically attacked”. Small Arms can’t specifically attack so they don’t get to treat a Partially Armored Vehicle as Unarmored.

Obviously that all hinges on the interpretation of “specifically attacked”.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Referring to a Marder with its T* armor.



The 7-4-7s are attacking through the rear and thus an unarmored Target Facing. All of the 6-6-6 are attacking through an Armorer Target Facing. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

But we aren’t talking about unarmored vehicles. We are talking about Partially Armored Vehicles. So the general rules for Unarmored vehicles aren’t actually relevant. What matters is when are unarmored rules applied to Partially Armored Vehicles.

What Brian is pointing out, which I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet, is that the definition of Partially Armored Vehicle which tells under which conditions we can treat it as unarmored uses the words “specifically attacked”. Small Arms can’t specifically attack so they don’t get to treat a Partially Armored Vehicle as Unarmored.

Obviously that all hinges on the interpretation of “specifically attacked”.

I anticipated that argument And it doesn't say just "specifically attacked". It says "specifically attacked through a non-armored Target Facing" and both those 7-4-7s can draw an LOF through an unarmored Target Facing, specifically the rear "turret/superstructure". And no matter how much armor it has, if it is attacked through an unarmored Aspect in a Target Facing, it is unarmored for the purposes of resolving that attack. -- jim

 

[DVexile]

I anticipated that argument And it doesn't say just "specifically attacked". It says "specifically attacked through a non-armored Target Facing" and both those 7-4-7s can draw an LOF through an unarmored Target Facing, specifically the rear "turret/superstructure". And no matter how much armor it has, if it is attacked through an unarmored Aspect in a Target Facing, it is unarmored for the purposes of resolving that attack. -- jim

As I said, it is down to the phrase “specifically attacked” and what is the intended meaning. The RB is unfortunately frequently sloppy with words that have a particular game meaning but can also come up in regular language.

Playing devil’s advocate there is no reason for the word “specifically“ to even be in the definition unless it is meant in the game terms of “specified target”. For your interpretation simply remove the word “specifically” and the definition is just fine without it. So why did the author go to the trouble of using the word “specifically“? If it means specified target then Small Arms can’t do that. If it is just sloppy wordiness then Small Arms can do that.

Pointing out “through a non-armored Target Facing” follows the phrase “specifically attacked” doesn’t change anything about the presence or lack of the word “specifically”. The rule as you are interpreting it doesn’t need “specifically” to be there.

Personally I lean towards the phrasing in D1.2 meaning the rule is interpreted as you are presenting it. But in fairness the definition of Partially Armored Vehicle says otherwise if taken in game terms and leaning on D5.311 about PRC is fairly weak sauce.

 

[Sparafucil3]

As I said, it is down to the phrase “specifically attacked” and what is the intended meaning. The RB is unfortunately frequently sloppy with words that have a particular game meaning but can also come up in regular language.

Playing devil’s advocate there is no reason for the word “specifically“ to even be in the definition unless it is meant in the game terms of “specified target”. For your interpretation simply remove the word “specifically” and the definition is just fine without it. So why did the author go to the trouble of using the word “specifically“? If it means specified target then Small Arms can’t do that. If it is just sloppy wordiness then Small Arms can do that.

Pointing out “through a non-armored Target Facing” follows the phrase “specifically attacked” doesn’t change anything about the presence or lack of the word “specifically”. The rule as you are interpreting it doesn’t need “specifically” to be there.

Personally I lean towards the phrasing in D1.2 meaning the rule is interpreted as you are presenting it. But in fairness the definition of Partially Armored Vehicle says otherwise if taken in game terms and leaning on D5.311 about PRC is fairly weak sauce.

Consider this situation. You accept the AFV in the I9 is an unarmored target. Why is that different than the Partially Armored AFV in E7? These are functionally the same attack. I don't think leaning on D5.311 is necessary but it is informative. And right now, I am working extra hard to convince you that this is how it is. So as many bullet points as I can point to which all say the same thing is helpful. -- jim