A7.9 Cowering - 'Vehicular Fire'

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
A7.9 states ....Cowering affects all fire except that from a SMC, berserk or Fanatic unit, Fire Lane, IFE, Canister, Aircraft, British Elite and First Line units, Finns, Sniper, ordnance, OBA, or any form of vehicular fire.

Is passenger fire from a halftrack considered 'vehicular fire'?
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Reading through D6 Passengers and Riders are not part of the vehicle and therefore would not be 'vehicular fire', but MMC firing from a vehicle. Also when Passengers fire vehicular MGs (i.e. US M3A1 HT) that fire would be subject to cowering.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I am of the opinion that PRC can be considered immune to cowering as they follow broad vehicular fire principles (bounding fire, motion fire, etc.).
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I guess this would be a good one for Perry to officially clear up. For the moment, I am satisfied that passenger/rider fire is not "vehicular" in nature.

While the term has no definition in game terms, many functions of ASL vehicles are specifically labelled as "vehicular" in Chapter D. This includes "vehicular" movement, covered arcs and, somewhat relevant, "vehicular MG/IFE fire." OTOH, the rules for passengers and riders are kept separate, and are nowhere described as vehicular. The primary denoter of an ASL vehicle is their use of MPs instead of MFs. The Passenger/Rider rules scrupulously maintain that such units continue to expend MFs.
 
Last edited:

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
4,162
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I found no relevant Q&A. The term "vehicular fire" is not in the index. I recommend sending it to Perry.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
FYI this has been asked on Game Squad going back aways... with most of the usual heavyweights weighing in. My opinion of the consensus: 1) Passengers (otherwise able to cower) can cower. 2)Rulebook could be clearer.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Reading through D6 Passengers and Riders are not part of the vehicle and therefore would not be 'vehicular fire', but MMC firing from a vehicle. Also when Passengers fire vehicular MGs (i.e. US M3A1 HT) that fire would be subject to cowering.
I am of the opinion that PRC can be considered immune to cowering as they follow broad vehicular fire principles (bounding fire, motion fire, etc.).
I will side with EagleIV on this one.

However, I agree that this is a good one to send in for a 'Perry Sez'.

von Marwitz
 

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Reading through D6 Passengers and Riders are not part of the vehicle and therefore would not be 'vehicular fire', but MMC firing from a vehicle. Also when Passengers fire vehicular MGs (i.e. US M3A1 HT) that fire would be subject to cowering.
I agree that the 'intent' seems to differentiate PRC from 'vehicular fire' but I can't see anything that is definitive in D6.
 

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
FYI this has been asked on Game Squad going back aways... with most of the usual heavyweights weighing in. My opinion of the consensus: 1) Passengers (otherwise able to cower) can cower. 2)Rulebook could be clearer.
I read through the older discussion. Curiously, the discussion seemed to quickly assume that PRC fire was not 'vehicular' and the discussion focussed more on whether a FG cowered when their were non-cowering units involved and secondly, who got a Final Fire or not.
 

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
I will side with EagleIV on this one.

However, I agree that this is a good one to send in for a 'Perry Sez'.

von Marwitz
I originally posted in the Perry Sez area but the post was moved (which is not an issue for me).
I agree it needs a 'Perry Sez' determination. A future errata could include a definition of 'vehicular fire'.
Thanks to all who offered comment!
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I originally posted in the Perry Sez area but the most was moved (which is not an issue for me).
I agree it needs a 'Perry Sez' determination. A future errata could include a definition of 'vehicular fire'.
Thanks to all who offered comment!
Please note, those questions posted in "Perry Sez" sub forumare answers to questions submitted to him through the MMP web site link as he does not answer questions from that site here on GSF directly. One may include a reference to a thread here on GSF as a supplement to the question you send the Perry as additional information, but do not expect a response if posted only here.
 
Last edited:

buser333

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
940
Reaction score
419
Location
central WI
I will add my two cents and say that I believe Passengers/Riders would be subject to cowering. "Vehicular MG Fire, Movement, Sized Entrance, and Target Hits" are all covered in the index. These all clearly relate to a vehicle. I don't see that "Vehicular Fire" would be any different.
 

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Please note, those questions posted in "Perry Sez" sub forumare answers to questions submitted to him through the MMP web site link as he does not answer questions from that site here on GSF dfirectly. One may include a reference to a thread here on GSF as a supplement to the question you send the Perry as additional information, but do not expect a response if posted only here.
Question has been submitted to MMP.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
I am of the opinion that PRC can be considered immune to cowering as they follow broad vehicular fire principles (bounding fire, motion fire, etc.).
I tend to agree. PRC are not infantry and consequently would fall under the category of "any form of vehicular fire".

I also agree the rules can and should be more definitive.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
I tend to agree. PRC are not infantry and consequently would fall under the category of "any form of vehicular fire".

I also agree the rules can and should be more definitive.
JRV pointed out on Discord that A7.9 refers to "inexperienced Personnel" cowering...

There's no reason to say Personnel except to include PRC... to not say Infantry (which would indeed exclude them)... A7.9 could say things a little louder but in my opinion using Personnel does say it: Cowering is not limited to Infantry... it includes PRC.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
JRV pointed out on Discord that A7.9 refers to "inexperienced Personnel" cowering...

There's no reason to say Personnel except to include PRC... to not say Infantry (which would indeed exclude them)... A7.9 could say things a little louder but in my opinion using Personnel does say it: Cowering is not limited to Infantry... it includes PRC.
A very good point, but no more justified by the rules than calling fire from PRC "vehicular"...IMMHO of course.

A rule in desperate need of clarification.

If I wuz involved in a game and needed a ruling before a PerrySez could be issued, I would propose rolling a die odd/even to decide until a definitive ruling was available.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If the question is sent to MMP, we could see an official erratum or a clarification published for the rules.
There quite clearly is an ambiguity that must be solved.
 

Peter J

Member
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
69
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Fire from Passengers/Riders is not considered vehicular fire for purposes of Cowering.

....Perry

MMP

Perry,
There has been a recent, brief discussion on GSF for the subject question. The consensus is that PRC fire is not vehicular but a definitive clarification would be welcomed. 'Vehicular fire' is not specifically defined in ASLRB.
There is also an older GSF discussion but again no definitive answer.

The question...

A7.9 states ....Cowering affects all fire except that from a SMC, berserk or Fanatic unit, Fire Lane, IFE, Canister, Aircraft, British Elite and First Line units, Finns, Sniper, ordnance, OBA, or any form of vehicular fire.

Is passenger (PRC) fire from a halftrack considered a form of 'vehicular fire'?
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,537
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
Fire from Passengers/Riders is not considered vehicular fire for purposes of Cowering
But Crew?

It's like spelling Elvis's middle name wrong on his tombstone. It TASKS me.
 
Top