AAMG and CA DRM

PaKman

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
71
Reaction score
28
Location
Oslo, Norway
Country
llFrance
Hi all,

A CE AFV changes VCA & TCA to take multiple shots during enemy MPh. Last enemy move is a squad running ADJACENT. The AAMG fires: does it have to pay the CA DRM from the previous CA changes?

Rules references: D5.11 ("Should they elect to pivot their vehicular counter instead so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM apply to the first shot of all vehicular weapons (see also D3.51)")

D3.51 details the case of TCA change (for turret-mounted weapons) and VCA change (for bow-mounted weapons). But an AAMG is neither bow- nor turret-mounted (D1.83). Based on the D3.51 example, I am 90% sure that no CA DRM ever applies to AAMG shots.

What do you think?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,274
Reaction score
4,623
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Per D1.83, (most) AAMGs are considered neither bow- nor turret-mounted. I believe all the rules on DRM say the CA change DRM applies only to turret- or bow-mounted weapons.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,581
Reaction score
2,731
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Agree with JR (which is easy...). Unless there's something special in the vehicle notes about that AAMG of the given vehicle, you don't pay any CA change DRM for AAMG.

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I seem to remember a Q&A that addresses this. Yes, I think this is it:
D1.83, D3.12 & D3.51 (a) If an AFV changes its TCA/VCA to fire some weapon, and then wants to fire its AAMG, does the AAMG then have to pay the Case A DRM?
A. No.
(b) May an AFV voluntarily change its VCA/-TCA when firing its AAMG (by paying Case A DRM)?
A. No, unless firing an AAMG with a restricted CA (e.g., U.S. vehicle Note 30) that has to change its TCA/VCA to fire.
(c) If an AFV has an AAMG with a restricted CA, does it have to pay Case A DRM for the AAMG fire? Does it matter if the AAMG is the MA?
A. No. No.
(d) May an AFV change the TCA or VCA at the end of a friendly fire phase in which the AFV may fire its AAMG?
A. No. [Compil3]
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,581
Reaction score
2,731
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Maybe I might have misunderstood something, but the Q&A you quoted says that if you have not fired your AAMG before that this will not allow you a 'free' VCA/TCA change at the end of the friendly fire phase.

I was saying that there is no CA DRM to an attack of an AAMG no matter in which direction this AAMG has to turn in order to fire at its desired target.

Two different things.

von Marwitz
 

PaKman

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
71
Reaction score
28
Location
Oslo, Norway
Country
llFrance
Von Marwitz, point (a) of the Q&A answers the original question.

Thanks to all,

PaKman
 

B.Lizt

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
318
Reaction score
22
Location
South of Oslo
Country
llNorway
Ok, Arnaud, I stand corrected. :nod:

My interpretation of adding CA DRM (in our case NT) to the AAMG arose from D5.11 saying "Should they elect to pivot their vehicular counter instead so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM apply to the first shot of all vehicular weapons" - and the AAMG is definitely a vehicular weapon.
I see now that the example in D3.51 clarifies that the PzIV "decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons" - thus only "CA-restricted weapons" are penalized, not "all vehicular" as stated in D5.11.
Your argument is furter strengthened by D1.83 stating that "The AAMG FP may be used either within or outside of its vehicular current TCA/VCA at no penalty".
Finally - and here i learned something I have also played wrong the whole time - we have the C5.3 example stating that a vehicular MA AAMG would add only a +2 DRM (Case B) for bounding (first) fire and no Case C (for Stabilized/T/ST/NT) - actually making it better than a stabilized gun for ToHit-purposes in stopped BFF situations. That might be handy with a German SPW hunting those thin skinned early war Russian tanks or in a GunDuel....

It´s a good thing I made some tactical errors in our scenario, and you won even if I made the wrong call on this rule...


However the following quoted Q&A by Eeagle4ty is incorrect
(c) If an AFV has an AAMG with a restricted CA, does it have to pay Case A DRM for the AAMG fire? Does it matter if the AAMG is the MA?
A. No. No.
as D1.83 fully contradicts it saying:
"AAMG with restricted CA (e.g. German StuG IIIG or French H35) must pay the applicable Case A penalty for changing TCA/VCA as appropriate"

Regards
Olav
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Ok, Arnaud, I stand corrected. :nod:

My interpretation of adding CA DRM (in our case NT) to the AAMG arose from D5.11 saying "Should they elect to pivot their vehicular counter instead so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM apply to the first shot of all vehicular weapons" - and the AAMG is definitely a vehicular weapon.
I see now that the example in D3.51 clarifies that the PzIV "decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons" - thus only "CA-restricted weapons" are penalized, not "all vehicular" as stated in D5.11.
Your argument is furter strengthened by D1.83 stating that "The AAMG FP may be used either within or outside of its vehicular current TCA/VCA at no penalty".
Finally - and here i learned something I have also played wrong the whole time - we have the C5.3 example stating that a vehicular MA AAMG would add only a +2 DRM (Case B) for bounding (first) fire and no Case C (for Stabilized/T/ST/NT) - actually making it better than a stabilized gun for ToHit-purposes in stopped BFF situations. That might be handy with a German SPW hunting those thin skinned early war Russian tanks or in a GunDuel....

It´s a good thing I made some tactical errors in our scenario, and you won even if I made the wrong call on this rule...


However the following quoted Q&A by Eeagle4ty is incorrect
(c) If an AFV has an AAMG with a restricted CA, does it have to pay Case A DRM for the AAMG fire? Does it matter if the AAMG is the MA?
A. No. No.
as D1.83 fully contradicts it saying:
"AAMG with restricted CA (e.g. German StuG IIIG or French H35) must pay the applicable Case A penalty for changing TCA/VCA as appropriate"

Regards
Olav
It is an old Q&A from the Romanowski compilation, so very probable that the rule has been changed in some fashion as currently presented. Good Catch!
 
Top