AFV concealment loss / Area fire

[Martin]

AFV concealment loss question:

AFV A is firing its gun at range 4 at AFV B which is BU, concealed and in a stone building. AFV B doesn’t fire back in order to keep concealment for as long as possible.

Question:
1. Do I use Area Fire or vehicle target type?

2. What are the modifiers for that shot?

3. What result is necessary to make AFV B loose concealment? (the concealment loss table case A states: “is a vehicle hit by ordnance” but what does “hit” exactly mean?)

--------------------------------------------------

Area fire question:

There seems to be a contradiction in the rules regarding Area Fire. C.4 states that:
“Ordnance Area Fire never never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target’s status uses the Case K (+2 vs. concealed target) To Hit DRM (6.2).”

But at the same time rule C3.33 states that:
“All units hit by HE are attacked on the IFT using a single DR and half the FP of the firing ordnance”.

Is the effect halved or not and are the two above rules contradictory?

Thanks
Martin

 

[Reepicheep]

3. What result is necessary to make AFV B loose concealment? (the concealment loss table case A states: “is a vehicle hit by ordnance” but what does “hit” exactly mean?)

I'm no good on the first two questions (I'll save them for someone who knows more than me), but I think I can help with your 3rd question since I was just reading the RB and came across your case as I read...

A12.2 "... A concealed vehicle in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit (regardless of range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table."

Note also, continuing in A12.2 "... Any Target Size DRM for a concealed vehicular/Gun target is not revealed until after the To Hit DR is made - and then only if it turns a miss into a hit (or vice versa). If a just-revealed Small Target Size (+1 or +2) DRM turns a hit into a miss, the vehicle/Gun does not lose its concealment."

 

[Minaya]

Area fire question:

There seems to be a contradiction in the rules regarding Area Fire. C.4 states that:
“Ordnance Area Fire never never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target’s status uses the Case K (+2 vs. concealed target) To Hit DRM (6.2).”

But at the same time rule C3.33 states that:
“All units hit by HE are attacked on the IFT using a single DR and half the FP of the firing ordnance”.

Is the effect halved or not and are the two above rules contradictory?

Thanks
Martin

I am not an expert, but I think that you are mixing two concepts: Area Fire and Area Target Type.

Rule C3.33 refers to Area Target Type; when using it you check the effect on target in the IFT halving the FP.

Ordnance Area Fire (used against concealed units for example) uses, for ordenance the full FP unlike the small arms area fire. In Ordenance Area Fire, instead of halving FP you use the case K on the To Hit table as stated on C.4.

 

[Jazz]

AFV concealment loss question:

AFV A is firing its gun at range 4 at AFV B which is BU, concealed and in a stone building. AFV B doesn’t fire back in order to keep concealment for as long as possible.

Question:
1. Do I use Area Fire or vehicle target type?

2. What are the modifiers for that shot?

3. What result is necessary to make AFV B loose concealment? (the concealment loss table case A states: “is a vehicle hit by ordnance” but what does “hit” exactly mean?)

--------------------------------------------------

1. You can use either ATT (Area Target Type) or VTT (Vehicle....). As with most decisions, there is a trade off. If you shoot ATT, it will be easier to hit the vehicle, but more difficult to obtain a "kill". In my mind, the biggest reason to use ATT is the fact that ATT vs a ? target allows you to place an acquistion marker on that hex which you can convert to a non-area acquisition as soon as the target become un-?.

2. ATT: +2 (concealment) +1(BU) (and I believe that the +3 TEM will apply to the results roll if a hit is secured?)
VTT: +2(concealment)+1(BU)+3(TEM)

3. A "hit" is I guess best described as a successful TH result? Anything than has you roll for an effect (no matter how unlikely a result) following a TH roll.

Area fire question:

There seems to be a contradiction in the rules regarding Area Fire. C.4 states that:
“Ordnance Area Fire never never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target’s status uses the Case K (+2 vs. concealed target) To Hit DRM (6.2).”

But at the same time rule C3.33 states that:
“All units hit by HE are attacked on the IFT using a single DR and half the FP of the firing ordnance”.

Is the effect halved or not and are the two above rules contradictory?

Thanks
Martin

The effect is halved. I would have to take a look at the rules you quote to explain how and why this is and is consistent, but I have gone through this in the past.

 

[Jazz]

Area fire question:

There seems to be a contradiction in the rules regarding Area Fire. C.4 states that:
“Ordnance Area Fire never never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target’s status uses the Case K (+2 vs. concealed target) To Hit DRM (6.2).”

But at the same time rule C3.33 states that:
“All units hit by HE are attacked on the IFT using a single DR and half the FP of the firing ordnance”.

Is the effect halved or not and are the two above rules contradictory?

Thanks
Martin

As someone has already stated, there seems to be confusion between Area Target Type and Area Fire.

Essentially, the effect is that ATT fired at a concealed target is only halved and not quartered. ATT automatically halves the firepower of the ordnance. The additional effect of the concealment (it's gotta be harder to hit a concealed unit, right?) when you shoot ordnance as ATT is the Case K TH modifier as opposed to halving of firepower (again, making it quartered) as is the case with small arms vs a ? target.

 

[Chris Milne]

AFV A is firing its gun at range 4 at AFV B which is BU, concealed and in a stone building. AFV B doesn’t fire back in order to keep concealment for as long as possible.

Question:
1. Do I use Area Fire or vehicle target type?

You've got to use the VTT if you want to fire AP.
C3.31: "VTT can be selected only when firing at a specific vehicle (even if HIP/concealed) and must be used when firing at an AFV [EXC: firing HE or Smoke when using the Area Target Type]."

2. What are the modifiers for that shot?

Assuming no movement modifiers and that AFV A is CE:
VTT: +5 (Cases K and Q)
ATT: +2 (Case K)

Case P (Target Size modifier) will apply only if it would change a hit to a miss (or vice versa).

It appears that you're better off firing VTT, since this at least gives you the opportunity for ROF, and you probably have a better chance of achieving a kill. However, if you miss, concealment will only be gained if using the ATT.

3. What result is necessary to make AFV B loose concealment? (the concealment loss table case A states: “is a vehicle hit by ordnance” but what does “hit” exactly mean?)

As others have said, a hit on the TH table.

There seems to be a contradiction in the rules regarding Area Fire. C.4 states that:
“Ordnance Area Fire never never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target’s status uses the Case K (+2 vs. concealed target) To Hit DRM (6.2).”

But at the same time rule C3.33 states that:
“All units hit by HE are attacked on the IFT using a single DR and half the FP of the firing ordnance”.

Is the effect halved or not and are the two above rules contradictory?

Others have covered this, too, but what the hell...

This was deliberately designed to confuse people. There is no real connection between Area Fire (familiar from the IFT) and the use of the Area Target Type. I've not met an ASLer who didn't quite get this at first!
For ordnance, the former is generally enforced on you by your target's status, while the latter is generally a choice made by you (unless firing a mortar or Smoke).
Area Fire could come into play when, for example, firing at a concealed target, or firing at a Dashing target. Each time it's applicable, a +2 DRM is added to the TH roll (only).
The Area Target Type gives you a better chance to hit a well-protected target (especially infantry), at the cost of effectiveness, as any hit suffers halved FP, and you lose any chance of getting rate of fire.
The two are not mutually exclusive - Area Fire TH penalties can be applicable to the Area Target Type.

Hope that helps...

 

[box car willy]

No one has mentioned the statement about the AFV being inside a stone building when calculating the to hit. Wouldnt the stone building add a +3?

Plus the BU status of the target should have no bearing on the shot. Only if the firer was BU would you add the +1

bcw

 

[Jazz]

No one has mentioned the statement about the AFV being inside a stone building when calculating the to hit. Wouldnt the stone building add a +3?

Plus the BU status of the target should have no bearing on the shot. Only if the firer was BU would you add the +1

bcw

The TEM of the target unit only applies to ITT or VTT shots. Not ATT shots, which is what was being talked about(? It's been a while since I looked at that thread).

If anybody said the BU state of the target affected the TH, there were incorrect. The BU state of the firing unit affects the TH. Of course, the BU state of the target may have an impact on the effects if a hit is secured.

 

[hydrou]

Only a small remark:

How did that AFV get into that building?

 

[Jazz]

Only a small remark:

How did that AFV get into that building?

Probably drove into it? Just a guess. Someone else put him in the building so you'll have to ask them.

Even if he fails the bog check he still get the TEM TH DRM.

 

[da priest]

Only a small remark:

How did that AFV get into that building?

Drove in or setup in, but must be a CT AFV to do either..

 

[hydrou]

Sure, probably set up in the building.
The question wasn´t that serious anyway.