Are these Armored Cupola conclusions correct?

aloha_brian

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
105
Reaction score
42
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Based the last sentence of D9.5 we had the following conclusions
1) when the armored cupola shoots the CMG they are not subject to cowering.
2) shooting the CMG will cancel an existing acquisition if firing at a different location.
3) firing the CMG does not 'fix' the CA (of the MA) for the remainder of the fire phase.
also 4) from the third sentence of D9.54 the CMG can be used to lay a fire lane.
Are these all correct?
 

ctewks

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
291
Reaction score
77
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
D9.5 says in part... An Armored Cupola is considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below or by SSR.

So I agree that 1, 2 and 3 are correct assumptions

#4 though - D9.51 says a Cupola is manned by an Infantry Crew, which would be able to create a Fire Lane. However, the Fire Lane rule says you must use a SW MG. So it's a little weird. I think the SSR that defines the specs on the Cupola would have to specify a SW MG of some sort to be able to lay a fire lane.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,682
Reaction score
1,107
Country
llLithuania
Interesting.....HOB has answered the question generally while replying to a question on BRV....and they reference official Q&A that I do not seem to find listed in the compiled file. From the compiled Q&A:
19 BRV RePh 8.621 Can Armored Cupolas lay
down Fire Lanes?
A. No. As per the last sentence of D9.5 (i.e.,
“Armored Cupolas are treated as an Immobile
tank except as modified below”). Since vehicles
may not lay down Fire lanes, neither may
Armored Cupolas. (Note: please see 1996 ASL
Annual for D9.51 errata.) [HoB1.5]
after a bit more searching, the following is found:
A9.222 & D9.5 May an Armored Cupola armed
with a MG lay a Firelane?
A. Yes. But Dug-In Tanks may not lay a Fire
Lane. [Letter62]
Might take a dice roll between two reasonable opponents as to just which ruling stands?
 
Last edited:

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,695
Reaction score
746
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Mostly all correct. As an armored cupola is equivalent to an immobilized AFV, 1 and 2 is correct.

For 3, however, since any Gun has its CA fixed if fired from woods/building, so would an armored cupola if set up in woods (it can't set up in a building).

4) This one is news to me... Since AFV MGs cannot place FLs, neither should an armored cupola. Moreover, A9.22 states that FLs are an ability granted to SW MGs. But D9.54 suggests that the distinction is that the manning crew is Infantry... Anyway, the statement seems clear that armored cupolas can place a FL. But if a game saw an ex-AFV crew manning an armored cupola, would it then be unable to place a FL? I suspect so!
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,695
Reaction score
746
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Rats... others are too fast for me! But thanks for the Q&A citation, Jazz. So is the ruling official or not?
 

ctewks

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
291
Reaction score
77
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Mostly all correct. As an armored cupola is equivalent to an immobilized AFV, 1 and 2 is correct.

For 3, however, since any Gun has its CA fixed if fired from woods/building, so would an armored cupola if set up in woods (it can't set up in a building).

4) This one is news to me... Since AFV MGs cannot place FLs, neither should an armored cupola. Moreover, A9.22 states that FLs are an ability granted to SW MGs. But D9.54 suggests that the distinction is that the manning crew is Infantry... Anyway, the statement seems clear that armored cupolas can place a FL. But if a game saw an ex-AFV crew manning an armored cupola, would it then be unable to place a FL? I suspect so!

Binchois - can you point out a rule reference for your comment on #3 please?
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,695
Reaction score
746
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Binchois - can you point out a rule reference for your comment on #3 please?
C5.11 "...Furthermore, once a Gun (other than a mortar) fires from woods/building/rubble it may continue to fire during that phase from that hex only inside its current CA"
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,695
Reaction score
746
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I do not believe firing a cmg is the equivalent of firing a gun.
No, I didn't say it was. That does bring up a weird rules gap (?), however. That an armored cupola (or any AFV) apparently can fire its CMG from woods and then change CA for a MA shot, but not the other way around (MA first, CMG second). Nor can a SW MMG/HMG fire then change CA. What's so special about the CMG?
 

aloha_brian

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
105
Reaction score
42
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Well, you've all hit on almost all of the difficulty we had with armored cupola rules. An additional question was can the crew cower if they shoot the CMG. We concluded that since the armored cupola is equivalent to a dug-in tank that the crew can not cower.

We found the two unofficial Q&As but wondered if there was any resolution. Or, does D9.54 allow an SSR to let the MG place a fire lane for an armored cupola but not for a dug-in tank.

We found these rules either incomplete or confusing and if I use again I agree with Jazz that I'd get resolution before choosing sides in a scenario.

Brian
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,695
Reaction score
746
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Well, you've all hit on almost all of the difficulty we had with armored cupola rules. An additional question was can the crew cower if they shoot the CMG. We concluded that since the armored cupola is equivalent to a dug-in tank that the crew can not cower.

We found the two unofficial Q&As but wondered if there was any resolution. Or, does D9.54 allow an SSR to let the MG place a fire lane for an armored cupola but not for a dug-in tank.

We found these rules either incomplete or confusing and if I use again I agree with Jazz that I'd get resolution before choosing sides in a scenario.

Brian
Well...since there is ambiguity here, I can only speak for my opinion. But given the rules as is, I would completely agree that the armored cupola's crew cannot cower while firing the CMG. I would also side with allowing a FL as the rules clearly imply that that is allowed (strange as it seems).

Unless I am missing something, the current mysteries which need official clarification are:

1) should a armored cupola be allowed to place a FL? (seemingly yes).

2) Does firing any CMG from woods/building/rubble restrict field of fire as with a MA in accordance with C5.11? (seemingly no).
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
10,533
Reaction score
3,865
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Unless I am missing something, the current mysteries which need official clarification are:

1) should a armored cupola be allowed to place a FL? (seemingly yes).

2) Does firing any CMG from woods/building/rubble restrict field of fire as with a MA in accordance with C5.11? (seemingly no).
IMHO the answers should be:

1) Yes.
2) No.

As for 1) I can't remember ever having played cupolas not being able to place FLs, which seems to be supported indirectly by the rules and by a Q&A. Good enough for me.

As for 2) I have not looked into this, but by gut feeling, my thoughts are this:
All right, so they dig up a hole, get some steel and concrete there, install a cupola and then suddenly find out: "Damn! Those trees and branches are all over the place. Me can't turns the cursed thing!" Does not make sense to me. Whereever such a thing is built with great effort, it would not be neglected to provide it with a field of fire - or a least the possibility to turn uninhibited.

von Marwitz
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,371
Reaction score
2,148
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I would agree. An armourer cupola never gets concealment since it is assumed that the majority engineering to emplacement it means it is known to both sides. A dug in tank not so much.
 

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
438
Reaction score
76
Country
llUnited States
Well...since there is ambiguity here, I can only speak for my opinion. But given the rules as is, I would completely agree that the armored cupola's crew cannot cower while firing the CMG. I would also side with allowing a FL as the rules clearly imply that that is allowed (strange as it seems).

Unless I am missing something, the current mysteries which need official clarification are:

1) should a armored cupola be allowed to place a FL? (seemingly yes).

2) Does firing any CMG from woods/building/rubble restrict field of fire as with a MA in accordance with C5.11? (seemingly no).
I think D9.54 and the official Q&A are dispositive on #1 (YMMV of course).

The BRV Q&A is arguably obsolete because it interprets a rule for purposes of a third party product issued on the basis of the 1st Edition of the Rulebook. That Edition did not have a Section D9.54, nor are Fire Lanes mentioned in that Edition's version of 9.5. And I don't have any problem seeing an armored cupola with just a MG as a SW either, at least for Fire Lane purposes, as from the Glossary a "SW" is any weapon depicted on a 1/2" counter.

BTW, you suggest above that an ex-vehicle crew could man an armored cupola during the course of a game. Is that possible given D9.51 says "it can hold no other unit," that is, other than an Infantry (not vehicular) crew counter?
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,371
Reaction score
2,148
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
A vehicular crew counter is still an infnatry crew is it not? It's not an inherent crew.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,139
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A vehicular crew counter is still an infnatry crew is it not? It's not an inherent crew.
It is a dismounted vehicular crew counter that is Infantry. It is not an Infantry crew counter [index, A1.123]. You see the difference, right?

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,378
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
#3. Note also that firing at a concealed unit, HIP unit, or firing at an empty hex or a blocked LOS hex to determine LOS with either the MA or CMG would also fix the TCA for that phase.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,378
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Based the last sentence of D9.5 we had the following conclusions
1) when the armored cupola shoots the CMG they are not subject to cowering.
2) shooting the CMG will cancel an existing acquisition if firing at a different location.
3) firing the CMG does not 'fix' the CA (of the MA) for the remainder of the fire phase.
also 4) from the third sentence of D9.54 the CMG can be used to lay a fire lane.
Are these all correct?
Note also, #2 is incorrect as well. You could potentially have an Area Target Type Acquisition on a hex that contains a Pillbox, subsequently fire the CMG at the Pillbox and then change the Area Target Type Acquisition to a 1/2" Acquisition and fire the MA at the now acquired Pillbox (another Location but still the same hex) or continue to fire Area Target Type at the hex still applying the acquired status in either case (C6.521 & C6.52).
 
Top