Armored assault and OVR
- Thread starter GVL
- Start date
Generally, your infantry units cannot enter the Location of enemy units, so they cannot enter the Location where the OVR is performed - unless the enemy is a single SMC and you perform Infantry Overrun (A4.15) in addition to the normal AFV Overrun, or if your infantry are conducting HW or Banzai.
I also doubt that you can split up the Armored Assault and let the AFV alone enter the enemy Location, since the AFV can move no further than if accompanied with the infantry. Its not crystal clear whether "no further" only counts MF, or whether the Locations must be accessible to the infantry as well. But IMHO, the text supprts the latter (that the Infantry must actually be able to move to that Location) and not the first, although the first may seem most realistic.
I also doubt that you can split up the Armored Assault and let the AFV alone enter the enemy Location, since the AFV can move no further than if accompanied with the infantry. Its not crystal clear whether "no further" only counts MF, or whether the Locations must be accessible to the infantry as well. But IMHO, the text supprts the latter (that the Infantry must actually be able to move to that Location) and not the first, although the first may seem most realistic.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,633
- Reaction score
- 5,611
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
I'd say Ole Boe is quite right.
But if Infantry is conducting Human Wave, would it be possible?
And following this possibility, could a Human Wave combine Armored Assault with AFV platoon movement (having several stacks moving under AFV platoon cover)?
I haven't had time to look through the RB to see if that could be done... :roll:
But if Infantry is conducting Human Wave, would it be possible?
And following this possibility, could a Human Wave combine Armored Assault with AFV platoon movement (having several stacks moving under AFV platoon cover)?
I haven't had time to look through the RB to see if that could be done... :roll:
It would be possible if the Ingantry is conducting a HW, yes.
D14.2 says "Platoon movement may be used in conjunction with Human-Wave/Armored-Assault.", so combining them is allowed.
It lacks any explanation of how to do it, so any combinations (one AFV with a HW, one Infantry stack with one AFV that is part of a platoon or a platoon moving with a HW) are up to you, including getting all restrictions/cower correct
I have contacted Perry Cocke about rewriting all Impulse Movement rules though, so I guess this can be clear within a year or two.
D14.2 says "Platoon movement may be used in conjunction with Human-Wave/Armored-Assault.", so combining them is allowed.
It lacks any explanation of how to do it, so any combinations (one AFV with a HW, one Infantry stack with one AFV that is part of a platoon or a platoon moving with a HW) are up to you, including getting all restrictions/cower correct
I have contacted Perry Cocke about rewriting all Impulse Movement rules though, so I guess this can be clear within a year or two.
Jazz
Inactive
I don't have a rule book with me, but the commom interpretation that I've seen is that the AFV cannot move any further (in hexes) than the infantry could have moved with it. I don't believe there is a strict requirement that the infantry accompany the AFV?Ole Boe said:
Under this interpretation, the infantry could stop before using all of the MP available to it and the AFV could continue and perform an OVR using 1/4 MF to perform the overrun, but only entering 1 hex.
Jazz
Chas Argent
Play to the end.
Yeah, what Jazz said...
Pitman
Forum Guru
I think overrun is possible.
No, there's no such strict requirement. The correct phrase (from D9.31) is "that AFV cannot move farther than if it were accompanied by that same Infantry through the move"Jazz said:
And since that Infantry couldn't enter the Location in question, the AFV cannot move there either.
Yes, I understand, but that's not what the rule says. The rules says that the AFV can only enter Locations that the Infantry could also have entered.
You may think that the intention was to only prevent it to move further that the Infantry had MF for, but as it is written, it makes no distinction between Locations that cost too many MF and Locations that are otherwise prohibitet for the Infantry (as in this case due to an enemy unit).
I do think it would make sense with such a distinction, and thereby allow this OVR if the Infantry had MF to enter the Location if it had been unoccupied, and I would be happy with such an errate in the next Journal, but until then, the rule is pretty clear.
Jazz
Inactive
Hmm, an interesting reading of the rule. Not quite the way the rule has been interpreted generally here in the States as far as I have seen at ASLOK and in various travels to different ASL venues.Ole Boe said:
I personally would have difficulty refuting your interpretation. That being said, I disagree with it. Maybe I'll pore over the book at home....
Sounds like Perry Sez material....
Treadhead
Senior Member
An OVR is possible, IMO.GVL said:
According to D9.31 [2nd Ed], the Infantry does not have to end the MPh in the same hex with the AFV, and there is no requirement that the AFV's movement must be accompanied by the Infantry throughout.
I do not see the phrase "... that AFV cannot move farther than if it were accompanied by that same Infantry throughout the move..." as a prohibition on the AFV based upon the Infantry's movement requirements.
There are no other restrictions or conditions listed, and it is not required of the AFV that the Infantry actually enter the hex. Therefore, it can only be taken as a hypothetical situation dealing with the Infantry's MF and the current terrain conditions. It is a question of distance: how far could that Infantry move?
The presence of an enemy unit in the hex may alter the abilities of the Infantry unit, but it does not limit the AFV's abilities nor does it alter the distance calculation using the Infantry's MF capability and the terrain conditions. Otherwise, you would be prohibiting the AFV from entering the enemy unit's hex as well. Incorrectly, IMO.
I see no restriction on the AFV's movement based on the Locations an Infantry may enter. The AFV may spend its MP as it will, as long as it does not move farther (in distance) than the Infantry hypothetically could.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Treadhead
Senior Member
Infantry are not required to enter the OVR Location, nor are the Infantry required to accompany the AFV throughout: "... even if the Infantry fails to end its MPh in the same hex with the AFV."Ole Boe said:
There is no restriction on splitting up the stack. The only requirement for Infantry is that they start the MPh beneath the AFV. Plus, see above.Ole Boe said:
"Farther" pertains to distance. In ASL, distance is measured in hexes.Ole Boe said:
The Location contain enemy units in the example is Accessible to the Infantry. Please see the Index entry for "Accessible" [2nd Ed].
What you said in the latter was that the Location "must be accessible to the infantry as well". In the original example, the Location containing the enemy unit is Accessible.Ole Boe said:
Either way, there is no requirement that the Infantry must enter the Location during the MPh.
I disagree with the conclusion that the AFV could not OVR a Location that is Accessible to the Infantry.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Treadhead
Senior Member
But didn't you say earlier:Ole Boe said:
You've gone from "not crystal clear" to certain that you are correct.Ole Boe said:
Okay.
I believe that you have contradicted yourself in earlier arguments by declaring that the Location must be Accessible. The fact is, the enemy hex is Accessible to the Infantry in this example, which may not bear on whether the Infantry can enter it during the MPh. Using that argument, the AFV should be allowed to OVR.
At any rate, I think your arguments have included conclusions that are not supported by the ASLRB, IMO.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Larry
Elder Member
D9.31 (v.1) is clear that the infantry and the AFV can split and also that the AFV can only reach as far as the infantry could have moved. The rules do not prohibit OVR so Bruce appears to be correct.
Query: Infantry and AFV move using 3 MF, the infantry unit could only move one more hex and leave both it and the AFV with no more movement capacity. Since the OVR costs 1/4 FRU of the MP, no OVR would be possible, right?
Alternatively, the infantry and AFV moved 2 hexes in OG, the AFV could OVR only in the next OG hex in order to still have 1/4 of the MP available to conduct the OVR.
The discussion appears to have lost the limitation on the AFV movement and the additional cost of 1/4 of the movement capacity in order to OVR. Therefore, OVR is possible only if the AFV reaches the OVR hex after using 3/4 of the movement capacity of the infantry underneath (3 for MMC and 4 MF for leader or CX mmc, 6 MF for cx leader etc).
Query: Infantry and AFV move using 3 MF, the infantry unit could only move one more hex and leave both it and the AFV with no more movement capacity. Since the OVR costs 1/4 FRU of the MP, no OVR would be possible, right?
Alternatively, the infantry and AFV moved 2 hexes in OG, the AFV could OVR only in the next OG hex in order to still have 1/4 of the MP available to conduct the OVR.
The discussion appears to have lost the limitation on the AFV movement and the additional cost of 1/4 of the movement capacity in order to OVR. Therefore, OVR is possible only if the AFV reaches the OVR hex after using 3/4 of the movement capacity of the infantry underneath (3 for MMC and 4 MF for leader or CX mmc, 6 MF for cx leader etc).
Treadhead
Senior Member
Why would that be?Larry said:
Say the Infantry and AFV use Armored Assault to move three Open Ground hexes. The Infantry has expended 3 MF, and the AFV has expended 4 MP (1 to Start, and 1 for each of the three hexes).
Assuming that the AFV started with 14 MP, it would still have 10 MP remaining, to expend in any manner that it wished, within the constraint of "cannot move farther..."
There is no such requirement that the AFV must expend 1/4 of its Movement Allowance for each MF expended (for instance, as in Loading, Unloading, and carrying PRC). The only restriction is one of distance, IMO.Larry said:
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
One thing to add about an example like this.
Should the Infantry declares now going CX (after 3MF), I think the AFV could move not just one hex, but two Open Ground hexes. Is this correct?
And what is more, suppose the Infantry breaks after expending its 3MF, and so, can't go CX. Is there anything forbidding the AFV to move 5 Open Ground hexes? Its accompaning Infantry just "failed to end its MPh (CX) in the same hex as the AFV": these 5 OG hexes are the hexes that the stack could have moved together throughout the MPh.
That is why I think that the wording of "That AFV cannot move farther than if it were accompanied..." deserves some kind of errata to clarify
Pitman
Forum Guru
Ole writes:
"And since that Infantry couldn't enter the Location in question, the AFV cannot move there either. "
The rules say nothing about taking enemy units into account when determining whether or not they could enter the location--the rules are talking in terms of movement points. By adding the wrinkle of enemy units, you are definitely needlessly complicating things. That would mean, for example, that a tank *could* overrun an enemy SMC, but not an enemy squad, or that it could overrun a disrupted squad, but not a broken squad.
I don't care for this interpretation at all.
"And since that Infantry couldn't enter the Location in question, the AFV cannot move there either. "
The rules say nothing about taking enemy units into account when determining whether or not they could enter the location--the rules are talking in terms of movement points. By adding the wrinkle of enemy units, you are definitely needlessly complicating things. That would mean, for example, that a tank *could* overrun an enemy SMC, but not an enemy squad, or that it could overrun a disrupted squad, but not a broken squad.
I don't care for this interpretation at all.
Treadhead
Senior Member
Yes, IMO.Yarlis said:
Absolutely. The restriction is a hypothetical; had the Infantry not broken and subsequently declared CX, it would have had 5 MF. The AFV could move as if it was accompanied by Infantry with 5 MF.Yarlis said:
Personally, I believe it is not so bad, but I certainly wouldn't claim that it could not benefit from better or more explicit wording. Any clarification would help, if it truly is a clarification and not just some more obfuscation...Yarlis said:
At any rate, you appear to have gotten the gist of it according to how I interpret it.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Fred Ingram
Average Player
This is the type of discussion you get when you try to nit-pik a rule to death. The rulke is specifically designed to limit the ability of an AFV to go tearing off on its own after it has just accompanied infantry most or all of ithier movment factor. It is just foolish to allow the infantry to move 4 MP though open gound with the afv and then let the AFV move another 12 MP (assuming a 16 MP afv). The rule is specifically designed to make sure that if the armored assault is occurring, the tank can go no furhter than the infantry could have gone.
Treadhead
Senior Member
There is no nit-picking here. It is a simple discussion about what the rule actually says. I have seen an opinion in this discussion that I believe is incorrect, and I -- for one -- an expressing my view about what the rule means.Fred B. Ingram said:
Sorry, that's not nit-picking.
Who has said otherwise?Fred B. Ingram said:
Please look at the rule again. It says absolutely nothing -- anywhere within the paragraph -- about the number of MP that the AFV may expend. Nor does it impose any kind of fractional MP expenditure based on any MF an accompanying Infantry has spent.Fred B. Ingram said:
Well that is correct, and who has said otherwise?Fred B. Ingram said:
As long as the AFV does not exceed this distance limitation (which is based upon the Infantry's potential MF expenditure), the AFV can expend its MP any way it pleases. There is no prohibition on MP expenditure.
It just can't move -- in hexes -- any farther than any potential accompanying Infantry could.
Is this nit-picking?
Bah. This is just taking it by the book.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Fred Ingram
Average Player
Someone earlier in the discussion tried to make a case that the tank could not overrrun because the acccomanying infantry could not enter a hex with the enemy. I was trying to make the point that the rule is all about restricting the available MP of the vehcile (since it is supposed to be doing a simultaneous act of protecting it's own infantry) and NOTHING else.