Armoured Assault and Delay MP's

[hayman]

I have Russian AFV with 9 Red MP's (KV-2's) who wish to use Armoured Assault with squads (in Platoon Movement).
As the tanks can only go as far/fast as the foot infantry (6 Open Ground hexes in this case, as the squads are going CX); and I wish to keep the tanks In Motion at the end of their Movement Phase.

Can I declare that the AFV are using 2MP's for each of the first 3 hexes entered, and then 1MP for the last three. Or do the AFV have to stop, use delay MP, then start again (risking Immobilisation) to move towards the 6th hex so as to be eligible to stay In Motion?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Can I declare that the AFV are using 2MP's for each of the first 3 hexes entered, and then 1MP for the last three.

Yes you can.

D2.18:
"A vehicle is not prohibited from expending more MP to enter a hex than the minimum required, and may, as it enters a new hex, declare a higher-than-necessary MP expenditure."

 

[hayman]

Yes you can.

D2.18:
"A vehicle is not prohibited from expending more MP to enter a hex than the minimum required, and may, as it enters a new hex, declare a higher-than-necessary MP expenditure."

Thanks Klas,
I don't like stopping those beasts until they're in the best possible position, then they can just stay where they are and shoot, not much kills a KV-2 in '41.

 

[von Marwitz]

not much kills a KV-2 in '41.

Curiosity does while venturing forward more often than might be expected...

von Marwitz

 

[Perry]

I have Russian AFV with 9 Red MP's (KV-2's) who wish to use Armoured Assault with squads (in Platoon Movement).
As the tanks can only go as far/fast as the foot infantry (6 Open Ground hexes in this case, as the squads are going CX); and I wish to keep the tanks In Motion at the end of their Movement Phase.

Can I declare that the AFV are using 2MP's for each of the first 3 hexes entered, and then 1MP for the last three. Or do the AFV have to stop, use delay MP, then start again (risking Immobilisation) to move towards the 6th hex so as to be eligible to stay In Motion?

Just don't move multiple stacks of Infantry with the Platoon (unless Human Waving).

 

[Larry]

And you can't expend more MP than necessary when bypassing the second hexside ... because you are not entering a new hex.

 

[Robin Reeve]

And you can't expend more MP than necessary when bypassing the second hexside ... because you are not entering a new hex.

If the hex on the other hex has a bypassable obstacle, you may declare that you are bypassing that hex and declare more MP than necessary...

 

[Sparafucil3]

And you can't expend more MP than necessary when bypassing the second hexside ... because you are not entering a new hex.

The rule does say this, but I wonder if this is a mistake. A vehicle is considered a moving target if it bypasses another hex-side without leaving it's current hex.

It should be obvious by now, but I hate inconsistencies in the rules. It makes them really hard to get right out around the edges like this. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

The rule does say this, but I wonder if this is a mistake. A vehicle is considered a moving target if it bypasses another hex-side without leaving it's current hex.

It should be obvious by now, but I hate inconsistencies in the rules. It makes them really hard to get right out around the edges like this. -- jim

Interesting that there is Q&A on this so it has been looked at.

D2.18 Is a vehicle prohibited from expending more MP than the minimum required, to enter a new hexside of its current hex while using VBM?
A. Yes it is so prohibited. {1}

Guess I get to keep hating this one for a while -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The rule does say this, but I wonder if this is a mistake.

Could very well have been overlooked - since the rule for it was first introduced in Chapter F in regards to avoid stiring up Vehicle Dust (and I don't think VBM could be relevant for that situation).

 

[Sparafucil3]

Could very well have been overlooked - since the rule for it was first introduced in Chapter F in regards to avoid stiring up Vehicle Dust (and I don't think VBM could be relevant for that situation).

It came from the GS Q&A so it is a pretty recent Q&A. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I was actually thinking of the rule itself - not the Q&A.