Jay White
my sh*t is so tight
The amount of discussion on this scenario definitely leads me think its a winner.
Can't wait to look over the actual scenario card!!
Can't wait to look over the actual scenario card!!
Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.apbills said:Agreed. With just one real AT weapon, it needs to be reserved for vehicles until it whittles them down. For this reason I don't like it in a PB, that limits its usefulness, especially since it is only a +3 TEM. A stone building will protect it the same, and it can change CA.
.
Jay White said:The amount of discussion on this scenario definitely leads me think its a winner.
Can't wait to look over the actual scenario card!!
True enough; I once scored a CH on 1-5-7 PB with an ATR. The defense crumbled like a sand castle to the tide. Falling Like Dominos was the scenario, almost a foreshadowing!Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.
Yes but there is a minimum TK number requirement. I'm NRBH but I think it is >2x the NCA TEM of the pillbox. That means you need a minimum TK of 15 to use AP versus grey pillboxes.David Reinking said:Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.
sure, it's B30.35: "30.35 AP: Neither the CA nor the NCA Defense Modification nor other TEM applies to an AP/APCR/APDS attack against a pillbox/its-contents, provided the Basic TK# of that ammo type being fired is > twice the Defense Modification that would otherwise apply. An AP/APCR/APDS hit on a pillbox is resolved using the normal HE-Equivalency rules (C8.31)."AdrianE said:Yes but there is a minimum TK number requirement. I'm NRBH but I think it is >2x the NCA TEM of the pillbox. That means you need a minimum TK of 15 to use AP versus grey pillboxes.
Anyone got the exact rule quote?
...which is ultimately better for the situation under discussion, as it removes the threat of 20mm AP from the Toldis and Csabas from ricocheting around the inside of the pillbox absent the CA/NCA mods.No mods for range penetration are applicable
For 37mm or better, HE Equivalency would be a 2FP flat.Tork said:A hit would be resolved on the 1FP flat table for AP HE equivalency.
The rule states specifically the Basic TK#.
Unfortunately, none of the Hungarian vehicles have this ability. Their TK #s are too low -- remember that some of the MAs are just ATRs.David Reinking said:Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.
I am still waiting for AOO, too, but have used and suffered from the above-noted tactic.
I would prefer the AT gun in Orchard or Brush (if applicable) personally.
Unfortunately the 50% that think it is balanced have not played it yet. :laugh:wrongway149 said:I always say that a great scenario is one in which nobody thinks its balanced, but 50% say it favors one side and 50% say it favors the other.
The exceptions are for minefields (which attack you) and roadblocks (which can have LOS ramifications); wire is not mentioned. Wire itself is a Fortification counter, not a Location. Being above or below a wire counter has no bearing on location in the hex. I'm sorry, but I think you're still on shaky ground by excluding wire from A12.33. By the tack you're taking, neither would panjis be held to A12.33; I just don' t see where your basis is. I'm not trying to be argumentative, question your manhood or virility, only why you think wire is excepted from A12.33Look, if A12.33 truly applied to all fortifications there would be no need to have the exception for crossing a roadblock. The exception proves the rule; COWTRA back at you. The rule does not specify Location therefore don't assume that it does.
Fair enough, an EXC in the intro to the ASLRB; funny I never caught that beforeThe problem with COWTRA;NOWTDSP is that people never include the second clause. Additionally, COWTRA can easily be used by both points of view to support their arguments. Finally, my point of view is consistent with both E1.16 and G.2 (which references E1.16), so if it makes you feel better you can invoke HANRCATP or E.2 (which sort of violates logic in any event).
The only 'fuzzy' area of this that I can see is if the units are not actually moving below the wire counter due to no Enemy LOS, would the CX prohibition actually apply?However, it don't think it matters for this scenario as it was pointed out that the Yugo cannot really take advantage of this because of the whole Double Time problem.
Don't know the OOB, as I am still sans-AOO.WaterRabbit said:Unfortunately, none of the Hungarian vehicles have this ability. Their TK #s are too low -- remember that some of the MAs are just ATRs.
I wasn't 'arguing' it at all, just thinking out loud. I agree not paying the MF/MP does not mean it isn't happening (like being able to move INTO an entrenchment in this case), I only wondered if the CX prohibition would still apply. Given what the mechanic implies, I'd tend to allow CX movement through with no LOS; I'm only trying to acknowledge a possible counter point up front.apbills said:I don't see how you could argue they are not moving below the wire, regardless of LOS or MF expenditure.
Not paying MF/MP to do so does not mean you do not do it.