C13.4 BAZ use

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
538
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Can someone confirm this sequence of events (2 noobs playing each other):

American 747 fires its BAZ at a concealed stack in a wooden building 2 hexes away. Base TH# is 8. DRM is +2 for concealment and +2 for TEM.

I rolled 2,1 for a total of 7. A hit.

Roll was less than one half of the TH# so a critical hit.

BAZ FP is 8 so next I roll on the IFT on the 16 column with 0 DRM.

Did I get that right? You only pay the ? or TEM penalty once is the rule of thumb I use to remember when to look for DRM/column shifts.

(Rolled a 2,1 for 1KIA.)
 

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,246
Reaction score
22
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
Hi Zoltan,

Since BAZ fire on their own fire table, I'm not sure if you are firing on the "Infantry Target Type" table and therefore qualify for a CH for rolling less than half of the TH#. I seem to recall needing snakeyes for a critical hit before with a BAZ. But I could be wrong on this and so will watch the replies.

One thing though... even if a CH, the CH itself is only applied against the unit(s) in the stack that get selected according to Random Selection. The others just get the standard 8FP attack.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
28
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
zgrose said:
Can someone confirm this sequence of events (2 noobs playing each other):

American 747 fires its BAZ at a concealed stack in a wooden building 2 hexes away. Base TH# is 8. DRM is +2 for concealment and +2 for TEM.

I rolled 2,1 for a total of 7. A hit.

Roll was less than one half of the TH# so a critical hit.

BAZ FP is 8 so next I roll on the IFT on the 16 column with 0 DRM.

Did I get that right? You only pay the ? or TEM penalty once is the rule of thumb I use to remember when to look for DRM/column shifts.

(Rolled a 2,1 for 1KIA.)
This would not be a CH. Original DR was a 3. Final DR = 3 +4 = 7. 7 is not less than half of 8.

If you had rolled a Original DR of 2, then you would have had a possible CH if you rolled a 4 or less on the subsequent dr.

Additionally, if you had scored a CH you would have had to roll random selection to determine which unit(s) were affected. The affected units would take 16 -2 drm while the unaffected units would take 8 + 0 drm.
 

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,246
Reaction score
22
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
WaterRabbit said:
If you had rolled a Original DR of 2, then you would have had a possible CH if you rolled a 4 or less on the subsequent dr.
Hmmm... I think this confirms my rule of thumb. If firing a BAZ against infantry, an Original DR is practically needed to get a result given there are always positive modifiers from the TEM they are receiving.

ie. even at range 1, if you roll an Original DR of 3, TEM will be at least +2 (wooden building or wall) and therefore modified DR is 5 and not less than half the TK#.

So for all intents and purposes, my rule of thumb is that an Original DR of 2 is needed to at least have a chance to get a CH with the BAZ.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
538
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
This would not be a CH. Original DR was a 3. Final DR = 3 +4 = 7. 7 is not less than half of 8.
Ah, I missed that it is Original TH at the top of the paragraph and Final (emphasis theirs) in the middle of the paragraph. OK. 8 FP.

Additionally, if you had scored a CH you would have had to roll random selection to determine which unit(s) were affected. The affected units would take 16 -2 drm while the unaffected units would take 8 + 0 drm.
Actually, that was more the thrust of my question. My opponent wanted to confirm that his concealment and TEM had no effect on the IFT roll (barring the reversal for a CH).
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,496
Reaction score
2,057
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Firing a BAZ is NOT firing on the Infantry Target Type TH table.
C 3.7 is clear that LATW critical hits occur only after a 2 DR (as per Area or Vehicle Target Type TH Tables).
I think this was clarified in the 2nd edition of the rules (and in some errata of the 1st edition).

So, rolling a "3" does not result in a CH...
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
10
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
To sum it up:

A Baz is using its own TH table, not the ITT, so CH is only scored on 2.

However, had it been on the ITT, WaterRabbit's CH calculation would be correct.

You are also correct that TEM and Concealment is only added on the TH, not on the resulting IFT roll, C.3 says:
"No TEM, Hindrance or other DRM ever affects both the To Hit DR and the resulting Effects DR; it affects only one or the other [EXC: CH: 3.71]."
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
538
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Robin said:
Firing a BAZ is NOT firing on the Infantry Target Type TH table.
C 3.7 is clear that LATW critical hits occur only after a 2 DR (as per Area or Vehicle Target Type TH Tables).
I think this was clarified in the 2nd edition of the rules (and in some errata of the 1st edition).

So, rolling a "3" does not result in a CH...
Double duh on my part. :argh:

You'd think they could've put one more line in C13.42 "An Original TH DR of 2 results in a Critical Hit (3.7)."
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
28
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
I was more concerned with him getting the normal CH calculation correct. Not all LATW follow the only a 2 CH rule. Both PFs and ATRs (20 mm) can achieve a CH by using the Infantry Target Type rules, though with difficulty. :)

A large number of people calculate ITT CHs improperly -- they figure the To Hit number by reversing the drms. For example, with a Base TH # of 8 and a +2 DRM many people will say I need a 6 to hit and get a CH on a 3 or less. However, if calculated properly, only a 2 will achieve a CH and only on a subsequent dr of 4 or less (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 which is not less than half of 8, thus the subsequent dr).

Because there is always a +2 drm (at least) to a HEAT shot at Infantry the only on a 2 CH rule is almost moot. Against a moving target you need a base 9 or better and against a stationary target you need an 11 or better for this rule to have any practical effect.

This is also another example of a poorly written rule. The phrase "A CH also occurs" leaves open a different interpretation -- especially when coupled with C3.32. It is only C13.42 that weakly supports the CH only on a 2 interpretation. In other words, you have to really go looking for this interpretation. It is also contradictory with the rest of the mechanics.

It is unfortunate that the rulebook rewrite did not go through a stronger editing process. My advisor in grad school would have marked up at least half the rulebook in red ink.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,496
Reaction score
2,057
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
WaterRabbit said:
It is unfortunate that the rulebook rewrite did not go through a stronger editing process. My advisor in grad school would have marked up at least half the rulebook in red ink.
Yes, it is a problem! I am sure the lack of "pedagogy" made some newcomers shy to try the game - when I acquired RB and BV in 1986, I was glad to have a "SL & C°" experience that had given me some feeling of the game (and I had to learn the game alone and play it solo for about five years, until I made contact with the "Tactiques" team and with some gamers in Switzerland)...
The Index can be usefull, but is not as exhaustive as one would like (e.g. did not help me finding the rule that said that unpossessed SW could not gain nor retain concealment - I found nothing, neither under "SW" nor "Concealment" entries).
There would be a very interesting use of an "electronical Rule Book", which would contain hypertext links and would open "windows" placing rules in parallel, etc.
I would really appreciate having on the same page all the rules pertaining to SMOKE and Wind effects!:halo:
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
1,176
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
Not all LATW follow the only a 2 CH rule. Both PFs and ATRs (20 mm) can achieve a CH by using the Infantry Target Type rules, though with difficulty.
I think that PFs use their own TH table as well--the infamous 10-8-6-4 hit table.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
28
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
C13.22 Range Effects: The Basic TH# (10) of a PF/PFk attack is modified by a -2 for each hex of range to the target.

That doesn't seem to be a table to me, but it would be more consistent to call it a table to keep it in line with the other HEAT SWs.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,496
Reaction score
2,057
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The problem with this discussion about the PF, is that it certainly does not use the Infantry Target TH Table - thus the Infantry Target CH rules do not apply (note, also, that even without a CH, only one target is usually hit - Random selection possibly leading to more, of course - so it is already quite a special weapon).
So, if one says the PF has no defined TH table, one places it in a rules' "no man's land"...
Better consider that the rules give a PF TH table, explaining it without drawing it (I presume that if PF existed in SW counter form, they would have a TH table printed behind the counter, as BAZ, PIAT and PSK)...
 
Top