C3.3 Passenger fires PIAT
- Thread starter CHERDE
- Start date
Tater
Elder Member
It would be subject to any of the TH modifiers that Bounding Fire would receive. Any of the C-C4 modifiers might apply depending on what situation applied. The only one's that wouldn't ever apply would be:
case A...no turret
case E...same hex is N/A for LATW
case F...you can't IF LATW
case I...you must be CE as a passenger to fire
The "NT +3".
This is obvious if you use my IIFT(M)QRDC, since Case C there says:
"Case B plus [MA AAMG: 0] [Stabilized Gun: +1] [T/ST: +2] [NT/PRC: +3]"
It is not so obvious with the standard charts, but can be found in the C5.3 example: "a NT Gun Type or any Passenger must add a +5 DRM (2 + 3)."
Bob Miller
Senior Member
It is not so obvious with the standard charts, but can be found in the C5.3 example: "a NT Gun Type or any Passenger must add a +5 DRM (2 + 3)."
Ah-Ha!!! I knew that rule had to be somewhere. Buried in an example, of course, that should have been obvious. My only real issue w/ the ASL rulebook is the occasional rule buried in an example.
Years ago playing "Dorset Woods in the Rain" w/ Matt Book he fried one of my Tigers w/ a passenger toting PIAT riding in a carrier. That double small target was impossible to hit and after scouring the rules we agreed that the BF shot would only be at +2 not +5 as it says here. I'm sure he would have beaten me like a rented mule like he normally does even if we found this particular rule.
Thanks for posting the question and supplying the answer. Much appreciated before ASLOK
Ah-Ha!!! I knew that rule had to be somewhere. Buried in an example, of course, that should have been obvious. My only real issue w/ the ASL rulebook is the occasional rule buried in an example.
Years ago playing "Dorset Woods in the Rain" w/ Matt Book he fried one of my Tigers w/ a passenger toting PIAT riding in a carrier. That double small target was impossible to hit and after scouring the rules we agreed that the BF shot would only be at +2 not +5 as it says here. I'm sure he would have beaten me like a rented mule like he normally does even if we found this particular rule.
Thanks for posting the question and supplying the answer. Much appreciated before ASLOK
Jazz
Inactive
In this instance, correct.
To be technically correct, Case E does not apply for LATW that have their own unique TH table....PF, PSK, PIAT, BAZ (off the top of my head).
ATR would be an LATW for which Case E would apply as that weapon uses the standard ordinance TH table.
Just had to pick the nit.....
Tater
Elder Member
Actually (going after some really small nits here), Case E is N/A for anything other than a "Gun"(includes MA):
"C5.5: Any Gun firing at a target within its own hex must add the +2 DRM of Case E."
So any ordnance other than a "Gun"(5/8" counter weapon) is NA for case 'E'. For example, a MG SW firing as ordnance (TH) at a same hex/location target wouldn't be penalized by case 'E'.
Jazz
Inactive
Touche'.....
However, an MA ATR/MG is able to use IF and is penalized by Case E, because MAs firing as ordnance are by definition Guns.
Tater
Elder Member
Yep, the term "Gun" incompasses any weapon firing as ordnance from a 5/8" counter...which would include any vehicle MA firing as ordnance.
Jazz
Inactive
No doubt about it....I need a rule book at work.....:OHNO:
