C3.41 ITT buildings and "devoid of such" DRMs

[Pyth]

C3.41 The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack an unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such. [EXC: The Infantry Target Type (3.32) attacks a specific Location rather than an entire hex, and cannot be used to attack an AFV.]

I want to prepfire a stopped BU 88LL ITT at a ground level wooden building location which contains no apparent enemy but which may contain a HIP Gun. What are the DRMs for hitting the building (to create potential rubble/flame) and what are the DRMs for hitting a HIP'd emplaced Gun should it exist there?

My best attempt is:

vs Building location -- +2 TEM. +1BU. And that's it. (I do not believe Case K applies, the building location is not concealed and neither ITT nor ATT qualifies as (C. .4) Ordnance Area Fire.)

vs. HIP Gun-- +2 (from emplacement or tem, pick one) +1BU +2 Case K and +1 Target size (it's a 57LL AT). If Hit the Gun's crew will still benefit from the Gunshield if hit from within CA of Gun.

Does this sound right? I don't see how else.

 

[jrv]

I want to prepfire a stopped BU 88LL ITT at a ground level wooden building location which contains no apparent enemy but which may contain a HIP Gun. What are the DRMs for hitting the building (to create potential rubble/flame) and what are the DRMs for hitting a HIP'd emplaced Gun should it exist there?

My best attempt is:

vs Building location -- +2 TEM. +1BU. And that's it. (I do not believe Case K applies, the building location is not concealed and neither ITT nor ATT qualifies as (C. .4) Ordnance Area Fire.)

vs. HIP Gun-- +2 (from emplacement or tem, pick one) +1BU +2 Case K and +1 Target size (it's a 57LL AT). If Hit the Gun's crew will still benefit from the Gunshield if hit from within CA of Gun.

Does this sound right? I don't see how else.

From the q&a:

C6.2 If using Area Target Type at an empty hex, would Case K (concealed target) apply?
A. Yes, unless firing SMOKE. [Compil5]
C6.2 If a gun fires at a "vacant" location searching for HIP units, does it pay the +2 To Hit DRM for a concealed unit?
A. Yes. [Compil9]
C3. & C6.2 Assume the following situation: A Mortar is 6 hexes away from a building hex that contains a concealed enemy unit. No To Hit DRM apply, so the Basic To Hit Number for the Area Target Type is 7 and vs. the concealed unit Case K (+2) applies. So I need a 5 or less to hit the concealed unit. If I roll a 6 or 7 I miss the concealed unit but do I still “hit” the building so I can roll an effects DR vs. it to possibly rubble it ?
A. No.

The case K TH DRM reflects both targets that are not exactly known (concealed/HIP) and also "targets" that are not concealed (buildings, woods, brush, grain, etc) but are also not really "targets" and so would not likely be attacked by an actual, on-the-ground commander. Some player must be up to some kind of sleaze, like trying to rubble something to block up movement for units that haven't even entered from off board yet or start a fire. The rules allow it, but it is penalized.

In this case you have a potential additional modifier, gun size. If the TH DR is the magical number I believe you could allow the building to be hit by not revealing the gun size or you could reveal the gun size to turn a hit into a miss. But on this last I am not 100% certain.

JR

 

[Pyth]

Well %$#! I'm going to have to issue a retraction about this on Hong Kong Wargamer's Discord where I got this rather wrong. A couple clarifications requested -- The Q&A only mentions ATT... I presume ITT is the same. And this:

C6.2 If a gun fires at a "vacant" location searching for HIP units, does it pay the +2 To Hit DRM for a concealed unit?
A. Yes. [Compil9]

is saying the +2 Case K is applied for hits against the HIPsters as well, not saying there is an additional +2 on top of the Case K applied for firing at an "empty" building.

You are saying, with your final point, that if a known target is missed there is no IFT roll against the terrain regardless of what the DRMs that caused the miss apply to..... so for example a big gun shooting at a moving vehicle, there is no chance of creating shellholes if the vehicle is missed, nor is there any mechanism to target only the hex when there is a known target in the hex. One cannot choose to say my primary target is the hex and any attack on the vehicle would be collateral? None of this is obvious to me from C3.41

Finally, I like my way of resolving this better than the official way and am pouting most unpleasantly and will probably throw my mac and cheese, bowl and all, off the high chair and onto the floor any moment now...?

 

[Eagle4ty]

Well %$#! I'm going to have to issue a retraction about this on Hong Kong Wargamer's Discord where I got this rather wrong. A couple clarifications requested -- The Q&A only mentions ATT... I presume ITT is the same. And this:



is saying the +2 Case K is applied for hits against the HIPsters as well, not saying there is an additional +2 on top of the Case K applied for firing at an "empty" building.

You are saying, with your final point, that if a known target is missed there is no IFT roll against the terrain regardless of what the DRMs that caused the miss apply to..... so for example a big gun shooting at a moving vehicle, there is no chance of creating shellholes if the vehicle is missed, nor is there any mechanism to target only the hex when there is a known target in the hex. One cannot choose to say my primary target is the hex and any attack on the vehicle would be collateral? None of this is obvious to me from C3.41

Finally, I like my way of resolving this better than the official way and am pouting most unpleasantly and will probably throw my mac and cheese, bowl and all, off the high chair and onto the floor any moment now...?

This is one rule area that has always bothered me and has led to some strange and inconsistent rules interpretations. C3.41 states: "The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack a unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such. [EXC: The Infantry Target Type (3.32) attacks a specific Location rather than an entire hex, and cannot be used to attack an AFV.]", but does not really lay out exactly how this is accomplished. The Q&A is really the only place that states one must apply the +2 Case K modifier to fire on such locations but leaves one somewhat in a quandary as when to apply it. For instance; Does one apply Case K to firing on a bridge devoid of other targets on that bridge? Some have intimated that one does NOT apply Case K in such an instance because the bridge rules mention being able to target a bridge by ordnance and that acquisition can be gained on the bridge location, whereas others have ruled because the bridge does not contain a usual target (i.e. Infantry, manned vehicle, etc.) that Case K would certainly have to be applied (same for Unmanned-Gun/Wreck, etc.?) just as a building location devoid of those usual targets. It is only pure conjecture what was to be implied by the rule initially. Was it to allow one to hit the building devoid of any known targets and yet be able to miss any HIP targets as the notation of "infantry-other" may imply on the TH TABLE; Hit the building on the original TH DR but only hit any HIP targets by applying case K; Totally miss both the targets and the building because one must add Case K to the TH DR? It is currently ruled that only the last is the accepted interpretation though in my mind the intention is somewhat less clear (but I suck it up, and go with the flow).

Now as jrv has intimated it may be even less certain if a hit/miss was achieved on a location with only a HIP unit because it is not certain if one must add the target size TH modifier as well (I think 'yes' is the accepted conclusion) in order to attain a hit on the location as well. So in essence one may get a hit on a building (or other seemingly vacant location) easier or with more difficulty based upon the target size of the unknown target within the location. To me this is very strange that a 3-5 man HIP HS would be easier TH than a 5-7 man crew of a small target HIP ATG and that because of the small size of the ATG the location could be missed entirely, but what the heck-it's the game.

This conundrum popped up I believe because ATT was introduced in ASL (not fully present in SL) and perhaps the designers figured in most instances that ATT would/should be used in most instances of firing at seemingly vacant location without fully comprehending the eventual complications and anomalous applications of its inclusion in the present rules.

 

[jrv]

When you start looking at the TH process, there are a number of questions that arise. The ones you present are good ones. When does case K apply is the most common question I have. I lean toward applying case K when there isn't a KEU, which means it applies to bridges, wrecks, unmanned guns, etc. Since wrecks are treated as if firing on the vehicle [D10.1], that may be wrong for that particular case. Bridges are another odd cases.

To me this is very strange that a 3-5 man HIP HS would be easier TH than a 5-7 man crew of a small target HIP ATG and that because of the small size of the ATG the location could be missed entirely, but what the heck-it's the game.

This is a "problem" that is not really related to concealment. First a "crew" is a very variable sized thing, in spite of it being a single entity in ASL. A crew of a Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP may only be two men, while a crew of a 17 cm K18 is ten men and the crew of a M1 8-in Howitzer is fourteen men. Then again a halfsquad may represent a fairly wide range of values depending on nation and circumstances. It's all abstract. Second if you malf and X your fine emplaced gun, your crew loses its emplacement, its gunshield (if any) and its size DRM. Again, concession to playability. And while we're ranting, why is a crew manning a 37mm ATG a small target while a crew manning a Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP is a normal-sized target? The INF is not half the size of the ATG.

JR

 

[Stewart]

....and you can fire on wrecks to FLAME them up...