C6.2 Case K

[Reepicheep]

If Perry is wrong, surely that just means Perry is wrong. No reason why if Perry makes a mistake we have to pretend that he didn't make a mistake, especially given his answer lacks any explanation.

 

[Treadhead]

In order to Rubble a building, one has to roll on the IFT.

In order to roll on the IFT, one has to have first "hit" a unit in a hex/Location.

In order to hit a hex/Location that is apparently devoid of enemy units, one must add Case K (i.e., as if HIP units were there.)

This is true even if the opposing side does not have HIP capability (for any units, including Guns, e.g.). In other words, even though you as the omniscient player knows there are no units there, and could not possibly be a unit there, your units must behave as if it is trying to hit a unit it cannot see.

I.e., your cardboard soldiers must fire at the hex as if they think there are hidden units there. I.e., they must apply Case K in order to 1) first actually score a "hit" on the Infantry Target Type, in order to 2) roll on the IFT, in order to 3) check for Rubble.

Checking for Rubble cannot occur unless you first have hit any potentially hidden units in the hex, even if you know there cannot possibly be any there.

It makes perfect sense to me, because of the various requirements for IFT,etc. This was hugely debated on the ASLML.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Robin Reeve]

But, if you have Known enemy units in the building, you don't need to apply case K to hit the building... ASL logics don't seem as logical as what one could think.

 

[Ole Boe]

Hi,

I didn't mean to start a debate over this again, as it had been discussed a lot on the ASLML, and Perry's answer was clear. I don't like Perry's answer in this case, but I fully accept it and play by it...

 

[Larry]

From a realism standpoint, the case K is defensible ... and also irrelevant.

Not to fuel a settled debate, but C3.41 does not answer the question of DRM. Case K appears to apply, or at least a good argument for it exists.

As to overturning the Perry Sez, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said:

We are not unaware that we are not final because we are infallible; we know that we are infallible only because we are final.

Perhaps you can convince Perry otherwise but reasonable minds can differ as to the reasons for applying case K to an "empty" hex, from both the rules standpoint and from a simulation standpoint. Seems so settled as to not worth the debate.

 

[Ole Boe]

Perhaps you can convince Perry otherwise but reasonable minds can differ as to the reasons for applying case K to an "empty" hex, from both the rules standpoint and from a simulation standpoint. Seems so settled as to not worth the debate.

I have no intention of even trying to convince Perry in this matter. I think the rules would be (slightly) better the other way around, but it's far from important for me, and will use my convincing power against Perry for more sinister matters. :devious:

 

[Larry]

We agree Ole. I would prefer that you spend your precious personal capital on important issues that require attention ... like the absurd PM sleaze. Start, rotate, move 1 hex, rotate, OK that is impulse 1 ... just not what the rules intended. Focus your attention on the truly sinister evil that lurks within the dark recesses of the black book of sleaze and ferret them out for excorcism. :devious: :dead:

 

[Jon]

As Bruce said, you have to roll on the IFT to try and rubble a building, which means applying Case K against an empty hex to score a hit, even if there is no possibility of it containing HIP units.
While it can be argued that it is unrealistic in that it makes an empty building harder to hit then one containing a Known enemy unit, it is no more unrealistic then the case of making the building easier to hit if negative TH DRM apply (eg FFNAM, Overstacked).
Or do you want the situation where you can hit a unit in a building due to negative TH DRM applying to the target unit but (using the reverse of the argument that Case K should not apply to an empty building) you have not actually hit the building itsself?

Perry's answer makes perfect sense to me

 

[Ole Boe]

As Bruce said, you have to roll on the IFT to try and rubble a building, which means applying Case K against an empty hex to score a hit, even if there is no possibility of it containing HIP units.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, since the rules explicitely says that a building (and not only units) is a valid target for TH purposes. But I see the point and has accepted the ruling.

While it can be argued that it is unrealistic in that it makes an empty building harder to hit then one containing a Known enemy unit, it is no more unrealistic then the case of making the building easier to hit if negative TH DRM apply (eg FFNAM, Overstacked).
Or do you want the situation where you can hit a unit in a building due to negative TH DRM applying to the target unit but (using the reverse of the argument that Case K should not apply to an empty building) you have not actually hit the building itsself?

Yes, that's exactly what I think makes sense. A moving unit shouldn't make the building easier to hit and a concealed shouldn't make it harder to hit.

The possibility of hitting units without hitting the building may seem weird at first glance, but does make sense when you consider what a hit actually represents. It doesn't represent any hit, but a hit that is well-placed enough to actually have the possibility of making damage. If this hadn't been true, then the DRM for hitting units in a stone or a wooden building would be the same. They are exactly as difficult to hit, but it's more difficult to hit well enough to make damage to units in a stone building.

Similarily, it's easy to imagine that you hit well enough to make damage to the units, but not to the building - i.e. hitting the units while missing the bulding.

 

[Larry]

The underlying issue with the building hit is that it should not be easier or harder to hit, it should be harder to rubble. Perhaps a V3 could bring the building rubble rules in line with the bridge destruction rules:

Only HE attacks can destroy a building. Direct Fire attacks use the infantry Target Type To Hit Table. If using the Vehicle Target Type for Direct Fire vs a vehicle, there can be no effect vs the building. The same Original DR used on the IFT to resolve attacks against units on the building is used against the building itself by adding a +3 TEM for a stone building or a +2 TEM for a wooden building [EXC: Set DC; A23.71]. This TEM is applicable only to the building itself-not to the units in it. Only a Final KIA result will destroy the building in the target hex. All units/equipment in a destroyed building are eliminated.

Just a thought.