Can an ATR use intensive fire if it is MA and/or SA?

[Will Fleming]

SW cannot use intensive fire and ATR's are listed as SW in chapter C, but does that apply to an ATR if:

1. It is vehicular mounted and listed in chapter H as removable?
2. It is listed as the vehicle's MA?
3. It is listed as the vehicle's SA?

Thanks much!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Old official Q&A:

C5.6 May a vehicular-mounted MG/ATR/light-MTR use Intensive Fire?
A. Yes, if it is MA. Such a weapon is considered a Gun (C2.1). [An93a; An95w; An96]

 

[Pyth]

Old official Q&A:

C5.6 May a vehicular-mounted MG/ATR/light-MTR use Intensive Fire?
A. Yes, if it is MA. Such a weapon is considered a Gun (C2.1). [An93a; An95w; An96]

And SA as well I would think.

 

[Binchois]

And SA as well I would think.

If the old Q&A is accurate, I agree with you since the answer cited C2.1, stating that the reason a SA ATR can Intensive Fire is because "it is a Gun."

Quite a few rules explicitly treat a MA and a SA the same - mentioning both possibilities within the rule - especially rules which have the MA/SA acting as "a Gun" (EX: Bore Sighting, Acquisition). A few rules, however, avoid mentioning the SA which leaves me to assume that the SA wasn't so intended.

In particular, an AFV's MGs cannot attempt a TH/TK on opposing armor unless it is the vehicle's Main Armament:

D3.54 vs AFV: A vehicular-mounted MG may not attempt a To Kill attack unless it is the vehicle's MA. Another MG may never substitute for the listed MA of a vehicle.​

The highlighted sentence seems, in this case, to explicitly deny Gun-ness to a SA MG.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The highlighted sentence seems, in this case, to explicitly deny Gun-ness to a SA MG.

Agree. But I also don't think there are any (at the moment) MG SA in the ASL system at the moment.

 

[Eagle4ty]

In a reality a CMG is considered secondary armament of an AFV and is commonly refered to as such, however in the ASL world this is not the case as the term is more restrictive in its usage.