Canister vs empty vertex

Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
33
Reaction score
27
Location
Malaga, Spain
First name
Ricardo
Country
llSpain
An AFV wants to fire onto an vertex (in the photo as an example, vertex T9-T10-U10) with all the three contiguous hexes are empty, in order to affect an adjacent enemy unit (in the example in hex O10). Is that allowed, firing at an empty target to affect collaterally an enemy unit, although technically since all the four hexes would be affected (T9.T10, they wouln't be firing at an empty hex after all? The AFV would have to apply all the DRMs for turning the turret plus the TEM, and in the example, the "?" in U10 would not be affected because the vertex is not in LOS and there are no KEU adjacent to the vertex.
9022
 

Attachments

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,971
Reaction score
1,795
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
First up you need to have Los to the vertex you are aiming at to fire anyway.
If you has that then the canister roll is also the IFT roll so it is modified by turning the turret. The firepower at the target hex is halved as if the target was concealed. This does not affect the firepower on the adjacent hex.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
33
Reaction score
27
Location
Malaga, Spain
First name
Ricardo
Country
llSpain
First up you need to have Los to the vertex you are aiming at to fire anyway.
If you has that then the canister roll is also the IFT roll so it is modified by turning the turret. The firepower at the target hex is halved as if the target was concealed. This does not affect the firepower on the adjacent hex.
But C8.4 mentions that LOS to the aiming vertex is not necessary. My main concern is: if the aiming vertex is surrounded by empty hexes or out of LOS, can I still fire in order to affect an adjacent enemy unit?
 
Last edited:

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,971
Reaction score
1,795
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
But C8.4 mentions that LOS to the aiming vertex is not necessary. My main concern is: if the aiming vertex is surrounded by empty hexes or out of LOS, can I still fire in order to affect an adjacent enemy unit?
Nice catch! Yes, you can still fire. The firepower affecting the "empty" hexes is halved as if tgere were a concealed target, for residual purposes.
The target "on its way" to those hexes is affected normally. Its already halved as area fire so might be quartered if they are concealed or reduced still further if you have motion vehicle firing.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
495
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I think I understand your question, and it poses some interesting problems.

To focus on the main point, let's first assume that all LOS is somehow clear and that the AFV is already facing the target(s) - turret spine set NE: pointing along the P10/010 hexside).

You would like to fire Canister ammo at the three hexes joined by vertex T9-T10-U10. None of these hexes contain a KEU, so the resolution against HIPsters and ?s will be made as Area Fire. In addition, C8.41 states that Canister will also attack enemy units in the adjacent hex which lies along the LOF to the target vertex. In the example, this LOF is traced through O10 and not through P10, so the units in O10 will be attacked as Area Fire (in this case quartered since they too are concealed).

Nothing prohibits you from firing Canister at a vertex whose hexes are devoid of KEU (the Area Fire penalty taking the place of Case K suffered by other types of ammo). So go ahead and fire. I do wonder if having no regular target should influence the FP against the adjacent hex (quartered FP for 2xArea Fire before halving again for concealment?), but the rules don't say as much. I don't think it would.

With that, I would say that your basic premise is acceptable. You can fire Canister at no regular target just to hit the adjacent-hex target with Area Fire.

Adding back the obstacles creates a new problem, however. While the rules say that you do not need to have the target vertex in your LOS, you do have to have one of the three target hexes in your LOS - if only because Canister is a Direct Fire attack (LOS must exist for a shot to take place: see Index). Of the three hexes in this example, only T9 could possibly be in the AFV's LOS, but even that looks doubtful. If it was in LOS, then the shot is allowed (LOS to each target is assessed individually as per a Q&A). But I think to qualify as legal, Direct Fire, LOS for Canister ammo must be traceable to one of the three hexes belonging to the target vertex.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,971
Reaction score
1,795
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I'm not so sure you need low at all. "Barring obstacles in the first hex" suggests that you can fire away even if there is nothing you can see.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,665
Reaction score
4,918
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
There is a q&a:

C8.4 Does a Canister attack require a LOS to the vertex aiming point? Is LOS to each Location determined independently? Are Hindrance DRM based on LOS to the target vertex or to each affected Location?
A. No. Yes. Each Location. [An97; Mw]
Obviously there is no requirement to the vertex, but also it sounds as if the the various hexes (adjacent to vertex, adjacent to firer) are attacked or not depending on LOS, and there is no requirement for LOS to any of them. It is possible at night that canister might be used and not have LOS to any of the hexes, in which case none of them would be attacked (and the attack would have been a complete waste, but legal).

JR
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,971
Reaction score
1,795
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
There is a q&a:



Obviously there is no requirement to the vertex, but also it sounds as if the the various hexes (adjacent to vertex, adjacent to firer) are attacked or not depending on LOS, and there is no requirement for LOS to any of them. It is possible at night that canister might be used and not have LOS to any of the hexes, in which case none of them would be attacked (and the attack would have been a complete waste, but legal).

JR
Hmmm I'm missing this q&a. Looks like I need to go through and double check. Would tgat have been 1st edition? 1997?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,665
Reaction score
4,918
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
As best I see it this attack will be at three FP (twelve FP 37mm canister halved for concealed target and for hex adjacent to firer) up seven (+4 CA change, +3 TEM). Even after the CA change it will be three FP up three.

JR
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
495
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
This probably should be ruled on by Perry. As I said above, I would guess that one of the actual target hexes (the three hexes which join to form the vertex aiming point) should be visible to the Firer since Canister is a Direct Fire weapon (requiring LOS to a target). For the adjacent, "collateral" hex to be hit, you would think there would have to have been visibility to some "original target."

But I see the ambiguity in the RB. It's just that you could imagine firing at some "impossible targets" when all three hexes which join at the vertex aiming point lie completely beyond some obstacle (and are thus invisible to the firer).

A similar case (also, I think, not denied by the RB) is this: Can you set up a Alternate Grain FL when the original target of the MG turns out to be blocked to the firer's LOS? Again, I would have thought no.

OTOH, perhaps proof that JR and Vinnie are correct lies in the LOS rules:

A6.11 Should the LOS check for an attack reveal a blocked LOS, the units which were to have made the attack are still considered to have fired for all purposes (they thought they saw something);​
But that text is immediately followed by a more problematic statement:

...that fire would not generate DM status nor affect units in the obstacle that blocked the LOS, although a DR must still be made to check for possible Random Events and the retention of any Multiple ROF.​

Hmmm... :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Top