Case A DRMs cumulative or not

[B.Lizt]

The T-34 changes his TCA and pays +2 DRM to the CMG shot (assuming a 1 spine change). If the PzIV stays in that TCA, the MA shot will also be a +2 DRM. If instead the PzIV moves into another TCA the shot will still be a +2 DRM (assuming another 1 spine change).

Yes. In the latter case the T-34 will pay +2 for the last change, instead of +3 for the full TCA change.

If the first shot was more than 1 spine, say 3 spines the CMG shot would be +4 DRM. Unless the PzIV moves out of that TCA, the MA shot will be +4 DRM. If the PzIV moves out of that TCA, the MA shot will be at +2 DRM (assuming a 1 spine change).

My point is that if you "track" the PzIV on its move with your CMG, you will not have to pay the large +4 DRM, but only a +2 or +3.

It is only sleeze if someone is trying to argue that the MA shot will have a +0 DRM in any of these cases.

After the TCA/VCA changes facing, there will always be a CASE A penalty from that point forward, barring RoF/Intensive Fire.

Sure. I have NEVER argued you would not have to pay the Case A DRM for changing CA - I meant to illustrate how to avoid paying a larger DRM.
Reducing the Case A DRM from 3 (+2+1 for two hexspines) to 2 (for just one hexspine, slow turret) still is an advantage :clown:
(and it might be what it takes for the T-34 to win that important gun-duel).

I wonder by what definition anyone could call that a sleaze - it is clearly allowed by D3.51, and intended by the designer as is made clear in the example.

The whole point for the defender is to fire while the AFV is moving so as to avoid the larger DRM, while the attacker has to try to stay out of LOS to deny the defender this option.

Remember - if the Defender misses a LOS check for one of his shots he will not have fired at a Known enemy unit, and would not be allowed further TCA changes in that phase (D3.51). He would then pretty much be a sitting duck - as if stunned.

So this tactic has inherent risks as well as benefits, and both adds greatly to the excitement factor while playing.

Olav

 

[mgmasl]

Remember - if the Defender misses a LOS check for one of his shots he will not have fired at a Known enemy unit, and would not be allowed further TCA changes in that phase (D3.51). He would then pretty much be a sitting duck - as if stunned.
Olav

Good point, never thought about this blocked LOS penalty.

Miguel

 

[WaterRabbit]

The whole point for the defender is to fire while the AFV is moving so as to avoid the larger DRM, while the attacker has to try to stay out of LOS to deny the defender this option.

Remember - if the Defender misses a LOS check for one of his shots he will not have fired at a Known enemy unit, and would not be allowed further TCA changes in that phase (D3.51). He would then pretty much be a sitting duck - as if stunned.

So this tactic has inherent risks as well as benefits, and both adds greatly to the excitement factor while playing.

Olav

Good at least two of us are in agreement here.

 

[B.Lizt]

In my opinion there is a problem because players want to use "firing" manuevers as "defensive" manuevers.

I don´t see any problem in adding a lot of modifiers if the vehicle is not only trying to shot, but using the weapons to change VCA and TCA to present a better aspect to the enemy threat.
.....
The "defensive" manuevers are clearly the motion attemp, and the change of VCA/TCA at the end of the friendly fire phases.
.....
The Jazz sleaze is esentially a firing manuever to try to reduce the DRMs for a future and very important and probable shot, still not a defensive manuever.

You are introducing concepts new to me here, Miguel. Correct me if I misinterpret you.

I would definitely say that presenting the thickest armor possible to the enemy is a "defensive" manuever (and something any sensible tank commander would do, given that he has any thick armor :clown.
Motion attempts, using sM, and firing weapons are the tools provided to us to do that as a defender during the opponents MPh. The rules don't offer "free" CA changes to do this.

The Jazz "sleaze" as you keep insisting on calling this tactical tool we're discussing here, does not only help you reduce DRMs for your shot, but also helps you win the gun-duel that allows you to shoot first (or at the same time) and thus present your frontal armor to your opponents shot after your own shot likely missed.

The most important shot as defender is often the IF shot (or that lucky ROF) you take after you missed on your first shot - and your opponent missed his - the IF shot where you might not have to turn any CA and where you have acquisition on a target that is often close by and/or stationary. The IF shot that allows you to dispatch one of the hostile swarm to concentrate on the others in your Prep where your chances to hit are better.

I find that the most important effect of the Jazz "sleaze" is to help you stay alive when being swarmed. At least that is were I use it most frequently.

Feel free to think this is a problem - used defensively.
But D3.51 states clearly that it is allowed and intended. TCA DRMs don't add up for mulitple TCA changes, nor do VCA DRMs for VCA changes.

What D3.51 fails to adress clearly is how you treat TCA DRMs after a VCA change. And it does not adress at all what happens to VCA DRMs (or TCA DRMs for that matter) if you use a turret mounted weapon to change VCA.

Olav

 

[mgmasl]

The rules don't offer "free" CA changes to do this.

...What D3.51 fails to adress clearly is how you treat TCA DRMs after a VCA change. And it does not adress at all what happens to VCA DRMs (or TCA DRMs for that matter) if you use a turret mounted weapon to change VCA.

Olav

Free CA changes are allowed at the end of any fire ph if any weapon can still fire, but not during the enemy movement ph.

I would say a new TCA for avoid old TCA changes DRMs and the same for new VCA changes. If the two are changed, the vehicle would add the whole DRM of the CA not used this time - so better use only VCA as you said if wanting avoid a lot of modifiers-.
I were trying to refer to this case you mentioned when I was speaking about "defensive" manuevers using a lot of DRM. If the AFV really wants to hit, it has to forget about the defensive manuever and change only TCA -if turreted, of course-. For turreted vehicles trying also to move all the vehicle to give a better aspect to enemy shots, the DRMs will grow up very fast, specially if also moving the TCA, making any hit unprobable.

IMO this is the final result applying the rules as written.

Miguel

BTW, I´m happy we agree about the "firing OUTSIDE CA" concept.

 

[B.Lizt]

One thing that baffles me is the following sentence in the D3.51 example;

"....He decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons firing as NT Gun Types rather than T Types (C5.11). ..."

What are the interpretations of this sentence?
Are there multiple meanings that I fail to see?

Olav

 

[WaterRabbit]

One thing that baffles me is the following sentence in the D3.51 example;

"....He decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons firing as NT Gun Types rather than T Types (C5.11). ..."

What are the interpretations of this sentence?
Are there multiple meanings that I fail to see?

Olav

I don't understand why you are baffled here. If a vehicle changes its VCA all of its weapons are penalized by the NT Case A DRM (except for 360 deg weapons which do not have a CA).

Let's say a vehicle has its VCA on hexspine 1 and its TCA on hexspine 2. The Vehicle changes its VCA one spine to the left to hexspine 6. The TCA will now be at hexspine 1. Any weapon that fires at this point will have +3 DRM.

Let us assume the vehicle has a ST MA. The vehicle when it changed its VCA to hexspine 6 wished to keep its TCA at hexspine 2. This would require the vehicle to change both the VCA and TCA. Bow mounted weapons would pay the +3 NT Case A DRM. However, turret mounted weapons would pay an additional +2 Case A DRM for changing the turret at the same time for a +5 DRM. These DRMs stay in effect until the vehicle either changes its TCA/VCA again or it maintains ROF/IF.

 

[mgmasl]

Question about CA DRMs

1- Can a vehicle/gun change CA to fire at a Target that is actually in its current CA –changing 1 hespine so that the target is in both the initial and the final current CA.?
IMO No

2- Can a turreted vehicle firing a turret mounted weapon at a target outside the current CA change the VCA and also the TCA independently?
IMO No

3- A ST vehicle changes VCA to fire a bow mounted weapon at a known enemy target. Then change VCA again to fire a turret-mounted weapon at another target –not sure if “same” target moving outside the current CA is a valid option here, rule says clearly “another” target-. Is the DRM of the first CA change applied or only the second one?.
IMO only second VCA change, but not sure if a different target is needed to apply D3.51. I would say “only if firing to a new target, not to the same one”. I´ve been really confuse always about the meaning of this word "another"

4- Same but changing only the TCA for the second shot.
IMO. The combined DRM, ie VCA plus TCA.

5- A ST vehicle changes TCA to fire a turret mounted weapon at a known enemy target. Then changes VCA to fire again with a different turret mounted weapon . Is the DRM of the first TCA change added at this second shot?
IMO. Combined DRM, first TCA change plus VCA change.
Clearly if firing a bow mounted, only the second DRM, because is not affected by the previous TCA change.

6- A ST vehicle changes VCA to fire a bow mounted weapon at a known enemy target. Then change TCA again to fire a turret-mounted weapon at another target and keep ROF, firing again at the same or different target in its current CA. Is the DRM of the first VCA change applied to this ROF/IF shot?.
IMO yes, because it only avoid the DRM of the previous TCA change, ie, it come back to this original shot with the VCA DRM.

7- Same question as before, but changing VCA for the shot that keep ROF.
IMO no, the second VCA to fire a weapon nullifies the first one because it´s the same kind of change VCA and VCA again, not combining TCA and VCA, that it would add the DRM.

8- At the end of a friendly fire phase a turreted vehicle has ONE turreted weapon able to fire. Can it change the TCA and also the VCA, or does it need to choice betwen a TCA change or a VCA change?
IMO only one change, or TCA or VCA for every weapon able to fire.

Surely a lot of comments . But I´m thinking if we get a series of question about every case we need to resolve, a Perry´s answer would be really definitive about CA changes and DRMs.

Miguel

 

[B.Lizt]

One thing that baffles me is the following sentence in the D3.51 example;

"....He decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons firing as NT Gun Types rather than T Types (C5.11). ..."

What are the interpretations of this sentence?
Are there multiple meanings that I fail to see?

I know the rule.
I am baffled by the use of "rather" in the quote from the example above.
Why not "in addition to" or some other word with the same meaning as "both"?

Olav

 

[klasmalmstrom]

2- Can a turreted vehicle firing a turret mounted weapon at a target outside the current CA change the VCA and also the TCA?
IMO No

I think this is allowed by the D3.51 example, 2nd paragraph.

 

[mgmasl]

I think this is allowed by the D3.51 example, 2nd paragraph.

IMO according to the way the example is written may be understood that TCA changes are done later for a new shot at a different target.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

IMO according to the way the example is written may be understood that TCA changes are done later for a new shot at a different target.

The 2nd paragraph actually mentions that the CMG fires at the same target.

In some case where you want to combine the BMG+CMG (e.g. when Mandatory FG applies) you have to change both VCA and TCA, so I don't see that changing the VCA and TCA (for the same shot) would be NA when firing a turret-mounted weapon.

 

[mgmasl]

The 2nd paragraph actually mentions that the CMG fires at the same target.

In some case where you want to combine the BMG+CMG (e.g. when Mandatory FG applies) you have to change both VCA and TCA, so I don't see that changing the VCA and TCA (for the same shot) would be NA when firing a turret-mounted weapon.

I agree with changing the two of them if using two weapons -one bow and one turret- but not for using only a turreted weapon. In C5.11 says clearly "VCA change instead of TCA change" to firing outside the CA with a turreted weapon.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

2- Can a turreted vehicle firing a turret mounted weapon at a target outside the current CA change the VCA and also the TCA?
IMO No

8- At the end of a friendly fire phase a turreted vehicle has ONE turreted weapon able to fire. Can it change the TCA and also the VCA, or does it need to choice betwen a TCA change or a VCA change?
IMO only one change, or TCA or VCA for every weapon able to fire.

Just to clarify a little - whenever you change the VCA the TCA changes dependently per D3.51 "If the VCA is changed, the TCA changes the same number of hexspines while retaining its position relative to the VCA."

i.e. anytime the VCA changes, both VCA and TCA will change but the TCA moves the same number of clicks as the VCA.

I think the question is really "can the TCA & VCA be changed independently in the above two cases?" which is far more nebulous. I'd definitely lean NO for case 8, but case 6 seems allowed (and if it's allowed perhaps case 8 should be?)

D3.51 has this immediately after the aforementioned quote: "Any further changes of the TCA incurs normal TCA Case A DRM in addition to the NT Case A DRM of the VCA change." Is the intent of that to say you can change both independently and that the TH DRM is just additive? Or is it trying to say that if you then change the TCA later you still pay the VCA penalty? I'd lean the former, but agree it's not clear. So if you actually fire your MA I think you could change both and pay the cumulative penalty...

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think the question is really "can the TCA & VCA be changed independently in the above two cases?" which is far more nebulous. I'd definitely lean NO for case 8, but case 6 seems allowed (and if it's allowed perhaps case 8 should be?)

This is what I'm thinking as well (and I assume you mean Case 2 and not Case 6).

 

[mgmasl]

yes, sorry, corrected in case 2. I mean change TCA respect to the VCA after a VCA change.

The rule I think supports my opinion is C5.11 where it´s saying a turreted vehicle changes only the TCA to "bring" the target to the new CA, or it can decide to change VCA instead to get the same result. Why not saying it can also change a combo of VCA and TCA changes to bring the target to the final TCA?. The word "instead" looks to say that a turreted weapon has to decide betwen changing the TCA or the VCA to fire at a target outside the current TCA.

This is in Case A rule, that it´s a continuos reference -(Case A)- in all the other rules.

I agree that if Case 2 is OK, then also case 8 would be OK; and the oposite.

If finally case 2 and 8 are allowed I would write an errata eliminating the word "instead" to avoid confusion.

Miguel

 

[Bret Hildebran]

This is what I'm thinking as well (and I assume you mean Case 2 and not Case 6).

Yes - thanks - case 2. That 2nd line in D3.51 would seemingly allow it when firing I think, although I agree it's far from clear...

 

[Bret Hildebran]

yes, sorry, corrected in case 2. I mean change TCA respect to the VCA after a VCA change.

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make certain everyone was on the same page as DEPENDENT TCA changes do always happen when a VCA changes...

 

[B.Lizt]

The rule I think supports my opinion is C5.11 where it´s saying a turreted vehicle changes only the TCA to "bring" the target to the new CA, or it can decide to change VCA instead to get the same result. Why not saying it can also change a combo of VCA and TCA changes to bring the target to the final TCA?. The word "instead" looks to say that a turreted weapon has to decide betwen changing the TCA or the VCA to fire at a target outside the current TCA.

I think many misunderstandings arise from the notion that the rules are written by some omnipotent beeing that knows all, thinks of all possible interpretations and uses any odd player might come up with, and that the rules are worded exactly the way they are for a very good reason. :clown:

C'mon.

Though these rules work very well in most instances, and the designers thought of most options and uses - an almost superhuman effort if you ask me - the rules are not perfectly worded.

You sometimes have to look for the intent behind the rule.

C5.11 says that a turreted vehicle may turn its turret or the whole vehicle, but in the latter instance it would pay a non-turreted Case A modifier. But though using the word "instead", I think you have to be a pretty hard-core rules lawyer to claim that one would exclude the other. In section C5, the designer is explaing the various Firer Based TH DRMs and their uses. He adresses the more complicated vehicle combat moves i D3....

D3.12 reads: "... The TCA may change as a result of firing a turret-mounted weapon outside its current TCA and the VCA may change for firing a turret/bow-mounted weapon outside its current VCA (Case A), or at the end of any friendly fire phase in which the AFV is eligible to fire (a turret-mounted weapon for TCA or turret/bow-mounted weapon for VCA) without using Intensive Fire ... ."
Note the use of and in the "firing part", while or in the "end of phase" part.

Now you could argue that you may use "a turret-mounted weapon" to change TCA and VCA while firing, while "a turret-mounted weapon" to change TCA or VCA at the end of any freindly fire phase.
Others might argue that this is a case of "and/or" :nuts:,
while others again might find entirely different explanations - what do I know.

What I think that this is, is a small case of the designer not considering all the rules-lawyering we might do. :clown:


Though, if you read on in D3.12 you find that; "... The TCA may also change freely with each MP expended during the MPh. ... "

So what do we have here?

- The designer clearly allows a moving vehicle to spin his turret on top of the chassi with any and all MP expended.
- D3.12 reads that "as a result of firing a turret-mounted weapon, TCA and VCA may change.
- Why would he want to limit a stationary vehicle to moving its TCA and VCA separately at the end of of friendly firer phases only?
Why would he want to make this so unneccesarily complicated?

I think we have to find the intent of the designer.


And - as pointed out before - D3.51 ("... If the VCA is changed, the TCA changes the same number of hexspines while retaining its position relative to the VCA. Any further changes of the TCA incurs normal TCA Case A DRM in addition to the NT Case A DRM of the VCA change .... ") may be read in at least two different ways.

"further" is not a good word to use here as it has differnt meanings such as "more distant in degree, time, or space" - or simply "additional" :angry:
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/further)

So "further" here is ambiguous at best, as is the way you may read it's full sentence into the text.
You might read (as I do) that TCA changes the same number of hexspines as the VCA while retaining its relative position to it, but any "further" change (as in simoultaneous and additional) of the TCA incurs normal TCA Case A DRM in addition ...
Or you might interpret "further" to mean at a later point in time, as others do.

If you read this in the former manner (further = simultaneous and additional) this would support that you might use one (obviously turret-mounted) weapon to turn the VCA and TCA relative to eachother.

We need RULINGS on this matter

But beware!!!!!! Consider what you ask!!!!
Most people I know change TCA and VCA relatively to eachother - using turret-mounted weaponry to do it. I see NO rule that clearly disallows that. Trying to change this would be like trying to introduce bridge TEM all over :smoke:

Olav

 

[B.Lizt]

Now to my main point (and the real subject of this thread);

Do really Case A DRMs add up for subsequent CA-changes?

As pointed out above D3.51 might be read in at least two different manners - with "further changes of the TCA" meaning either simoultaneous and additional changes of the TCA, or TCA changes at a later point in time.

The first interpretations would imply that subsequent TCA changes don't add up with former VCA changes - they only add up if for the same shot
(or if you fire at the same target - see second sentence D3.51 - that beats sleaze if you think of it).

The second interpretation would add TCA + VCA.

Some days ago, I read the accompanying example over again, realizing that the PzIV " ... decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA and that would require penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons firing as NT Gun Types rather than T Types (C5.11). "

The use of the word rather baffled me. Could this sentence mean something besides what I think it means?

I have pondered on this, but find only one meaning to this sentence (unless you argue that the use of rather is unintentional :clown.
Feel free to find other interpretations - I would like to be challenged.

I think rather in this example means that he would either have to pay NT gun type Case A DRMs OR T type Case A DRMs, not both for subsequent CA changes.

If that is correct, then D3.51 should be read with "further" meaning simoultaneous and additional. Then you would add up TCA and VCA DRMs only for changes relative to eachother if simoultaneous.

That would make this whole rule-system consistent.
Then you don't add upp TCA DRMs for subsequent changes,
nor VCA DRMs for subsequent changes,
nor TCA+VCA DRMs for TCA changes subsequent to VCA changes.


Regards,
Olav

PS:
Now some of you will argue "why would a turreted vehice pay NT DRMs for turret changes then?" - as the rules clearly states several places that you sometimes have to.

That is because D3.51 links to C5.11 (it clearly does - see example some 10 letters after "rather").
- If a vehicle as turned its VCA during any fire phase, every (first) shot of all vehicular weapons after such a VCA turn would receive Case A DRM as if non-turreted - they don't pay T but NT DRMs for all "first shots" after a VCA change.
Changing the VCA in effect nullifies the effect of the lesser T Case A DRM for all subsequent "first shots" of turreted weapons

- as it should, I think.