Case A DRMs cumulative or not

[James Taylor]

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...

[Emphasis mine]

This is EXACTLY the thought process I've been through as well. As I have indicated... this is the loose interpretation of the rule, but it also seems to be the way that *most* players I've encountered play the game.

The penalties are severe... as you are basically reducing any chance of a hit to a snakes followed by a subsequent dr.

Sure wish Perry would go for an evening drive...

JT

 

[Treadhead]

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)

In thinking about this again, I've concluded that the crux of my conclusion is based on that I see this sentence as giving two instances of Case A.

Namely:

1) TCA may change as a result of firing a turret-mounted weapon outside its current TCA

and

2) VCA may change for firing a turret/bow-mounted weapon outside its current VCA

(Case A)

Two separate, independent circumstances that invoke Case A.

The "and" construct is correct, because both (TCA) and (VCA) changes use 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.

The use of "or" is also a correct construct in this instance, because in this instance you can do one or the other.

I don't see the two phrases as in error or opposition to one another. They each stand independently and are grammatically correct.

I think we have to find the intent of the designer... <snip> ... you might interpret "further" to mean at a later point in time, as others do.

While not exhaustive, wouldn't the EX actually give some indication of the intent of the rule?

I'm not saying that the EX is necessarily all-inclusive. But... looking at the face of it, the D3.51 EX seems to take pains to indicate discrete CA changes, and how the "further" TCA changes are applied.

At any rate, the EX demonstrates additional TCA changes as occurring with separate shots, and not as a combined VCA and TCA change as part of a single turret-mounted shot.

I think that could be significant, if the EX is supposed to be taken as a demonstration of the intent.

Again, I'm not saying that EX are exhaustive, but considering that they have to be limited in space, wouldn't it stand to reason that the examples that actually are given demonstrate the primary way the rule is to be applied?

 

[mgmasl]

The use of "or" is also a correct construct in this instance, because in this instance you can do one or the other.

At any rate, the EX demonstrates additional TCA changes as occurring with separate shots, and not as a combined VCA and TCA change as part of a single turret-mounted shot.

I think that could be significant, if the EX is supposed to be taken as a demonstration of the intent.

Fully agree with that, and IMO all the rules looks consistent if this POV is taken in account.

IMO, the idea of using or TCA or VCA is a way to simplify the rules -that I think it has been always in the design intent-, Same for allowing CA changes only when firing outside the current CA.

Miguel.

Any answer in any Q&A submitted?

 

[Sparafucil3]

The motivation, as confessed by some here already, is to position the Gun/MG/armor factor in a better position for some future event. Now to me, THAT is very gamey and sleazy.

"Gunner, the target is in LOS and within CA. Fire!" "Commander, I must change the CA first." "Gunner, what is the benefit to the shot." "None, Commander. In fact, it makes the shot worse." "Then do it, Gunner."

If you feel this way, why do you accept the fact that I can opt to change either the TCA or the VCA to shoot a target outside of your definition of "current CA"? It is demonstrably worse to turn the VCA(+3/+1/+1) instead of availing yourself of the fast turret (+1/+1/+1) or even a slow turret (+2/+1/+1). Why doesn't this rise to the level of sleaze or gamey? Other than the notion that you believe one is allowed by the rules and one isn't, how can you accept one as "valid" and the other as "gamey/sleazy", especially if the sum of your argument is "it makes the shot worse"? Riddle me that, and I might begin to see it your way. I must confess in advance, you have your work cut out for you should you try as I am strongly inclined to disagree with your position from the start. -- jim

 

[Treadhead]

Other than the notion that you believe one is allowed by the rules and one isn't, how can you accept one as "valid" and the other as "gamey/sleazy", especially if the sum of your argument is "it makes the shot worse"?

You make a good point about what is "gamey" or "sleazy". Certainly those are subjective terms.

It could be argued that changing VCA to fire a turret-mounted weapon is "gamey". That being said, I'll retract any statements I made earlier with regard to any interpretations being "gamey" or "sleazy".

Anyway, sleaze is in the eye of the beholder.

What I am more interested in is getting the interpretation correct, and I really should limit myself to making those points without dismissing any other point of view as "sleazy". Such a judgement is subjective and no conducive to mutual understanding.

I must confess in advance, you have your work cut out for you should you try as I am strongly inclined to disagree with your position from the start. -- jim

I shall try to refrain in future from describing a counter-interpretation as "sleazy".

Meanwhile, I am not really trying to convince you personally of anything. This is an open forum debate or discussion. But, if one comes into it with a pre-conditioned inclination to disagree with a particular position, then any argument would not reach an open mind anyway. Which is fine, IMO. We are all entitled to approach the discussion however we want.

 

[Sparafucil3]

But, if one comes into it with a pre-conditioned inclination to disagree with a particular position, then any argument would not reach an open mind anyway. Which is fine, IMO. We are all entitled to approach the discussion however we want.

No one said anything about not having an open mind. I just stated I was disinclined to agree with you and as such, the bar was correspondingly high. You might have "wowed" me with a perspective I had not considered or a rule I may have missed which made your case more sound (at least to my eyes even as I acknowledged earlier that your rules train was solid). -- jim

 

[B.Lizt]

I'm not saying that the EX is necessarily all-inclusive. But... looking at the face of it, the D3.51 EX seems to take pains to indicate discrete CA changes, and how the "further" TCA changes are applied.

The example to D3.51 is far from all-inclusive.
First,l it only covers prep fire which may be used to figure out to handle defensive final fire. The tricky part is defensive first fire, though, and that is not covered at all.
Second, how do you interpret time in prep? One might argue that the time-span is very short, with a lot of things happening simultaneously (inherent flaw of the turn based system) - so the examples here does not give a solution as how to handle subsequent events/shots.
(Except for the "rather" issue :crosseye

Olav

 

[jwb3]

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?

It is not a very clearly written sentence, but it only has one possible "correct" meaning given the other rules about CA changes. Let me rewrite it to try to make it clear:

"....He decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA, and that would result in penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons as if they were firing as NT Gun Types, rather than using the lesser penalty for firing as T Types (C5.11). ..."


John

 

[B.Lizt]

It is not a very clearly written sentence, but it only has one possible "correct" meaning given the other rules about CA changes. Let me rewrite it to try to make it clear:

"....He decides not to fire his BMG because to do so he must change his VCA, and that would result in penalizing the first shot of all CA-restricted weapons as if they were firing as NT Gun Types, rather than using the lesser penalty for firing as T Types (C5.11). ..."


John

Then we are in full agreement

Olav

 

[B.Lizt]

I have tried to compile all the issues we’ve discussed in this thread
– to make it easier for Perry in case he comes by…….


D3.12
May a unit change its VCA and/or TCA to fire at a unit that is already in that CA?
EX: Consider the PzIV in the 3.51 example. A T-34 enters W6. May the PzIV change its TCA to W5-W6 to fire at the T-34, even though the T-34 is already within its TCA?

D3.51
Is Intensive Fire treated the same way as a MA which has retained a Multiple ROF for the purpose of this rule (except for the Case F +2 penalty, of course)?

D3.51
During Defensive First Fire, would an enemy unit that has been fired on in one hex, but later moves on to a new hex outside the firers current CA qualify as “another target” for the purpose of this rule?

D3.51
If a turret mounted MA is used to change VCA and fire at an enemy target, and then later is used to change VCA again to fire at a new enemy target, would this be treated in the same manner as for a bow mounted MA? If a CMG and them the MA is used (or vice versa), is that treated in the same manner?
EX: A PzIV (TCA and VCA in same direction) changes its VCA two hexspines to fire its MA paying Case A +4 DRM (+3+1) for the shot. Later it turns VCA one more hexspine to fire its MA again. Would it pay Case A +3 DRM (for the last VCA change only, as if non-turreted) or Case A +7 DRM (combined for both changes)? What if it uses the CMG for the last change – does it pay +3 or +7 DRM then?

D3.12 & 3.51
May a vehicle firing a single turret mounted weapon change both VCA and TCA - even relative to each other - for that one shot? May the same be done at the end of any friendly fire phase in which the AFV is eligible to fire a turret-mounted weapon (w/o IF)?
EX: Consider the PzIV in the 3.51 example. A T-34 enters X3. May the PzIV change both its TCA and VCA to X4-Y5 firing its MA at the T-34?
Would the Case A DRM for this shot be +5 (+3+1 VCA change +1 TCA change relative to the VCA)?
EX 2: At the end of the DFPh the PzIV has fired no more weapons. May it then use the CMG to change its VCA to W5-X4 and the TCA to W6-W5?

C5.11 & D3.51
If a turreted vehicle changes its TCA to fire, would the Case A DRM be based only on the move from the current TCA to the new TCA, even if the VCA has been changed in the same phase prior to this TCA change?
If based only on the last move, does it pay NT or T Case A DRM?
EX: A PzIVH (TCA and VCA in same direction) changes its VCA two hexspines to fire its BMG during the enemy MPh (+4 DRM). Later it changes its TCA one more hexspine to fire at a T-34.
For the last TCA change, does it pay Case A +5 DRM (+1+3 for prior VCA +1 for TCA), only Case A +1 DRM for changing the turret only, or a NT Case A +3 DRM only (NT Case A DRM apply to the first shot of all vehicular weapons after prior VCA change ( C5.11), thus +3 for NT instead of +1 for T)?
EX2: The same PzIV subsequently changes its TCA one more hexspine to fire its CMG at another target.
For the last TCA change, does it pay Case A +6 DRM (+1+3 for prior VCA +1+1 for TCA), Case A +5 DRM (+1+3 for prior VCA, +1 for TCA for the last change only), Case A +1 DRM (turret changing one hexspine, paying T DRM), or Case A +3 DRM (NT Case A DRM for first shot of CMG after prior VCA change substituting the T DRM)?
EX3: The same PzIV subsequently changes its TCA again one more hexspine to fire its MA using IF at another target.
For the last TCA change, does it pay Case A +7 DRM (+1+3 for prior VCA +1+1+1 for TCA), Case A +5 DRM (+1+3 for prior VCA, +1 for TCA for the last change only), or Case A +1 DRM (turret changing one hexspine, now surely T DRM as this is not the first shot of the MA since the VCA change)?

D2.401 & 3.51
Would a successful motion status attempt where VCA and/or TCA is changed, be treated as if firing a bow and/or turret mounted weapon for the purpose of D3.51?

D3.51 & 13.32
Would a sM actually placing Smoke while changing TCA be treated as a turret mounted weapon for the purpose of this rule?


Regards,
Olav