D9.4 / B25.2 Wreck/vehicle Hindrance

[apbills]

I never do this correctly, and I have a strange situation in a VASL game. There are two situations with multiple wrecks/AFV in the same hex. The rules in question are D9.4 and B25.2.

D9.4 "There is a +1 Hindrance DRM to a same-level LOS for firing through (not just into or out of) a hex containing one or more AFV/wrecks, ..." Emphasis is mine.

B25.2 "The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) ..."

The first situation is fairly easy, although I think I have been playing it wrong for some time. I believe the Hindrance in the below image should be just "+1" not "+4" even though there are 2x wrecks and 2x ht in the hex.


The second situation is about a burning wreck hindrance with another wreck in the same hex. I think this should be "+4" Hindrance - +1 orchard, +2 Smoke (from the burning wreck B25.2) and +1 for the additional wreck (since the 1st wreck hindrance is replaced by the smoke hindrance). is this correct?

 

[Vinnie]

I believe the second instance is only +3 as the smoke "The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) "
By D9.4 multiple wrecks only give +1 and this is the wreck hindrance that is replaced.

 

[DVexile]

I believe the second instance is only +3 as the smoke "The SMOKE Hindrance DRM replaces the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM (D9.4) "
By D9.4 multiple wrecks only give +1 and this is the wreck hindrance that is replaced.

I can see an alternative interpretation though. B25.2 refers one to D9.4 and in D9.4 it says the hindrance doesn't apply "if that wreck is burning". In other words if there is another non-burning wreck in the hex then its hindrance is not excluded by D9.4. This is similar to D9.4 saying hindrance doesn't apply "if that AFV/wreck would be subject to To Hit Case J". We certainly wouldn't expect that if we suddenly drove an AFV in motion into a hex with a stationary AFV that the presence of the moving AFV would then negate the hindrance of the stationary one, and indeed the use of the word "that" in D9.4 makes it clear the exclusion only applies to the AFV that is actually subject to Case J. So interpreting the D9.4 language which is identical for burning wrecks it would seem one wreck catching on fire doesn't negate the hindrance of a non-burning wreck in the same hex.

The addition of the language B25.2 adds confusion and ambiguity to the situation, however. So it doesn't seem immediately clear to me which would be the correct interpretation.

 

[Larry]

B25.2 describes smoke replacing "the normal Wreck Hindrance DRM." The normal wreck hindrance DRM is for all wrecks, that one and the other one. D9.4 addresses wrecks/AFV so the normal wreck hindrance includes AFVs.

A. +1 (multiple wrecks/AFV)
B. +3 (smoke and orcharch)