DC usage and Defensive fire

Simon62

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
81
Reaction score
9
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hi,

we are playing RB day 1 go 2 and using DC's/fortified buildings for the first time - have read the rules numerous times and a bit confused about Set DC's not sure if I have understood it correctly confirmation or correction of the example below would be appreciated:

Situation 1: a unit with a DC is in a wooden building hex in an adjacent hex is a enemy unit in a fortified building, the unit with the DC cannot enter the fortified building location unless the enemy unit is pinned or broken or there is a breach but can enter the location for purposes of DC placement,

a) I can throw a DC into the fortified building location and its blast will effect the fortified building and my location with Defensive fire being taken in the wooden building hex not the hex I throw into. I cannot use this to breach as I have thrown the demo charge and not placed it so it just attacks the unit in the fortified building and my location with additional positive modifiers for inaccuracy of throwing.
b) I can place the DC in the fortified building location and again all defensive fire is taken in the wooden building hex using it's +2 modifier even though to place I would have had to enter the fortified building hex effectively open ground??? I can have this placed DC to attack the fortified building or undertake a breach.
c) If placed and attacking the fortified building then it explodes full firepower with +4 mod.
d) If placed and set to breach the fortified building is breached with a NMC or better using full firepower and the unit in the fortified building is attacked as area fire with a +4 mod.

Situation 2: as situation 1 but a AFV is in motion bypass in the fortified building hex.

a) due the vehicle the unit can place the DC without any fear of defensive fire as the vehicle prevents the unit in the fortified building firing outside the hex and all DF against a DC placing unit is directed at the hex the placing unit is in not the hex it places the DC in. Is this correct the unit has to enter the hex with the fortified building to place and thus surly is in the same hex and should be subject to DF.
b) Would the vehicle be attacked collaterally or directly when the DC explodes?

I am struggling with the concept that the unit can place a DC whilst still retaining all defensive fire benefits from an adjacent hex and cannot fire at all against the placing unit if a vehicle is in it's hex - have I misunderstood this??

As always and insight and thoughts would be welcome

Regards

Simon
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,831
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
...but can enter the location for purposes of DC placement,
...even though to place I would have had to enter the fortified building hex effectively open ground??? I can have this placed DC to attack the fortified building or undertake a breach.
You never really enter the Location you are placing a DC into - you just pay the MF as if you were.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,141
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
have read the rules numerous times and a bit confused about Set DC's not sure if I have understood it correctly
Set DCs [A23.7] are a different animal. You are asking about placed/thrown DCs.

I am struggling with the concept that the unit can place a DC whilst still retaining all defensive fire benefits from an adjacent hex and cannot fire at all against the placing unit if a vehicle is in it's hex - have I misunderstood this??
To continue what Klas has said, this is correct. The placing unit pays costs based on the target hex the DC is placed in but does not enter the target hex for any reason. The placing unit is not attacked by mines, residual or OBA in the target hex. The placing unit is not affected by wire in the target hex. If the enemy units in the target hex are concealed, A12.15 is not invoked, and the enemy units remain concealed. The placing unit can be attacked by DFF, but in the hex the DC is being placed from, not the hex it is being placed into.

JR
 

Simon62

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
81
Reaction score
9
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hi thanks for the replies - yes my mistake I am talking about thrown/placed DC's.

OK the answers are clear and thanks - must admit it seems a bit strange to me I would have thought that placing a demo charge against a fortified building under the noses of the enemy was a very hazardous undertaking but the rules seem to make it a reasonably safe practice and allow fortifications such as wire, OBA, Mines etc in front of the buildings to mysteriously vanish in front of a placing unit and not hinder the ability it place at all - don't think my opponent is going to be very impressed lol
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,963
Reaction score
2,417
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I would have thought that placing a demo charge against a fortified building under the noses of the enemy was a very hazardous undertaking
It is a quite dangerous thing to do.
Unless the guys in the building are sleeping, or other defenders having an LOS to the Location from which the DC is placed stay put.
DC are quite often a form of threat which presence, rather than the usage, can stir unrest among the defenders.
Now, with the appropriate use of smoke or after having somehow pinned or broken the defenders beforehand, placing a DC can be done with reduced risks.
As a rule, fortifications not covered by fire are not very useful...
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,141
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
must admit it seems a bit strange to me I would have thought that placing a demo charge against a fortified building under the noses of the enemy was a very hazardous undertaking but the rules seem to make it a reasonably safe practice and allow fortifications such as wire, OBA, Mines etc in front of the buildings to mysteriously vanish in front of a placing unit and not hinder the ability it place at all - don't think my opponent is going to be very impressed lol
While it's very easy for the captain to use his super power of twenty-twenty hindsight to blame the grunts for their inability to deal with a tank crawling in their midst when he failed to supply them with an anti-tank weapon more potent than a hand grenade, it might also be pointed out that perhaps a secondary cause for the problem was the captain's failure to lay out a proper integrated defense. The men in the position have an immediate problem: the tank. They will focus on that; they can't also be expected to handle a man with a DC, another with a FT, and several squads coming up the street with submachine guns. The captain should have laid out an integrated defense with interconnected fields of fire if he had wanted to cover other eventualities. If the captain wanted to keep the enemy away with wire and/or mines, he should have positioned those static devices in front of the position rather than in its midst. And artillery falling on the unit's position is (or should be anyway) enemy artillery, so there's no controlling that. If the captain wanted to use friendly artillery to enhance the position, he should have called it down in front of the position rather than on it. In short the enemy has used his assets in a coordinated attack on a friendly position, using his armor to fix the attention of its manning soldiers while other units maneuver to bring the position under a series of overwhelming attacks. The captain has to use his friendly assets as a whole so that the enemy can't break the defense with a simple combined arms assault. I don't think your opponent should be very impressed.

JR
 
Last edited:

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
442
Reaction score
155
Location
an Aussie in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Country
llUnited Kingdom
It IS a dangerous practice if you'r opponent plans his defence

A/ he could just sit there and do nothing - this is a good option if you still have a "Lid" on. The DC is much less effective this way, but this means of course that the demolition charge is always going to be placed successfully. Well assuming other units somewhere else don't intervene

B/ if the defender takes the opportunity to fire, he is of course going to lose his concealment. But when to do it is the important thing. Let's assume that the enemy unit with the DC is adjacent already before the movement phase starts. Well then this is easy the defender dropped his lid, and fires on the one or two movement points that the attacker users to place the demolition charge. Remembering that its movement points/factors that the defender will fire during the movement phase. So the number of times this unit can be attacked is based on the number of movement points used to ""place the DC in the defenders hex""
so in a hypothetical answer it might be once or it might be twice.

Let's change it to the attacker/DC were not adjacent at the start of the movement phase. So this increases the opportunity for the defender, because now he has an added tool in his arsenal which is residual firepower. The unit moves adjacent with the DC obviously intent on malfeasance with said handbag (aka DC) (does remind me of the Monty Python sketch - the Batterseas woman's Association recreation of the Battle of Midway - and if you haven't seen it go and look at it it's hilarious). So as the unit moves adjacent, the defender fires at the movement as they come close leaving a nice little pile of residual behind. And then now when they place the DC in the hex, they get attacked by that very same residual as they now place the DC in the target hex. So the defender gets ""Two-fer""

And the key part of this is to stop the DC being placed all he has to do is pin the unit, breaking it is of course better but pinning it stops the placement of the DC.

So it's perfectly valid point to try as a defender to stop it happening but this also of course assumes that the defender has enough firepower to do something about this guy with a handbag.
As JRV and Swiftsure set above (quite well I might add), that the point of the DC is often much more ""its threat"" in being used rather than its actual use. Funny enough every man and his dog wants to shoot at a guy or 10 charging towards you with a handbag going ""here ! have this Prada"" (trademark applied lol)


I think that part of your dilemma above may have been because of the words you ""can't enter a fortified location""", with all of the various inner reasons that you can and can't et cetera
but the key part of this is when you're placing a DC, you're not actually entering the location. You're just panelized in movement points AS IF you were entering that location
so you would spend your two or however many movement points as if you were entering, but you don't actually do so. It's not like you go in and bounce back (that something else entirely)


In the last thing to note about all of this that may help you.
Placing a DC is done during the attackers (i.e. the guy that owns it) movement phase.
Throwing a DC is done in any other phase (i.e. prep fire or more likely defensive fire)

Hope this all helps
 

jyoung

Recruit
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
14
Country
llAustralia
What happens to a Set DC that fails to detonate because the owning MMC fails its NTC? I read A23.7 as allowing it to try again in a later friendly fire phase. Similarly if the owning MMC becomes non Good-Order or moves out of LOS or out of range but later satisfies the required conditions, it can still attempt to detonate the DC, as it is only removed due to a malfunction when it detonates. Is that correct?
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,911
Reaction score
1,296
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I read A23.7 as allowing it to try again in a later friendly fire phase.
Correct

Similarly if the owning MMC becomes non Good-Order or moves out of LOS or out of range but later satisfies the required conditions, it can still attempt to detonate the DC
Correct

as it is only removed due to a malfunction when it detonates. Is that correct?
No, the oppo may attempt set DC clearance (B24.75).
 
Top