Tater
Elder Member
Does placing a tank beneath a trench counter make it a "Dig-In" tank?
Are "Dug-In" tanks only allowed by SSR?
Are "Dug-In" tanks only allowed by SSR?
H'mm.. Interesting.Does placing a tank beneath a trench counter make it a "Dig-In" tank?
Are "Dug-In" tanks only allowed by SSR?
I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.In some ways an AFV in (under) a Trench is better in that it can leave the location if needed.
I am very doubtful that the intent of the rules is that players can “dig in” their tanks without a SSR. There is nothing in the rules to say that they can. AFVs can’t set up in HD status on a hill without a successful HD dr and I don’t think that this requirement can be evaded by setting up “dug in” instead. I agree that this isn’t specifically spelt out in the rules but the alternative would mean that scenario designers have to insert a “no dug in tanks” SSR as a matter of course.I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.
It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
Also, I see no requirement that a SSR is needed for an AFV to be Dug-in (at least during setup).
Correction/addition to the above: B27.51 states that no 5/8" vehicle (actually no 5/8" counter) may be removed from beneath a trench counter during play (with one exception, a dm 5/8" mortar). So only a vehicle represented by a 1/2" counter could move from there.I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.
It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
D9.54 is part of the D9.5 Armored Cupola rules, and also it refers to Dug-In tanks a type of Armored Cupola ("A Dug-In AFV ... unlike other Armored Cupolas"), and D9.5 says "A corresponding SSR is necessary to define [an Armored Cupola's] armament, turret type, and AF." That makes me think you do need a SSR.Also, I see no requirement that a SSR is needed for an AFV to be Dug-in (at least during setup).
Sure. I thought of that. But a Dug In AFV's armament, turret type, and AF are (as far as I know) defined not by any SSR, but by the AFV's counter and special vehicle notes. So, h'mm. Not sure.D9.54 is part of the D9.5 Armored Cupola rules, and also it refers to Dug-In tanks a type of Armored Cupola ("A Dug-In AFV ... unlike other Armored Cupolas"), and D9.5 says "A corresponding SSR is necessary to define [an Armored Cupola's] armament, turret type, and AF." That makes me think you do need a SSR.
The SSR (or rule like O11.6194c) can specify that the armament, turret type, and AF are those of the counter.Sure. I thought of that. But a Dug In AFV's armament, turret type, and AF are (as far as I know) defined not by any SSR, but by the AFV's counter and special vehicle notes. So, h'mm. Not sure.
The one thing that would prevent such a tactic from being contemplated is that vehicles set up on-board cannot be set up "in-Motion" barring an SSR to allow it (D2.52). You have provided the answer to your 2nd question though I do believe a one could conceivably go into motion beneath a trench counter to nullify the "non-stopped" case "L" TH modifier.... I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench....
It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
...
I don't think that this is correct.The one thing that would prevent such a tactic from being contemplated is that vehicles set up on-board cannot be set up "in-Motion" barring an SSR to allow it (D2.52). You have provided the answer to your 2nd question though I do believe a one could conceivably go into motion beneath a trench counter to nullify the "non-stopped" case "L" TH modifier.
Q&A:It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
B27.52 & D2.401 Can a vehicle that is under a Trench counter (B27.52) make a Motion Attempt (D2.401)? A. No. |
Let me rephrase what I was trying to explain. An SSR is not needed to define an AFV's armament, turret type, and AF. It certainly could define and/or modify those already given by the OB-given counter and the vehicle notes, and the various other setup requirements typical given on a scenario card. But not really needed and potentially redundant. And therefore, by extension, it is not 100% necessary to use an SSR just to define an AFV as Dug In, or as allowed to be Dug In.The SSR (or rule like O11.6194c) can specify that the armament, turret type, and AF are those of the counter.
I must disagree. I think D9.54 is a sub-case of D9.5, D9.54 says Dug-In AFVs are treated as an Armored Cupuloa, and Armored Cupolas require a SSR defining what it is. So I think a SSR is 100% necessary since D9.5 say it is. Unless there is a SSR or rule (like the one in RF) saying that some AFVs can be Dug-In AFVs (thereby defining the "Armored Cupola's" armament, etc.), I don't think you can set up an OB-given AFV as a Dug-In AFV.And that is my argument that (it seems) a SSR is not necessarily required for an OB-given AFV to be setup Dug In at scenario start.
From what we know now (see below), the above is possible but the Goliath would first have to be manhandled out from under the trench before it could be moved under its own movement capability.So a Goliath could be lurking in a Trench waiting to pounce. Sounds like an ASL bucket list item.
Note- I did not read through the Goliath rules so maybe not?
Seth