HIP Vehicle - area fire

[Craig Benn]

HIP Tiger in an orchard hex. Say you fire a 2 inch mortar into the hex and the result is a MC - is the Tiger revealed?

 

[Eagle4ty]

If BU no, but the presence of an AFV would most likely become evident to the other player. If CE it may be another matter depending upon the final effects on the crew of a MC, PTC or no effect at all.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

HIP Tiger in an orchard hex. Say you fire a 2 inch mortar into the hex and the result is a MC - is the Tiger revealed?

The Tiger would be revealed as soon as you hit it - could even be done by a MG. The effect does not matter.

Case A for the CONCEALMENT LOSS/GAIN TABLE:
"A If it:... ...is a vehicle hit by ordnance,..."

 

[jrv]

Can a mg be fired as ordnance at a concealed target? It would be otherwise halved.

JR

 

[jrv]

Apparently not.

A9.61 indicates that an MG TH vs. an AFV must be “without any form of halved FP penalty imposed”, given Ordnance is never halved, does that imply the halved FP penalty should be considered as if the MG was firing on the IFT instead? E.g. can a MG TH attempt target a concealed AFV? On the IFT normally the FP would be halved, but as ordnance case K applies instead. Or if the MG is pinned is a TH allowed?
A. Anything that would halve MG FP prohibits a MG TH attempt, e.g., in AFPh, vs “?”, pinned Infantry, etc.

Light MTRs, on the other hand, are great for stripping concealment, especially against those vehicles that think they are so clever when they set up in buildings. TEM does not apply. The +2 for case K applies, but so does acquisition. Target size can sometimes help. One other downside is that they can generate SANs and will generally have no effect if they hit.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

The Tiger would be revealed as soon as you hit it - could even be done by a MG. The effect does not matter.

Case A for the CONCEALMENT LOSS/GAIN TABLE:
"A If it:... ...is a vehicle hit by ordnance,..."

Steel on target! Now who'da thunk to look there?:nod:

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Personally I don't like/agree with that Q&A, as I believe the intention of the rule is just things that apply to the shooter - not target - that halves the FP. Luckily it doesn't come that often.

 

[jrv]

Personally I don't like/agree with that Q&A, as I believe the intention of the rule is just things that apply to the shooter - not target - that halves the FP. Luckily it doesn't come that often.

It would if I could shoot MGs at concealed vehicles. I am much more likely to have a MG in position to TH-scout a concealed tank than a light MTR.

Also halving that applied to the shooter would rule out B(F)F, which is clearly bad.

JR

 

[jrv]

I wondered how bounding (first) fire worked:

D3.3 & D3.53 Can a vehicular MG that is the vehicle’s MA, fire a “AFV To Kill DR” as Bounding First Fire? If so, why does the portion of A9.61 that says “Such an attack must be made...without any form of halved FP penalty imposed...” not apply?
A. Yes, just as it can in AFPh. Because of D3.53. {1}

Otherwise B(F)F would would be n/a. The previous Q&A is partially wrong in that fire in the AFPh *is* allowed unless the Q&A is intended as an erratum.

JR

 

[Justiciar]

3rd ed... JRV you are hereby press-ganged to the steering committee.

 

[jrv]

3rd ed... JRV you are hereby press-ganged to the steering committee.

Hey, let's turn this way. I mean, what could go wrong?

D2.8 JUMPING DESTROYED BRIDGES:

JR

 

[Justiciar]

Sure it's sort of like an ESB DR...to see if you have enough speed and elevation...but only applies to certain vehicle types/frames. I like it...

What else ya got...

Think you are moving forward in the right direction...carry on...

 

[jrv]

Sure it's sort of like an ESB DR...to see if you have enough speed and elevation...but only applies to certain vehicle types/frames. I like it...

What else ya got...

Think you are moving forward in the right direction...carry on...

I think searchlight rules focus on the wrong sense. AFVs should have speakers, not lights.



D2.9 AFV ACOUSTICS

JR

 

[jrv]

Also rule numbers should be in hexadecimal for ease of use with computers: D2.9, D2.A, D2.B, D2.C, D2.D, D2.E, D2.F, D2.10, D2.11, …

JR

 

[ecz]

Personally I don't like/agree with that Q&A, as I believe the intention of the rule is just things that apply to the shooter - not target - that halves the FP. Luckily it doesn't come that often.

but it happens to the shooter! the shooter has a bad/impaired/vague vision of the (concealed/hidden) target

Seriously It makes sense that MGs are not allowed to fire as ordnance vs concealed targets. While an ordnance can still hit with a more or less blind and lucky shot in a "suspect area" paying +2 DRM for case K, the MG "spreads" its bullets over a wide area losing any effectiveness vs armor targets.

Hence the AREA fire penalty (no matter the reason) prevents any use of MGs as ordnance

 

[jrv]

Hence the AREA fire penalty (no matter the reason) prevents any use of MGs as ordnance

Halved FP as long as it isn't fire in the AFPh/B(F)F. Some FP is more halved than others.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

but it happens to the shooter! the shooter has a bad/impaired/vague vision of the (concealed/hidden) target

Which is covered by the +2 To Hit DRM.

 

[jrv]

Which is covered by the +2 To Hit DRM.

As is any form of Area Fire, C.4. I think it's very hard to come up with a satisfying explanation for why MG TH-TK is not allowed when the MG FP would be halved, especially when coupled with B(F)F being allowed. It just is the way it is.

JR

 

[Mister T]

With infantry, one needs to score at least a PTC, which creates the right incentives to put more FP in a bid to strip concealment.
With vehicles there is no such incentive. An ATR can easily do the job. There should be a supplemental criterion, in terms of attack strength, for instance.