IFT attack on Concealed BU AFV

[Juan SantaX]

Do a BU concealed armoured AFV lose concealment if shot by infantry if rolling low enough to get a KIA/K/MC/PTC?

i think it does not lose concealment, but not sure about it….

TIA

 

[Larry]

A dummy vehicle would. Case A for a vehicle ... "is a vehicle hit my ordnance."

 

[Vinnie]

If there is no vulnerable PRC then no concealment loss.
This is one reason to try for a to kill roll with an LMG when you suspect a vehicle is present.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

This is one reason to try for a to kill roll with an LMG when you suspect a vehicle is present.

IIRC, a LMG can't try a TH vs a Concealed vehicle...

 

[DVexile]

IIRC, a LMG can't try a TH vs a Concealed vehicle...

9.61 AFV KILL: Unlike Small Arms Fire, a MG attack may conceivably destroy a poorly armored AFV during a fire phase by attacking it alone (i.e., not as part of a FG) on the To Hit Table (using the Vehicle Target Type) and the AP To Kill Table. Such an attack must be made within Normal Range of the MG, without any form of halved FP penalty imposed, and predesignated as an AFV To Kill attack vs a specific AFV.

This is probably the rule reference you are thinking of. Halved FP penalty of concealment would make the MG attack NA.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Thx. Nice refreshment of the rules!

 

[Eagle4ty]

9.61 AFV KILL: Unlike Small Arms Fire, a MG attack may conceivably destroy a poorly armored AFV during a fire phase by attacking it alone (i.e., not as part of a FG) on the To Hit Table (using the Vehicle Target Type) and the AP To Kill Table. Such an attack must be made within Normal Range of the MG, without any form of halved FP penalty imposed, and predesignated as an AFV To Kill attack vs a specific AFV.

This is probably the rule reference you are thinking of. Halved FP penalty of concealment would make the MG attack NA.

There would be no halved FP on a TH DR (or the resultant TK DR), just a +2 for firing at a concealed target.

 

[DVexile]

There would be no halved FP on a TH DR (or the resultant TK DR), just a +2 for firing at a concealed target.

Then why did they write the rule that way? That is, when would it ever apply?

The rule seems pretty clear. If you would be subject to halved FP then you can not attempt a TH/TK with the MG. Or is there some other interpretation that is still actionable that I’m missing (very possible)?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Here's the Q&A I was thinking of:
A9.61
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.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Then why did they write the rule that way?

Asking the wrong person here, I didn't write the rule, but it stands as written. Don't assume as you know what that does (ass-u-me).

 

[DVexile]

Asking the wrong person here, I didn't write the rule, but it stands as written. Don't assume as you know what that does (ass-u-me).

Disagree, if we willfully chose interpretations of rules that make the existence of the rule non-functional that’s a really, really big indication we are interpreting it wrong. The rule “as written“ is already pretty clear, if you are in a situation in which you’d have to apply half FP you don’t get to take make a TH attempt. If we read it the way you advocate then the rule has no reason to exist since it is never applicable. There is no “ass-u-me” here but fairly straightforward logic and using context when reading the rule.

Anyway, Klas helpfully found the Q&A that spells out that the intent of the rule is exactly as one would expect for the rule to have any function in the first place.

That said, we can certainly all agree such a long RB with a long history has a lot of awkward phrasings in it!

 

[FrankH.]

If there is no vulnerable PRC then no concealment loss.
This is one reason to try for a to kill roll with an LMG when you suspect a vehicle is present.

Just wondering, where do you get this?

foot note A to the concealment calls for a result "is attacked resulting in at least a PTC". I does not say a non-armored unit attacked resulting in at least a PTC.

Specifically it says "vs. a vehicle" the corresponding DR on the *vehicle line, or for OBA. This implies to me an OBA attack resulting in at least a PTC, or a small arms/non-ordinance MG attack resulting in at least a PTC, in both cases vs. a vehicle, causes concealment loss.

I guess even rifle bullets can bounce off the armor, giving it all away. Just because a BU AFV is immune to PTC does not mean that an attack on the IFT did not result in a PTC.

Also, A9.61 refers to destroing an AFV, not simply stripping its concealment.

 

[DVexile]

Just wondering, where do you get this?

foot note A to the concealment calls for a result "is attacked resulting in at least a PTC". I does not say a non-armored unit attacked resulting in at least a PTC.

Specifically it says "vs. a vehicle" the corresponding DR on the *vehicle line, or for OBA. This implies to me an OBA attack resulting in at least a PTC, or a small arms/non-ordinance MG attack resulting in at least a PTC, in both cases vs. a vehicle, causes concealment loss.

I guess even rifle bullets can bounce off the armor, giving it all away. Just because a BU AFV is immune to PTC does not mean that an attack on the IFT did not result in a PTC.

Also, A9.61 refers to destroing an AFV, not simply stripping its concealment.

A12.2 spells it out more explicitly. Non-OBA PTC only matters if there is vulnerable PRC:

A concealed vehicle in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit (regardless of range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table, or by at least a “PTC” result vs its vulnerable PRC (or its corresponding DR, on the * Vehicle line or for OBA regardless of PRC vulnerability), or by an A-T Mine attack Immobilization result or better, on the IFT.

The wording of the A note on the table is very confusing to read!

 

[FrankH.]

A12.2 spells it out more explicitly. Non-OBA PTC only matters if there is vulnerable PRC:

A concealed vehicle in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit (regardless of range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table, or by at least a “PTC” result vs its vulnerable PRC (or its corresponding DR, on the * Vehicle line or for OBA regardless of PRC vulnerability), or by an A-T Mine attack Immobilization result or better, on the IFT.

The wording of the A note on the table is very confusing to read!

That A note needs to be corrected/clarified (if it has not already been subject to an errata that I missed).

So if all this is true... per note A, an AFV shocked or immobilized by a mortar SW does not lose concealment. What, even an OBA attack resulting in a K/# or a 1> K/# shock or immobilization result does not lose concealment! If eliminated and its crew survives the crew does not lose concealment?! All of the above ditto for a DC or FT/Mol or CC attack (if the AFV itself does not attack).

And an AFV must be hit by a 15mm or larger shell using direct fire (since a .50 cal, being just another MG, won't do), or by an ATR, to lose concealment. ATRs suddenly become rather more useful.

What else did I miss, I wonder?

 

[DVexile]

That A note needs to be corrected/clarified (if it has not already been subject to an errata that I missed).

It is still that way in the most recent version of the eASLRB, adding a few words from A12.2 would help!

So if all this is true... per note A, an AFV shocked or immobilized by a mortar SW does not lose concealment.

It would lose concealment when hit on the TH table by the mortar regardless of the results of the following IFT roll. A mortar SW is still ordnance.

What, even an OBA attack resulting in a K/# or a 1> K/# shock or immobilization result does not lose concealment!

For an OBA attack it loses concealment on just a PTC even if there are no vulnerable PRC, see the clause in the parentheses.

If eliminated and its crew survives the crew does not lose concealment?!

The vehicle would have already lost concealment so the surviving crew would be unconcealed.

All of the above ditto for a DC or FT/Mol or CC attack (if the AFV itself does not attack).

This is less clear, there is on Q&A on the FT issue.

And an AFV must be hit by a 15mm or larger shell using direct fire (since a .50 cal, being just another MG, won't do), or by an ATR, to lose concealment. ATRs suddenly become rather more useful.

Well anything that can make a TH roll will do it, so LATW in general. But yeah, not MG.

 

[apbills]

In response to the SW Mortar - per the index "Ordnance (any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit): ..." So if it is caused a shock or immobilization, it must have hit the vehicle, which means "is a vehicle hit by ordnance, " from Case A applies. It loses its '?'.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Thx to everybody again for the help.

I knew that this is played by some people one way and other people play it other way (and both look correct at first glance). Its so difficult to find the correct rules answer in the heat of the game!!

 

[ScottRomanowski]

"some people one way and other people play it other way "
IMHO this forum and large tournaments help resolve that and unify us in interpreting rules the same way.

 

[jimfer]

This thread would have been so much easier if Perry would have chimed in about the rule... a simple

 

[FrankH.]

In response to the SW Mortar - per the index "Ordnance (any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit): ..." So if it is caused a shock or immobilization, it must have hit the vehicle, which means "is a vehicle hit by ordnance, " from Case A applies. It loses its '?'.

I got that now. Somehow I was thinking a VTT was required to hit a vehicle..! Yes, any ATT can result in a vehicle hit, causing its loss of concealment (even if unarmored) but even if hit an infantry needs to be attacked by at least a PTC on the IFT. So small target vehicles and particularly infantry are harder to strip of concealment.