IFT attack on Concealed BU AFV

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
If three American 50.cal HMG fire at a concealed German ht SPW 251/10 in the Brush BU taking a nap, the Americans cannot attack and strip the concealment in any way with their MGs as long as the target stays concealed (due to "halved" FP)?

The Q&A should be translated into rule updates/changes, until then it should be ignored.
 

DVexile

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
576
Reaction score
941
Location
Baltimore, MD
First name
Ken
Country
llUnited States
Asked and answered already earlier in this thread and specifically qualified in the Q&A.

This is again a case where if you willfully decide to misinterpret the rules ("well A9.61 says halved FP but you never halve FP when you do a TH") then the Q&A is there to make it clear to you that when they wrote that sentence in A9.61 they put it there for a functional reason, not just for rules lawyers to say the clause never has effect.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
953
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
and

Personally I would have liked it to only be halved FP due to firer-based conditions, e.g., pinned, IN a stream. Not due to the target being Concealed, but the Q&A says otherwise.
I think I see it. If an AFV is concealed in a space 40 meters wide, amongst presummably other concealment terrain there, it will be difficult if not impossible to target and hit with a relatively low rate of fire AT cannon, especially if there is no actual AFV there. But it will be more possible to determine there is some kind of an AFV is in the hex with a far higher rate of fire (non-penetrating) MGs, or IFEs, just not determining precisely what kind of AFV is there. The rounds that bounce off the AFV will make a distinctive sound everyone will be listening for. My only other thought is there might be some limit to the range that these sounds can be heard - chart indicates it is @ > 16 hexes, meaning potentially an infinite distance, if in LOS.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
Asked and answered already earlier in this thread and specifically qualified in the Q&A.

This is again a case where if you willfully decide to misinterpret the rules ("well A9.61 says halved FP but you never halve FP when you do a TH") then the Q&A is there to make it clear to you that when they wrote that sentence in A9.61 they put it there for a functional reason, not just for rules lawyers to say the clause never has effect.
C6.2 Case K, concealed target: MG firing at a hidden/concealed add +2 to its To Hit DR. The effect of a hit that used case K is not halved as Area Fire.

A9.61 The halved penalty is clear to me that it means , MG firer is not pinned, moved, in stream/marsh, etc
Not that the AFV target is concealed.

The Q&A make no sense.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
953
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
The sound of an MG firing will wash out the sound of pings from anywhere close to it!
That's a good point. The ones that may hear these pigs will not be the ones firing. Unless they wear earplugs in only one ear, and fire in very short bursts?

Or maybe they could sense it by seeing some ricochets hit nearby terrain?
 

DVexile

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
576
Reaction score
941
Location
Baltimore, MD
First name
Ken
Country
llUnited States
C6.2 Case K, concealed target: MG firing at a hidden/concealed add +2 to its To Hit DR. The effect of a hit that used case K is not halved as Area Fire.

A9.61 The halved penalty is clear to me that it means , MG firer is not pinned, moved, in stream/marsh, etc
Not that the AFV target is concealed.
5.2 CASE B; FIRE IN AFPh as well as C5.4 CASE D; PINNED FIRER cover pinned, moved, stream/marsh in exactly the same way as C6.2 CASE K; CONCEALED TARGET does. See also C.3 TO HIT/EFFECTS DRM. So your claim doesn't stand up at all, you can't say A9.61 applies to pinned, etc. but doesn't to concealed. The area fire rules are identical for them. In other words, you are saying that A9.61 never applies because in fact FP is never halved when using the VTT.

The Q&A make no sense.
It is perfectly consistent with the rules as written.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
5.2 CASE B; FIRE IN AFPh as well as C5.4 CASE D; PINNED FIRER cover pinned, moved, stream/marsh in exactly the same way as C6.2 CASE K; CONCEALED TARGET does. See also C.3 TO HIT/EFFECTS DRM. So your claim doesn't stand up at all, you can't say A9.61 applies to pinned, etc. but doesn't to concealed. The area fire rules are identical for them. In other words, you are saying that A9.61 never applies because in fact FP is never halved when using the VTT.
C6.2 Case K, concealed target: MG firing at a hidden/concealed add +2 to its To Hit DR. The effect of a hit that used case K is not halved as Area Fire
 

DVexile

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
576
Reaction score
941
Location
Baltimore, MD
First name
Ken
Country
llUnited States
C6.2 Case K, concealed target: MG firing at a hidden/concealed add +2 to its To Hit DR. The effect of a hit that used case K is not halved as Area Fire
Read the other rules, combined with C.3 (& C.4 and C3.53). They say exactly the same thing. Pinned is +2, not halved. Stream is +2, not halved. AFPh is +2, not halved.

EDIT: Added reference to C.4 and C3.53 as well. C.3 isn't the most applicable.
 
Last edited:

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
IMO it would be clearer if A9.61 had errata changing "without any form of halved FP penalty imposed " to "without any provision of Area Fire imposed" so that it ties directly with the language in C.4. The intent is there, the disconnect is the use of two different wordings trying to say the same thing.
 

PresterJohn

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
822
Reaction score
468
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
That's a good point. The ones that may hear these pigs will not be the ones firing. Unless they wear earplugs in only one ear, and fire in very short bursts?

Or maybe they could sense it by seeing some ricochets hit nearby terrain?
My sense is that if one is looking at an area for an AFV (an area which may be hex shaped and about 40 m across) then the observer can see where an AFV is not (i.e. not behind the small bushes), so one just has to direct fire into those parts of the hex where a AFV could be (i.e. behind the bigger bushes). What would one observe if there was a concealed AFV? Probably that your tracer rounds were not coming out the other side and flying off in random directions as they strike the ground.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
12.13 EFFECT: All fire and CC vs a concealed unit are halved as Area Fire
[EXC: Residual FP, OBA, ordnance, Sniper, and minefield attacks].


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):

Is the MG using the TH table as ordnance....

Seems pretty clear.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
"EFFECT" means TK, not TH.
Seems pretty clear that if a MG should have its IFT attack halved, it cannot fire as ordnance.
That said, you can play any way you wish at your home between consenting adults.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
This type of rule twisting by a Q&A is loserthink, never seen it played in that manner.

Explain to players this silly Q&A is not worth it, that a German 3-8 LMG mounted on a halftrack (or a Motorcycle sidecar) can strip concealment from an AFV, but not if the 3-8 LMG is manned by Infantry.

Do not believe any Tournament director will rule along this twisted Q&A ruling, but will make sure to ask before I attend.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
It all comes down to the interpretation of A9.61 "without any form of halved FP penalty imposed,"

Is the imposed +2 TH DRM (Case K) penalty a "form of halved FP penalty"? The Q&A says it is. I would suggest that the C.4 language says just that, i.e., "Instead" indicates that Ordnance's implementation of "Area Fire" penalty which normally caused halving of the FP on the IFT, "Instead" comes in the form of the Case k To Hit DRM. (don't confuse this with "Area Target Type", which is something completely different)

"C.4 ORDNANCE AREA FIRE: Ordnance Area Fire never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the target's status uses the Case K To Hit DRM (6.2). "

You don't have to agree, you don't have to play that way, but the logic is just as sound (if not more so) as the opposite position, i.e., only a shot that has its FP halved prevents a MG from firing as ordnance, and since an AFV fired at using the Vehicle Target Type is immune to "FP" and can only be affected by the TH/TK process, there is never any use of "FP" let alone any halving, so the statement in A9.61 has no possible applicable situation and is just superfluous.
 

DVexile

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
576
Reaction score
941
Location
Baltimore, MD
First name
Ken
Country
llUnited States
Again, just ask yourself - why would someone write a clause into a rule that is never true and thus never affects game play? For those who say “well it is ordnance so it is never half FP” please answer the question why is that phrase there at all then? They just wanted to add some words to a rule that never have effect to waste ink and paper?

Is it ambiguous? Yes, a little bit. Fine, use context like any sensible person.

Option 1: Interpret it as since it is ordnance it is never half FP. Result, rule never has any effect and thus author had no reason to write it in the first place.

Option 2: Interpret it as conditions in which it would be half FP on an IFT attack you aren’t allowed to fire as ordnance at all and thus the rule actually does something.

Hmmm… Which makes the most sense assuming the author of the rule is not deranged?

Furthermore, an explicit Q&A is sent and the reply confirms Option 2, the only option that contextually makes any sense at all given the rule as written.

Fine, maybe you don’t like the rule, think it affects game play negatively or doesn’t match reality. Anyone can have that opinion and that opinion is defensible. And people feel that way about many unambiguous rules too.

But, claiming the Q&A says something different than the RB or changes the RB or trying to claim the RB really means to allow such fire against concealed targets simply is not defensible at all. You have to contort things ridiculously and assume the author is a moron to try to support the position.

The Q&A is abundantly clear and 100% consistent with the rule as written. Claiming otherwise fails basic language and logic.

Claiming you don’t like the rule or think it makes the game worse is perfectly defensible. Agreeing with an opponent in advance to ignore the rule is perfectly reasonable as well. Trying to claim the rule doesn’t say what it clearly says and is backed up by a Q&A is not defensible.
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
831
Reaction score
553
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
Answer the following, keep your answer short, please.

1-2-7 in halftrack with 3-8 AAMG can strip ?
4-6-7 in halftrack with LMG can strip ?
1-2-7 in sidecar with 3-8 LMG can strip ?
1-2-7 on-foot with 3-8 LMG can strip ?
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
953
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
My sense is that if one is looking at an area for an AFV (an area which may be hex shaped and about 40 m across) then the observer can see where an AFV is not (i.e. not behind the small bushes), so one just has to direct fire into those parts of the hex where a AFV could be (i.e. behind the bigger bushes). What would one observe if there was a concealed AFV? Probably that your tracer rounds were not coming out the other side and flying off in random directions as they strike the ground.
Uh. I guess. But not everyone is using tracer rounds. And depending on the range it might be hard to see any effect. Up to 16 hexes, perhaps, depending on the type of (concealment) terrain.
 

PresterJohn

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
822
Reaction score
468
Location
The Orient
Country
llAustralia
Uh. I guess. But not everyone is using tracer rounds. And depending on the range it might be hard to see any effect. Up to 16 hexes, perhaps, depending on the type of (concealment) terrain.
One in five, or one in four tracer is pretty common for machine guns. Do you have anyone in mind that you might be thinking of that had a doctrine of using machine guns without a tracer mix for their ammo. Also 640 m is well within the observation capability of a machine gun team leader with a pair of binoculars watching for fall of shot for his tracer rounds. But you're quoting maximum range rather than a more realistic ASL range of a few hundred metres. Even in full daylight, when you know what you're looking at, tracer rounds let you know what is going on. You just have to be patient. Mind you stone buildings will be a problem. Wooden buildings just take longer and you can set them on fire.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
1,548
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I am not sure that the “halved FP” is the reason why the MG TK attempt is not allowed. A9.61 states that the TK attempt must be predesignated against a specific AFV. By definition, a concealed/HIP AFV is not known to the firer and cannot therefore be “specific”. Hence the MG TK attempt is NA. The Q&A is consistent with this.
 
Top