Keeping acquisition while exiting/entering an entrenchment C6.5 and B27.13

[Robin Reeve]

Hi all,
If a MMC possessing an assembled SW Mortar is in an entrenchment and decides to move out of the entrenchment, does its SW mortar lose any previous Acquisition?
B27.13 clearly states that a unit in or out of an entrenchment is in the same Location (the exceptions being purposes of weapon Recovery or TEM).
C6.5 specifies that Acquisition is lost only when the unit changes Location.
So I come to the strange conclusion that indeed the Acquisition isn't lost.
Or did I miss something? I would gratefully acquire a corrective knowledge on that question.

 

[Justiciar]

How do you spell erratum????

 

[zgrose]

Hey, that sounds like a grudge rule, Justiciar!

 

[Robin Reeve]

There was a similar question on the French forum, but with a MMC gaining Crest status - but that was solved, as mortars cannot fire from Crest status (so even if the mortar kept acquisition, it would be useless - unless it is a wadi, but I didn't want to wade (tee hee) in DTO context).
I changed if for the comparable in/out of an entrenchment question.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Just to be sure: do you think that I interpreted the rule correctly here?

 

[Binchois]

I think there should be a Q sent to Perry. As is, I think you interpreted the RB correctly, though the result seems wrong considering that virtually all other movement (even a CA change) costs a Gun its AQ. We could try getting nitpicky with language:

C6.5 The target remains acquired until the Gun/manning-infantry that placed it leaves its present Location [EXC: Gyrostabilizer; 6.55] -- or the Gun changes its CA without firing on its already-acquired target during the current phase...
​

Though B27.13 states that units share the same Location whether in or outside the entrenchment (for most purposes), one could desperately argue that your unit leaves its Location even as it enters the same Location!

Possibly the ruling imagines that the unit manning a mortar can move in and out of the entrenchment without changing the position of the weapon too drastically (or without seriously impacting whatever AQ triangulation was previously achieved)...

As I said, I do think your reading is correct. But as Justicar implied, an EXCeption (or clarification) should probably be made to C6.5 and B27.13.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Good advice, thanks.
I sent Perry my question.

 

[zgrose]

It's certainly plausible that it was an oversight, but if you consider a Gun can track a vehicle that is circling a building (i.e. looking through walls and moving the Gun from one side of the building to the other to take the shot), it's really not that crazy.

 

[Robin Reeve]

No reality argument will help in this case, I am afraid.

 

[zgrose]

You opened the thread with a reality argument against keeping acquisition and I'm offering an example for another place where the rules don't account for reality but seem perfectly acceptable to the masses.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You opened the thread with a reality argument against keeping acquisition and I'm offering an example for another place where the rules don't account for reality but seem perfectly acceptable to the masses.

I only spoke of a "strange conclusion", but I didn't elaborate more.
You and I agree that a reality argument doesn't help.
I am not contesting what you wrote.

 

[Justiciar]

Hey, that sounds like a grudge rule, Justiciar!

Who me?!....I was channeling my inner Pleva! We all have a bit of Gor....

 

[Robin Reeve]

As B27.13 clearly states that a unit in or out of an entrenchment is in the same Location (the exceptions being purposes of weapon Recovery or TEM) and C6.5 specifies that Acquisition is lost only when the unit changes Location, here is my question:

If a MMC possessing an assembled SW Mortar is in an entrenchment and decides to move out of the entrenchment, does its SW mortar lose any previous Acquisition?


Not if it remains in its Location.

....Perry

 

[djohannsen]

I know that we've been around the block on the "reality argument" already, but I can't help myself... Mortars in ASL are direct laying on the target (there's no FDC and aiming stakes). So, climbing out of an entrenchment doesn't change the LOS to the target and doesn't affect the range estimate, so I don't see a huge loss of accuracy from the subsequent mortar fire. Thus, the ruling seems quite reasonable to me (if mortars were aligning on aiming stakes and taking fire missions from an FDC, then moving the mortar would cause all sorts of issues with previously acquired/registered targets).

 

[Robin Reeve]

You also can place mortar shells into the mortar to fire them, if you are at the edge of an ADJACENT hex, if the mortar is close to the hexside.
Reality arguments allow about any support or refutation of the rules.
I don't see why your reality argument is more reasonable than the idea that moving out of an entrenchment with a mortar means pulling it out and busting all the acquisition advantages.
What is reasonable in Perry's answer is that it applies the rules in a strict, logical way. Not that it corresponds with real life.

 

[Justiciar]

I know that we've been around the block on the "reality argument" already, but I can't help myself... Mortars in ASL are direct laying on the target (there's no FDC and aiming stakes). So, climbing out of an entrenchment doesn't change the LOS to the target and doesn't affect the range estimate, so I don't see a huge loss of accuracy from the subsequent mortar fire. Thus, the ruling seems quite reasonable to me (if mortars were aligning on aiming stakes and taking fire missions from an FDC, then moving the mortar would cause all sorts of issues with previously acquired/registered targets).

You just moved the base plate and it's not set/snug in again. How did that work for you in reality?

 

[djohannsen]

You just moved the base plate and it's not set/snug in again. How did that work for you in reality?

Given how quickly one is dropping rounds and that one is observing the impact, I suspect not all that poorly.

Edit:

I should amplify... One needs deflection and mils elevation. One is direct laying, so deflection is not an issue. Mils elevation comes from the range estimate (which doesn't change if location is unchanged). So, drop the first round with the already known elevation. This reseats the baseplate. Now, bubble up the sight (just a couple of seconds) and start dropping rounds again. If one needed for some reason to observe the impacts, at the ranges in ASL you're firing charge zero or charge one, so something like a 20 second ToF. If rounds are prepped (i.e., out of the fibers and excess charge bags torn off), you can drop rounds every 2-4 seconds. Now, I am not a mortar man, but have certainly dropped rounds in tubes many times, worked the plotting boards in 81mm mortar FDC, and have done a lot of FOing - direct lay is easy as can be.

 

[Justiciar]

I don't buy it. You had it dialed in...you moved..now you say on your first round down the tube you have it dialed in just as well as before...and you have all the ammo at hand to adjust quickly enough...

You were once at the bottom of a man deep trench, you now left that trench (this in ASL is not a change of location...ditto if you want to call it foxhole...) you moved somewhere within the 40m space of the hex, maybe just right outside the trench you were in (points in your favor of quick response)...or maybe you repositioned away from that trench, but still within the 40m of the hex.

You also have to reshuffle all the ammo, which is part of your gaining ACQ. quickly.

The ground conditions for the plate are not the same, but could be (the bottom of the trench had seep from ground water, or last night's rain, your new base plant is all gravel like and actually not well suited to the base plate setting in. ETC.)

Anyways the Perry Sez is the answer. This how the game functions. But I am not in favor of the answer.

 

[djohannsen]

I don't buy it. You had it dialed in...you moved..now you say on your first round down the tube you have it dialed in just as well as before...and you have all the ammo at hand to adjust quickly enough....

I said that the first round will reseat the baseplate, the mortar man then gets the bubble up and then drops the next round. Mortars generally rebubble after each fire mission, as the baseplate often moves slightly with each round. During an FPF, the tube pauses after every couple of rounds to get the bubble centered again.

If the mortar is not direct laying, then you're putting out aiming stakes with a compass and hand signals (etc) and this will always introduce error. It's even more problematic if you are using an FO who moves. This will take several rounds to get back on target (as the FO's estimates of his position, his range and azimuth to the target all introduce errors).

Trust me (again, I've put hands on mortars many times) direct lay is super easy. Though, as you noted, this conversation is immaterial - just meant to be enlightening.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Anyways the Perry Sez is the answer. This how the game functions. But I am not in favor of the answer.

Perry answered after the rules as written, but there could be an erratum some day.