Large Dummy Counters

Paul John

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 1970
Messages
706
Reaction score
511
Location
Cincinnati Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Hello all,
So, if a couple of vehicle sized dummies are in a grain field, how is 'recon by fire' resolved?
Can one ignore small arms (assume BU)?
Seems obvious, but don't see anything explicit in the RB.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Hello all,
So, if a couple of vehicle sized dummies are in a grain field, how is 'recon by fire' resolved?
Can one ignore small arms (assume BU)?
Seems obvious, but don't see anything explicit in the RB.
On the IFT, if you score a TC or better, it's removed if it's a dummy.
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
On the IFT, if you score a TC or better, it's removed if it's a dummy.
Yes, more specifically, as stated on the concealment chart, A12.121, CASE A. Were it a concealed BU AFV, after the concealment is stripped, then of course small arms is ignored.

This is a case of the ASLRB diverting attention to a chart 'outside the rules system' instead of printing the case in the rules somewhere. That's why you can't find it in the ASLRB, excepting that the RB refers players to the concealment chart for resolution of concealment situations.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Hello all,
So, if a couple of vehicle sized dummies are in a grain field, how is 'recon by fire' resolved?
Can one ignore small arms (assume BU)?
Seems obvious, but don't see anything explicit in the RB.
If it is a Dummy, a PTC or better on an IFT attack will remove it. If it is a BU AFV, nothing happens, but you will now know it is not a Dummy.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Yes, more specifically, as stated on the concealment chart, A12.121, CASE A. Were it a concealed BU AFV, after the concealment is stripped, then of course small arms is ignored.

This is a case of the ASLRB diverting attention to a chart 'outside the rules system' instead of printing the case in the rules somewhere. That's why you can't find it in the ASLRB, excepting that the RB refers players to the concealment chart for resolution of concealment situations.
I don't think this is quite right. Concealment is not stripped if it is a BU AFV because there would be no roll on his part no matter what the small arms roll is. You need a an ordinance hit to strip it. BTW, a little trick. Shoot at it with an MG as ordinance. If you score a hit, ? is stripped, even if it's a Stalin III!
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
...BTW, a little trick. Shoot at it with an MG as ordinance. If you score a hit, ? is stripped, even if it's a Stalin III!
Unfortunately, it has been ruled that a MG (at least non-vehicular) may not make a TH/TK attempt on a concealed target.

A9.61:
"...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. If hit in an unarmored Target Facing,..."

Q&A:
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.

Personally I think that A9.61 primarily is referring to the status of the firer that imposes halved FP - not that of the target.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Unfortunately, it has been ruled that a MG (at least non-vehicular) may not make a TH/TK attempt on a concealed target.

A9.61:
"...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. If hit in an unarmored Target Facing,..."

Q&A:
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.

Personally I think that A9.61 primarily is referring to the status of the firer that imposes halved FP - not that of the target.
Well slap my ass and call me Suzy! I've been ripping off people for years on this one.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Well slap my ass and call me Suzy! I've been ripping off people for years on this one.
And that's what you get when you throw the Rule Book (Ordinance) at it to strip concealment, next time use a Gun (Ordnance).:p:D
 

Matt Book

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
So for clarity sake here....

A squad with a HMG can't fire as ordinance to strip the concealment off a 5/8 Dummy, but it could shoot it as halved FP and if it gets a PTC or better result it strips the 5/8 concealment off permanently OR the AFV reveals itself momentarily and the 5/8 concealment is placed backed on the AFV leaving it concealed?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I don't think there is any requirement to reveal the AFV. The concealment does not come off, and no dummy is removed. Make of that what you like.

JR
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
I don't think there is any requirement to reveal the AFV. The concealment does not come off, and no dummy is removed. Make of that what you like.

JR
Wait. With a PTC or better dummies are always removed, right?
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
643
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
That struck me as odd. Are 5/8" dummies treated no different than 1/2" dummies for the purpose of stripping concealment? You couldn't fire on a BU concealed AFV with a MG and get a PTC and strip concealment could you? Somebody needs to explain this to me like I'm the dummy counter.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Wait. With a PTC or better dummies are always removed, right?
Sorry, I meant that the stack was not removed when it contains a real, BU AFV. The question was, do you have to reveal something in order to explain why this 5/8 in stack was not removed even though a PTC was achieved. I think the answer is no. A PTC will remove a dummy.

JR
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Sorry, I meant that the stack was not removed when it contains a real, BU AFV. The question was, do you have to reveal something in order to explain why this 5/8 in stack was not removed even though a PTC was achieved. I think the answer is no. A PTC will remove a dummy.

JR
That's the way I see it.
 
Top