M20 firing BAZ

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I agree with Klas.
The C5.3 EX is clear enough for me.
Now, that element could have been spelled elsewhere than in an example.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I really wish I had the time to get into this thread because I find it very interesting. I don't have the time but I will ask a question.
Has anyone ever read or seen any report in the real world of a bazooka being fired from a scout car? The Brigadier and the Colonel, being infantry types, were curious.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Yes, I know that - I am merely saying - to me - it doesn't make much sense that there should be a difference - it is still two guys inside the vehicle using the BAZ.

C5.3 EX:
EX: A Stabilized Gun (D11.11) firing in the AFPh after entering a new hex during that Player Turn must apply a +3 DRM (case B + C; 2 + 1) to its To Hit DR; a T or ST Gun Type must add a +4 DRM (2 + 2); a NT Gun Type or any Passenger must add a +5 DRM (2 + 3). MA AAMG would add +2 DRM (Case B only).

Sort of saying that something fired as ordnance by a Passenger is treated as a NT Gun (there's an old Q&A about this as well)....once again, to me, it make sense a Passengers and crew are treated the same way in this regard. YMMV.
I agree with Klas.
The C5.3 EX is clear enough for me.
Now, that element could have been spelled elsewhere than in an example.
v1 Q&A said:
C5.35, C13.8 & D6.1 May Passengers fire PF/- PFK, BAZ or RCL using the Desperation penalty as per C13.8? If yes, if such a SW is fired from a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle, does the SW pay To Hit Case C4 ?
A. Yes. Yes; rather than using the customary Case C3 , these and the other SW ordnance [EXC: MG NA] would apply all the other Case C DRM as if a non-Stabilized NT Gun; and a +2 Mounted Fire DRM would also apply if not in an armored HT. [Compil3]
eASLRB v2 said:
EX: A Stabilized Gun (D11.11) firing in the AFPh after entering a new hex during that Player Turn must apply a +3 DRM (case B + C; 2 + 1) to its To Hit DR; a T or ST Gun Type must add a +4 DRM (2 + 2); a NT Gun Type or any Passenger must add a +5 DRM (2 + 3). MA AAMG would add +2 DRM (Case B only).
Now that I have a v1 rulebook thanks to the generosity of a fellow forumite, I can once again compare v1 to v2 rules. The part in BOLD RED was added to the v2 rulebook, most likely as a result of the v1 Q&A above from the Romanowski collection. It's an interesting evolution of the rule book and also highlights why the v1 Q&A are in an awkward position. Sometimes they were actually added to the rulebook and sometimes they weren't, but according to First Do No Harm-Perry Cocke, Journal Three (2001), all Q&A were considered for v2 and

First Do No Harm said:
We would incorporate all the Q&A/Errata, but just the official Q&A (mostly). We had already been through the unofficial Q&A to evaluate what should be made official, but we would do so again just to make sure. Completely rewrite the Wall rules, but no other major rewrites. And no changes just for the sake of change. If a rule worked and was readily understood, leave it alone. If it worked but was subject to misinterpretation, reword the rule, don't reinvent it. And time was of the essence.
This is why you see Klas sometimes refer to Q&A as "unofficial". If it's old Q&A, it has been either added or discarded. They carry some weight as Perry has emphatically said he doesn't want to be asked all these old questions again returning the original Q&A to some quasi state of "unofficially official". Before you use them, it takes some effort to read the old Q&A, look at the v2 rules to see if they were added/clarified (it helps to have a v1 ruleset for comparison which is why I was sad I tossed my old one), and then make some judgement on the Q&A itself. If it changes the rules as written, you are almost compelled to disregard it as that type of adjustment has been considered and disregarded (with C5.3, you can see it was considered and added). If it clarifies a rule--makes it easier to understand--then you can use the Q&A with some caution. Just my .02 YMMV. -- jim
 

Juan SantaX

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
978
Reaction score
567
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
Agreed, though you understate the case. Parsing the rulebook is entirely academic.
Until you have to fight 5 pzIV with some baz on ht and on M20… Morning Masacre. You have also Shermans, but they arrive late and far away. The fast M20 has a work to do.

I will use it as a NT, I think it should be the same as being fired by a passenger. What about the AAMG MA? How does it BFF?
 

Ralph Malf

***** Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
687
Reaction score
68
Location
Wisconsin
Country
llUnited States
I'll revive this thread to point out something I'd never noticed before. The (awesome) one-page QRDC /TH Chart made by Ole Boe has the following Case C on the TH Table. Notice the part I highlighted at the very end of the line.
C Bounding Firer............................................Case B plus [MA AAMG: 0] [Stabilized Gun: +1] [T/ST: +2] [NT/PRC: +3]
My copy of the Rat Charts also has the "PRC" in Case C, but neither my MMP Electronic Rulebook Charts nor my physical Second Edition Rulebook TH Chart has it. I don't have the new pocket charts so I can't comment on them.
 

Faded 8-1

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
831
Location
Ohio
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
Just checked the Pocket Charts... not on there (neither the Chapter C blue chart nor the QRDC).
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
I think this Q&A is the source of that +3:

C5.35, C13.8 & D6.1 If Passengers fire PF/PFK, BAZ or RCL using the Desperation penalty as per C13.8 fired from a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle, does the SW pay To Hit Case C4?
A. Yes; rather than using the customary Case C3, these and the other SW ordnance [EXC: MG NA] would apply all the other Case C DRM as if a non-Stabilized NT Gun; and a +2 Mounted Fire DRM would also apply if not in an armored HT. [VFTT #9] {Edited for v2}
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I'll revive this thread to point out something I'd never noticed before. The (awesome) one-page QRDC /TH Chart made by Ole Boe has the following Case C on the TH Table. Notice the part I highlighted at the very end of the line.
C Bounding Firer............................................Case B plus [MA AAMG: 0] [Stabilized Gun: +1] [T/ST: +2] [NT/PRC: +3]
My copy of the Rat Charts also has the "PRC" in Case C, but neither my MMP Electronic Rulebook Charts nor my physical Second Edition Rulebook TH Chart has it. I don't have the new pocket charts so I can't comment on them.
OMOOT so could you explain what the Rat Charts are, who Old Boe is and if possible what are the sources he used to compile his chart.

Just a quick side note. I still have the handmade TK table Mac made for us to playtest wwwbitd.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I think this Q&A is the source of that +3:

C5.35, C13.8 & D6.1 If Passengers fire PF/PFK, BAZ or RCL using the Desperation penalty as per C13.8 fired from a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle, does the SW pay To Hit Case C4?
A. Yes; rather than using the customary Case C3, these and the other SW ordnance [EXC: MG NA] would apply all the other Case C DRM as if a non-Stabilized NT Gun; and a +2 Mounted Fire DRM would also apply if not in an armored HT. [VFTT #9] {Edited for v2}
Well Scott answered that question of my even before I posted it! Nice job.
 

Ralph Malf

***** Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
687
Reaction score
68
Location
Wisconsin
Country
llUnited States
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
For Bounding (First) Fire purposes the rules/EX makes it clear that a BAZ fired by a Passenger is treated as an NT weapon. To me, it would be strange if for some reason it would not be treated the same if fired by the crew.

Of course, this whole thing is probably a little academic, since one rarely fires a BAZ out of a vehicle anyway - with the backblast and all. :)
It's actually insanely relevant. When the enemy forgets you have a BAZ in that little M20...and you pull around behind him with your 8 rear armor...ignoring it...It fires a baz...I'll take a little 'POOF" for the potential to destroy a tank...considering the M20 can't on it's "own"
 
Top