Malfunctioned Gun and CA change

[JimWhite]

Can a unit who possesses a malfunctioned Gun change its CA?

 

[Binchois]

Yes it may - by Q&A:

Q. (C3.22) If a gun is incapable of firing because it is malfunctioned or disabled, can it make a CA change at the end of its friendly fire phase?​

A. Yes, provided its manning Infantry could fire the Gun (per C3.22) if it were functioning. [Compil4]​

 

[Eagle4ty]

In some instances, Yes, per Q&A mentioned above and C3.22 "[EXC: (unlimbering (10.22), Pushing (10.3), and turreted guns with other turreted armament (D3.51)]". Having stated as much however, the Q&A is very old, a letter to Romanowski only, and has never been brought forward as an official errata/clarification though sufficient time has certainly been there to do so on such a basic question. The rule C3.22 as presented would seem to indicate a negative to your query other than the aforementioned exceptions.

 

[Binchois]

In some instances, Yes, per Q&A mentioned above and C3.22 "[EXC: (unlimbering (10.22), Pushing (10.3), and turreted guns with other turreted armament (D3.51)]". Having stated as much however, the Q&A is very old, a letter to Romanowski only, and has never been brought forward as an official errata/clarification though sufficient time has certainly been there to do so on such a basic question. The rule C3.22 as presented would seem to indicate a negative to your query other than the aforementioned exceptions.

I think the Q&A still applies. According to C3.22 it is the status of the crew - not the Gun - that determines whether the Gun can fire:

3.22 CHANGING CA WITHOUT FIRE: A Gun may change its CA without firing only at the end of a friendly fire phase (not MPh), and only if at that time its crew is still able to fire it without using Intensive/Sustained Fire [EXC: (un)limbering (10.22), Pushing (10.3), and turreted guns with other turreted armament (D3.51)].​

 

[Eagle4ty]

I think the Q&A still applies. According to C3.22 it is the status of the crew - not the Gun - that determines whether the Gun can fire:

3.22 CHANGING CA WITHOUT FIRE: A Gun may change its CA without firing only at the end of a friendly fire phase (not MPh), and only if at that time its crew is still able to fire it without using Intensive/Sustained Fire [EXC: (un)limbering (10.22), Pushing (10.3), and turreted guns with other turreted armament (D3.51)].​

I think the operative words in the rule as presented are "still able to fire it" pertaining to the Gun itself and not the crew. Sure I would go with the Q&A response, as unsubstantiated as it is, but the wording of the rule as presented does not meet that interpretation though it may well be the intent.

 

[Binchois]

A newer Q&A also allows self-destruction of a malfunctioned SW/Gun (the same problem in the RB):

Q. (A9.73) May a unit/inherent crew destroy a SW/Gun/vehicular-weapon even if the weapon is malfunctioned and as such the unit/inherent crew, though being possibly in theory allowed to fire it, is not practically able to do so?​

A. Yes.​

According to A9.73:

A9.73 SW SELF-DESTRUCTION: A SW/Gun/vehicular-weapon may be destroyed or deliberately malfunctioned (instead of firing it) by the unit or inherent crew possessing it during any PFPh/DFPh in which the weapon and possessing unit would otherwise still be allowed to fire it (see 8.4 for DFPh restrictions).​

 

[Robin Reeve]

Yes it may - by Q&A:

Q. (C3.22) If a gun is incapable of firing because it is malfunctioned or disabled, can it make a CA change at the end of its friendly fire phase?​

A. Yes, provided its manning Infantry could fire the Gun (per C3.22) if it were functioning. [Compil4]​

Isn't that a Q&A before the ASLRB 2 was edited?
In that case, its value is very debatable.

 

[Steed]

I think the operative words in the rule as presented are "still able to fire it" pertaining to the Gun itself and not the crew. ......

I think you nailed it here. Does the phrase "still able to fire it" apply the manning crew or to the gun itself? If the gun then it would be no. If the crew then it would be yes. After reading it several times I always assumed it applied to the gun. But I can also see where it would apply to the crew instead. So maybe another question to Perry to clarify which it applies to?

 

[mgmasl]

I think is about the crew, because is the one doing the action, the gun may not change CA by itself, it needs a crew to do the action..… If a vehicular gun, I suppose it would refer to the gun itself.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I cannot see how it could be other than the crew. SW don't do things on their own and a Gun is basically just an obese SW. AFV are slightly different in that by default they have an inherent crew who have wrinkles of their own.

 

[Steed]

I cannot see how it could be other than the crew. SW don't do things on their own and a Gun is basically just an obese SW. AFV are slightly different in that by default they have an inherent crew who have wrinkles of their own.

What I am saying is - since a malfunctioned gun can not fire, it can not change its CA or since the crew has done nothing and would be able to fire it ( if it wasn't malfunctioned ) it can change it's CA? I've taken to mean the gun can't fire since it's malfunctioned therefore no change. And I know other players have too.

 

[mgmasl]

We think the crew is the one doing the action and the one who must “be able to fire it” according to rules.. the fact that the gun is broken is irrelevant for this rule and so the Q&As about similar issues with malfunctioned weapons.. surely a new Q&A to MMP may remove definitively any doubt if considered necessary .

 

[Eagle4ty]

We think the crew is the one doing the action and the one who must “be able to fire it” according to rules.. the fact that the gun is broken is irrelevant for this rule and so the Q&As about similar issues with malfunctioned weapons.. surely a new Q&A to MMP may remove definitively any doubt if considered necessary .

I disagree with your assumption that "it" refers to the crew and not the Gun, but wholeheartedly agree with a new Q to Perry as I believe the intent would allow a CA change in such a circumstance (but who knows for sure?).

 

[Ricardo Garcia]

I think that if a crew can destroy a malfunction gun, why could they not change their CA if malfunctioned? In both cases, it is the crew and their capabilities that determines whether they can or cannot do so (in my view).

 

[Vinnie]

I cannot see how it could be other than the crew. SW don't do things on their own and a Gun is basically just an obese SW. AFV are slightly different in that by default they have an inherent crew who have wrinkles of their own.

Some guns are sensitive about thrir weight. How can you be so cruel?

And yes, you can turn a malfunctioned gun if you could fire it if it were not malfunctioned. The onus is on the crew's ability not the gun. I believe you could also rotate a vehicle gun for the same reason.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I think that if a crew can destroy a malfunction gun, why could they not change their CA if malfunctioned? In both cases, it is the crew and their capabilities that determines whether they can or cannot do so (in my view).

When a Gun is disabled, it is removed from play.
How would you have the crew change its CA in that case?
Reality arguments are useless to understand the rules properly.

 

[Ricardo Garcia]

When a Gun is disabled, it is removed from play.
How would you have the crew change its CA in that case?
Reality arguments are useless to understand the rules properly.

Sorry, I didn't mean disabled but malfunctioned. I think the idea of the rule is focused on the capability of the crew, whether they "could" fire the gun without penalties for Intense/sustained fire, more than the fact whether the gun can be actually be fired or not. But I'm no expert, just the way I read it.

 

[Robin Reeve]

But why not then apply that realism argument to a disabled Gun?
It still has a gunshield and a crew still can pivot it.

 

[Binchois]

But why not then apply that realism argument to a disabled Gun?
It still has a gunshield and a crew still can pivot it.

The incredible, shrinking cover of malfunctioning ordnance! Malfunction? Lose the ability to pivot the Gunshield. Disabled? Lose the shield altogether - and "Emplaced" benefits too!

In the end, I agree that the original question could use a brand new Q&A, hopefully with an issued RB Errata. Personally, I still think the rulebook's intent was that the crew's status is all that matters for both Gun self-destruction and Gun CA change without firing. Existing Q&A's confirm this, even if one of them is older. At worst, the RB leaves the question ambiguous. But until a final pronouncement is made, the two Q&As are all we have and these seem firmly to tip the scales towards realism.