MG's as MA ?

[MLaPanzer]

Playing our first early war scen. So I have several vehicles with MG's as MA's there seems to be a lot of confusion between us as to when a MG as an MA can attempt a To Hit DR. Can an MG as an MA make a to hit DR as Bounding fire? Can it use the To Hit during Advancing fire phase? Can it use intensive fire or does it use sustained fire?
Sorry i don't have the apropriate rules numbers. I'm writing this at work in hopes of getting answers so we can continue with the game tonight.

Thanks MLaPlanzer.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

A vehicle has a main armament MG when, instead of a Gun caliber listing in the lower left hand corner of the 5/8" counter printed in bold, it has BMG, CMG, AAMG, or even ATR for some of the Bren gun carriers (though that is not an MG).

If the vehicle's MA is MG, as specified above, it can roll for to hit/to kill, can lay down firelanes, can try deliberate immobilization, can use sustained fire (non-sw Guns use intensive fire, MGs use sustained fire). Yes, MA MG can make to-hit/to-kill BFF attacks if it wanted & use ADVPh fire. The appropriate rules are spread out in the ASLRB. Check chapter D, H & the index for the definition of MA MG, sustained & intensive fire rules for the definition of what Guns/SWs can use (note, Guns can be vehicle mounted, but a MG is not a Gun [unless >= 15mm IIRC], though both can fire as ordnance [i.e. use to the to-hit/kill table]). Check DI section for what weapons may use deliberate immobilization. Usually MA MG has IFE (infantry fire equivalent) which can be added, as a fire group, to other MGs on the vehicle & tripled/halved for OVR or TPBF-BFF type attacks.

So, you would have to check various sections of the rules depending on what uses/attacks you may desire to use for your MA MG, since all the rules for MA-MG are not localized to any one particular section of the ASLRB.

 

[Yarlis]

If the vehicle's MA is MG, as specified above, it can roll for to hit/to kill, can lay down firelanes...

As per A9.22, Fire Lanes may be declared by MG's manned by unpinned INFANTRY.
I understand this disallows laying a Fire Lane from a vehicle/its PRC.

Is there really any rule which makes possible for a MG MA to lay fire lanes?

Thanks
Juan

 

[Robin Reeve]

can lay down firelanes

No, A9.22 specifies : "...a Good Order SW MG that is manned by unpinned Infantry..."

can try deliberate immobilization

Neither, C 5.71 says : "... A Deliberate Immobilization attempt is not allowed against a HD/immobilized target, or with Indirect Fire or MG/IFE..."

can use sustained fire (non-sw Guns use intensive fire, MGs use sustained fire)

Only as per A 8.4 (DFPh - already marked by First Fire counter)...
Other points seem OK...

 

[Blackcloud6]

Yes, MA MG can make to-hit/to-kill BFF attacks if it wanted

I'm not sure I agree with this because A9.61 states: "Such an attack must be made within normal range of the MG, without any form of halved FP penalty imposed..." No where does this rule say it is only referring to SW MGs nor vehicular MGs.

BFF imposes a 1/2 FP penalty on a MG (D3.52) and A9.61 says "..without any form of halved FP penalty..."

Thus, to me, a MA MG, firing as BFF, fails to meet the rule of A9.61 and thus cannot then be designated as ordnance and fire the To Hit/To Kill shot.

The MA MG can fire in the AFPh as ordnance because D3.54 specifically allows it.

 

[Treadhead]

I'm not sure I agree with this because A9.61 states: "Such an attack must be made within normal range of the MG, without any form of halved FP penalty imposed..." No where does this rule say it is only referring to SW MGs nor vehicular MGs.

Interesting point.

BFF imposes a 1/2 FP penalty on a MG (D3.52) and A9.61 says "..without any form of halved FP penalty..."

Okay. But the first sentence of D3.52 starts, "Any BMG/CMG/IFE..." Because of that, it could be argued that the reference later to MG Bounding First Fire is to BMG/CMG/IFE.

Further, it mentions that its FP is halved, thus implying that the use contemplated is on the IFT.

Finally, "IFE" refers to the MA's use on the IFT. Thus, the 1/2 FP penalty only applies to the MA if it uses IFE.

Perhaps.

The MA MG can fire in the AFPh as ordnance because D3.54 specifically allows it.

It is true that D3.52 does not contain the phrase found in D3.53, "... unless it is MA attempting a To Kill DR as ordnance (A9.61)."

However, this phrase could imply that the 1/2 FP penalty does not apply to ordnance, and reinforces my contention about the "MG" reference in D3.52.

Perhaps.

My last argument rests with D3.31, which states, "Any non-ordnance weapon ... using Bounding (or Bounding First ) Fire has its FP halved."

Thus, an ordance weapon does not have its FP halved, which makes sense because ordnance does not use FP.

My conclusion is that a MA MG firing as ordnance may fire it using Bounding First Fire.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Blackcloud6]

My last argument rests with D3.31, which states, "Any non-ordnance weapon ... using Bounding (or Bounding First ) Fire has its FP halved."

This precisiely why I don't think the MG as MA can fire because it does not qualify as ordnance because it does not meet the pre-requisit of A9.61.

Okay. But the first sentence of D3.52 starts, "Any BMG/CMG/IFE..." Because of that, it could be argued that the reference later to MG Bounding First Fire is to BMG/CMG/IFE.

True, but the second sentence stands alone.

Further, it mentions that its FP is halved, thus implying that the use contemplated is on the IFT.

Correct and again I refer to A9.61 which says "...without any form of halved FP..."

In the introduction, it says to only do what the rules tell you can and cannot do.

I've cited spefics that stop the MG as MA from firing a TH/TK in BFF, all others is derived from implications. No where does it say you can fire an MG as MA in BFF but it does say that an MG cannot be fired as a TH/TK if it's FP is halved.

Seems clear to me.

 

[Larry]

Interesting position, but probably wrong. D3.53 states that a MG as MA firing in the AFPh still uses case B if firing as ordnance. Therefore, the halved FP of a MG is NA to vehicular MG functioning and firing as MA at an armored target.

D3.31 is similar. Non-ordnance fire in BFF is halved. However, a MG firing as MA at an armored target is not "non-ordnance" because it is ordnance. D1.3. The provisions of A9.61 must yield to D3.31 and D3.53.

The rules read together would not make sense if a vehicle could roll up and attempt a TH and TK in the AFPh but not as part of BFF. IMO.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Interesting position, but probably wrong. D3.53 states that a MG as MA firing in the AFPh still uses case B if firing as ordnance. Therefore, the halved FP of a MG is NA to vehicular MG functioning and firing as MA at an armored target.

But the rule specifcally states "in the AFPh" and the introduction tells you not to read into the rules.

The rules read together would not make sense if a vehicle could roll up and attempt a TH and TK in the AFPh but not as part of BFF. IMO.

Maybe they wanted to vehicle to have to brave all the Defensive Fire before it gets it's chance to fire it's MA MG at a AFV. This is an act of depseration, and it would take many penetrating rounds to make it effective... Thus the notion that it would take relativley longer and sustained fire form a vehicle's MG to disable a tank that it would from a single hot from a cannon MA.

I still stick by the notion that there is nothing that says the MA MG can fire in BFF while there is rules that say MGs cannot fire TH/TK when their FP is halved by any reason.

Show me otherwise without inferrring from other rules.

 

[Treadhead]

This precisiely why I don't think the MG as MA can fire because it does not qualify as ordnance because it does not meet the pre-requisit of A9.61.

In the Index, the entry for MG contains the following: "[Vehicular: (see Vehicular MG: D3.5-.54)]"

In the Index, the entry for Vehicular MG Fire contains the following: "D3.5-.54 [Bounding First Fire: D3.3-.32]".

Based on those two entries, I would say the place to learn how to treat Vehicular MG and Bounding First Fire is D3.5 and D3.3-.32.

A9.61 is simply NA for Vehicular MG, and you are therefore incorrect.

I've cited spefics that stop the MG as MA from firing a TH/TK in BFF, all others is derived from implications. No where does it say you can fire an MG as MA in BFF but it does say that an MG cannot be fired as a TH/TK if it's FP is halved.

What you've cited is NA with regard to Vehicular MG Fire.

D3.54 says the MA MG may attempt a To Kill attack.

D3.3 describes how to apply Bounding First Fire for a To Kill attack.

D3.31 instructs that non-ordnance has its FP halved. Since a To Kill attack is an ordnance attack, the 1/2 FP penalty does not apply to said ordnance attack. (And anyway, it pays the appropriate penalties as Case C.)

Seems clear to me.

To determine the effects of Vehicular MG Fire, first consult the Index to find the applicable rule. The Index tells us to find Vehicular MG Fire in D3.5. Reading D3.5, there is no reference to A9.61. [Edit: There is such a reference, in D3.53.] In fact, there is no reason at all to consider A9.61 for Vehicular MG Fire, because Vehicle MG rules are not found there.

It is very clear to me, as well. A9.61 is NA to Vehicular MG Fire.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Treadhead]

I still stick by the notion that there is nothing that says the MA MG can fire in BFF while there is rules that say MGs cannot fire TH/TK when their FP is halved by any reason.

Show me otherwise without inferrring from other rules.

Okay.

"The MG ... the vehicle's MA with a specific Multiple ROF, in which case it and its ROF will be listed as the MA in the lower left-hand corner of the counter." [D3.5]

This establishes when a MG is the MA.

"A vehicular-mounted MG may not attempt a To Kill attack unless it is the vehicle's MA." [D3.54]

This establishes that MG MA may attempt a To Kill attack, which also means the MG MA may fire as ordnance.

"... to use Bounding First Fire, any vehicular ordnance must use one of the Case C To Hit DRM..." [D3.3]

This establishes that a MG MA -- which is vehicular ordnance -- uses Case C for Bounding First Fire. Which of course, means that vehicular ordnance -- such as a MG MA -- may use Bounding First Fire.

How much more direct can that be?

"Any non-ordnance weapon ... using Bounding (or Bounding Fire) Fire has its FP halved." [D3.31]

This provides further clarification for non-ordnance MG fire, and also establishes by its omission that ordnance MG does not suffer the 1/2 FP penalty. (It instead suffers the appropriate ordnance penalty, which is Case C.)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Blackcloud6]

It is very clear to me, as well. A9.61 is NA to Vehicular MG Fire.

Then why does D3.53 have (A9.61) at the end? This refers you back to the rule that you say is NA.

The MG ... the vehicle's MA with a specific Multiple ROF, in which case it and its ROF will be listed as the MA in the lower left-hand corner of the counter." [D3.5]

This establishes when a MG is the MA.

"A vehicular-mounted MG may not attempt a To Kill attack unless it is the vehicle's MA." [D3.54]

"... to use Bounding First Fire, any vehicular ordnance must use one of the Case C To Hit DRM..." [D3.3]

This establishes that a MG MA -- which is vehicular ordnance -- uses Case C for Bounding First Fire. Which of course, means that vehicular ordnance -- such as a MG MA -- may use Bounding First Fire.

How much more direct can that be?

Direct? That's a tying together of 4 rules. Not very direct.

Also, D3.31 starts as "MG/FT" thus it refers to all MG fire and cites specific exceptions to the rule [EXC FT, Gyrostabilized CMG v. Acqyuired Target] It does not list MG firing as MA." There fore it's halved fire and A9.61 applies as rule D3.53 refers to A9.61. This is explicit and does no require any inferences as you path of logic does. Again, I reiterate that the introdiction to the rules admonishes the use of inference into what is not there.

 

[SamB]

"Any non-ordnance weapon ... using Bounding (or Bounding Fire) Fire has its FP halved." [D3.31]

I have to agree with Bruce Bebakken. Remember that when you announce a "To Hit" attempt you are "ordnance", and the ordnance rules apply.

Some of the early war AFVs have a MA listed as "12.7" which is the caliper in milimeters for a half inch or ".50 Cal" weapon. So, where does it say that this is a machine gun? It could be, or it could be a "cannon" that fires a half inch shell.

Sam "Like I know AFVS!"

 

[Blackcloud6]

Some of the early war AFVs have a MA listed as "12.7" which is the caliper in milimeters for a half inch or ".50 Cal" weapon. So, where does it say that this is a machine gun? It could be, or it could be a "cannon" that fires a half inch shell.

Intersting that this disctinction is made. I know my MGs well and I know of no 12.7mm "Cannon" only HMGs. But this is also irrelevant to the arguement.

Remember that when you announce a "To Hit" attempt you are "ordnance", and the ordnance rules apply.

I understand that and agree with that, but the sticking point is that by rule A9.61 you cannot declare a MA MG as ordnance because it is halved in FP. A9.61 prohibits you for declaring it to use TH. If someone can prove to me, explicitly, that A9.61 does not apply to an MG as MA then I will agree it can be used in BFF.

If your logic is correct, why then can I not use a LMG that moved in the MPh to fire at as Ordnance in the AFPh and just use the +2 TH modifier?

 

[Treadhead]

I know my MGs well ...

You evidently do not know the difference between an Infantry MG and a Vehicular MG.

Oh, well. Guess I won't convince you. Perhaps you should ask a Higher Authority...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Blackcloud6]

You evidently do not know the difference between an Infantry MG and a Vehicular MG.

I real terms they are for in almost all cases they are the same MGs, one is carried by troops, one is mounted in a vehicle. For example, the MG 34 was carried by infantry and also mounted as the AAMG, COAX and Bow MGs of the Mk IV tank. But this has nothing to do with the the discussion of the rules of the game.

Our disagreement stems that you think think the Vehicular MG rules are totally seperate from the MG rules in Chapter A. Unfortunately you have not shown me any proof of your notion. ASL rules are explicit rules. In this case they are either lacking or you are misinterpreting them by reading into the rules something that is not there.

I reiterate:

A9.61 states that a MG (does not distinguish infantry or vehicular) cannot fire a TH/TK shot if its FP is halved for any reason.

D3.31 States that any non-ordnance vehicular weapon is halved if fired in BFF. It says in such a convincing way: "MG/FT: Any non-ordnance weapon using Bounding (or Bounding First) Fire has its FP halved." The sentence starts with "MG."

D3.53 only addresses the use of a vehicular MG firing a TH/TK shot ine the AFPh, it does not metntion the MPh at all. But it does refer back to A9,61 for the mechanics of such a shot.

D3.54 only prohibits non MA vehicular MGs from firing the TH/TK shot and allows the MA MGs to do so. I does not adress in what phases.

So I fail to see in any sense how the MA MGs can shoot TH/TK as BFF.

Oh, well. Guess I won't convince you. Perhaps you should ask a Higher Authority...

I hope you are not being flippant, it's uncalled for..

 

[skye88]

D3.53 only addresses the use of a vehicular MG firing a TH/TK shot ine the AFPh, it does not metntion the MPh at all. But it does refer back to A9,61 for the mechanics of such a shot.

D3.54 only prohibits non MA vehicular MGs from firing the TH/TK shot and allows the MA MGs to do so. I does not adress in what phases.

What happens if a vehicle has a gun MA , and a MG as well? Could it fire in Prep Fire Phase with both it's gun and MG , making a TH attempt with both on for instance a halftrack?

 

[Reepicheep]

What happens if a vehicle has a gun MA , and a MG as well? Could it fire in Prep Fire Phase with both it's gun and MG , making a TH attempt with both on for instance a halftrack?

That's a much easier question. A vehicular MG can only make a To Kill attack if it is the vehicle's MA (D3.54). So if it has a gun MA, MG To Kill attacks aren't allowed.

 

[Treadhead]

I real terms they are for in almost all cases they are the same MGs, one is carried by troops, one is mounted in a vehicle. For example, the MG 34 was carried by infantry and also mounted as the AAMG, COAX and Bow MGs of the Mk IV tank. But this has nothing to do with the the discussion of the rules of the game.

I was referring to the ASL Infantry MG and ASL Vehicular MG. Not "reality".

Our disagreement stems that you think think the Vehicular MG rules are totally seperate from the MG rules in Chapter A. Unfortunately you have not shown me any proof of your notion. ASL rules are explicit rules. In this case they are either lacking or you are misinterpreting them by reading into the rules something that is not there.

I have shown you that Vehicular MG are different by referring to the Index.

IMO, I am not misinterpreting anything.

D3.31 States that any non-ordnance vehicular weapon is halved if fired in BFF. It says in such a convincing way: "MG/FT: Any non-ordnance weapon using Bounding (or Bounding First) Fire has its FP halved." The sentence starts with "MG."

Please look very closely. It says non-ordnance MG. Non-ordnance.

We are of course talking about ordnance MG, and its Bounding First Fire penalty is Case C, as indicated in D3.3.

I hope you are not being flippant, it's uncalled for..

No, I was being serious.

I was referring to the ASL Higher Authority; that is, MMP.

I am comfortable with the sufficient evidence to indicate that MG MA is ordnance, and as ordnance may use Bounding First Fire.

All references in D3.3 and D3.5 to "halved FP" for MG is clearly to non-ordnance MG.

I guess you don't see that.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[SamB]

Blackcloud,

If you doubt that a MG MA can be used for a TH attempt as bounding fire, you should send that question to MMP.

You can fire a MA MG as "ordnance" and make a TH attempt. When you do, the rules in Chapter A for "MGs" do not apply.

I will not attempt to convince you, but would encourage you to write to MMP for a definitive answer. I can say that I've seen MA MGs fired as bounding fire at several tourneys - and there was never any question of it's legality.