MOL vs AFV questions

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Posting on behalf of Robert Hammond:

I have seven questions about a MOL attack vs an AFV. These questions rest (mostly) with rule A22.612, vs ARMORED TARGETS.
According to the second and third sentences, if the AFV is eliminated by the MOL attack, the squad which conducted this MOL attack appears to be mandated to use its IFP (i.e., Small Arms) plus the 4 FP of the MOL to conduct a Specific Collateral Attack vs the AFV's vulnerable PRC.

QUESTION #1: If there was NO vulnerable PRC at the time of the MOL attack, is the squad still mandated to use its IFP / Small Arms?

A. Yes.

QUESTION #2: If the answer to Q1 is a Yes, can this attack by the squad in which it is using its IFP cause a Sniper Activation dr?

A. Yes.

QUESTION #3: Does the squad/FG which conducts a Specific Collateral Attack vs vulnerable PRC because of a MOL attack leave Residual FP (RFP)?
(I am thinking, Yes & No; because of rule D.8, even though rule A22.612 does not refer to rule D.8, I am thinking the 4 FP of the MOL does NOT leave any RFP but the Small Arms does.)
{If the use of a MOL attack disallows leaving RFP even from the Small Arms / IFP, this is counter intuitive to me.}

A. The original Small Arms attack leaves RFP, not the Specific Collateral attack.

QUESTION #4: If the answers to Q1 & Q3 are yes - is the IFP of the squad halved as if conducting an attack vs a Concealed unit for RFP purposes?

A. If no non-armored unit was subject to the Small Arms attack, the RFP would be halved.

QUESTION #5: If a squad conducts a MOL attack, the cdr of the TK DR is a 1, the AFV is turned into a Burning Wreck, and the Location that the AFV is in contains Burnable Terrain, pursuant to A22.6111, is a Flame placed in the Burnable Terrain or does the AFV becoming a Burning Wreck count as placing a "Flame" in the Burnable Terrain?

A. The cdr of 1 does not automatically cause a Burning Wreck; regardless, it would place a Flame in the Burnable Terrain.

According to the third and fourth sentence of rule A22.612, an IFT attack using only the Small Arms FP is carried out against all non-armored units in the AFV's Location.
QUESTION #6: If the attack is conducted during the MPh, are enemy non-armored units in that Location which were not moving ignored for this attack? (I am thinking, Yes, but the way this rule is worded has me wondering.)

A. Yes.

QUESTION #7: The rule specifically refers to "Small Arms." However, if a Fire Group is conducting this attack and the FG is using a MG, is the use of the MG allowed? (I am thinking, Yes.)

A. Yes.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Update by Scott Romanowski :

There has been a revision to some answers in MOL vs AFV questions. I'm posting on behalf of Robert Hammond:

On 28 January Perry wrote:
Please correct the answer we sent on 1/23/23 to the following questions as shown:

QUESTION #3: Does the squad/FG which conducts a Specific Collateral Attack vs vulnerable PRC because of a MOL attack leave Residual FP (RFP)?
(I am thinking, Yes & No; because of rule D.8, even though rule A22.612 does not refer to rule D.8, I am thinking the 4 FP of the MOL does NOT leave any RFP but the Small Arms does.)
{If the use of a MOL attack disallows leaving RFP even from the Small Arms / IFP, this is counter intuitive to me.}

A. The original Small Arms-MOL attack leaves RFP, not the Specific Collateral attack.

QUESTION #4: If the answers to Q1 & Q3 are yes - is the IFP of the squad halved as if conducting an attack vs a Concealed unit for RFP purposes?

A. No.

....Perry

MMP
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top