Mortar vs AFV - TH or IFT DR determines hit location?

[DVexile]

If attacking an AFV with an ATT attack with a mortar does the TH DR or the IFT DR determine whether the hit is turret or hull?

The RB, tables, and SK are a bit contradictory.

C.1 INDIRECT FIRE states: All ASL references to Indirect Fire apply to both OBA and mortars, although onboard mortars must secure hits using the To Hit Table in the same manner as Direct Fire weapons.

Table C7.7 note E for the Indirect Fire column states: Use Original IFT DR for Hit Location (C1.55)

The above imply you use the IFT DR for a Mortar, though one might argue that if target location is part of the "to hit table" so it would be the TH DR. But the note could then have been more specific and said "Use Original IFT DR for OBA Hit location" but doesn't make that distinction.

C3.332 states: An Area Target Type hit vs vehicles is resolved as per 1.55.

C1.55 states: Use the OBA's original IFT DR vs an AFV to determine the hit location (3.9) of that OBA attack.

This does not specifically state "ATT" or even "Indirect Fire" but instead "OBA". So does C3.332 intend for all ATT to use the IFT DR instead of the TH DR or is it just referring to the rest of C1.55?

C3.9 states: An ordnance hit vs a vehicle strikes its turret/upper-superstructure Aspect if the colored DR of the Original TH DR is < white dr.

C.2 ORDNANCE: Any weapon that must secure a hit on a To Hit Table before resolving the effect of that hit on either the IFT or To Kill Table is termed ordnance.

This makes absolutely no mention of Target Type or Indirect Fire. It implies any "ordnance hit" uses the TH DR and a Mortar is ordnance.

3.332 EX states: A Russian 76mm Gun uses the Area Target Type... The Original TH DR's colored DR is < its white dr, so the take is a hit.

This seems to say that at least ATT attacks that aren't a mortar use the TH DR.

Chapter K, page K37, 2nd column, 4th Paragraph (discussing the TH DR for a mortar on a tank): Note that our colored die was greater than or equal to the white die. That means we scored a hull hit.

This seems to say mortars use the TH DR.

And finally, stepping now over to SK, the SK3 AFV DESTRUCTION TABLE doesn't have an "Indirect Column" but instead an "Area Target Type" column with a note that says again "Use the original IFT DR for hit location".

This seems to have gone out of the way to explicitly make ATT not use the TH DR despite the fact that there is no OBA at all in SK and it would have been simpler to have just left the TH DR to make the location determination.

Honestly, this isn't a particularly big deal as long as parties agree before hand. To me it would sort of make sense that if you already have a TH DR then might as well use that for location and that OBA is the exception since there is no TH DR so it uses the IFT DR. The ASLRB example and the Chapter K seem to contradict the SK3 table note, but it sure seems like someone went out of the way to put that SK3 note in.

Couldn't find a Perry Sez on this...

 

[apbills]

C9.1 "Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance but are treated as Indirect Fire weapons for fire resolution purposes; i.e., although they must make To Hit DR, the IFT effects of those hits are resolved using indirect Fire principles and modifiers. "

C1.55 "Use OBA's original IFT DR vs an AFV to determine the hit location (3.9) of that OBA attack. "

The TH DR determines the location of the hit for all Ordnance. OBA doesn't require a TH DR, so you use the IFT DR. You were on the right track.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I think C3.9 defines the process -- the TH DR determines whether the hull or turret is struck. OBA uses the IFT DR since there is no TH DR, and I fear that the rules that reference C1.55 weren't written "tight" enough to make it clear that it's IFT for OBA, and TH for ordnance.

 

[Jwil2020]

As far as the SKRB goes, we are told in the RB text how to resolve the IFT DR once a hit has been secured:
7.11 Area Target Type Results:
"A hit using the Area Target Type vs an AFV is resolved on the IFT using half of the FP of the column representing the ordnance’s caliber size, using the same effects DR for all units hit by the attack. A final KIA result destroys the AFV and a final DR resulting in a K/# or one greater than a K/# Shocks the AFV on a turret hit or immobilizes it on a hull hit. TEM modifies the IFT DR, as do the following DRM: -1 if all AF are ≤ 4; +1 if all AF are ≥ 8."

But, as you point out, we have to consult the QRDC note (in fine print no less) to figure out that we use the "Original IFT DR for the hit location," and not the TH DR as we do when using the VTT. It would seem that this was intentional (maybe someone thought that would be easier for the poor newbie?), but one would think that for consistency's sake, the TH DR for the ATT would serve that purpose like if does for the VTT.

On a side note, there are other examples in SK where important information is given to us on the QRDC, but not in the RB text. (The FP status of a pinned unit in CC comes to mind).

 

[DVexile]

C9.1 "Mortars are Direct Fire ordnance but are treated as Indirect Fire weapons for fire resolution purposes; i.e., although they must make To Hit DR, the IFT effects of those hits are resolved using indirect Fire principles and modifiers. "

C1.55 "Use OBA's original IFT DR vs an AFV to determine the hit location (3.9) of that OBA attack. "

The TH DR determines the location of the hit for all Ordnance. OBA doesn't require a TH DR, so you use the IFT DR. You were on the right track.

Thanks, C9.1 while not totally explicit does add to the pile that would seem to indicate using the TH DR is the intent. And that makes the most sense to me really, only use the IFT DR if there was no TH DR in the first place (i.e. OBA). It makes the SK3 table note seem like an error, as if someone copied the ASL table and changed "Indirect Fire" to "Area Target Type" without thinking through the implications. There really is no reason at all to switch to the IFT DR in SK since there is always a TH DR in SK. The table not seems unnecessary and arbitrary.

I think C3.9 defines the process -- the TH DR determines whether the hull or turret is struck. OBA uses the IFT DR since there is no TH DR, and I fear that the rules that reference C1.55 weren't written "tight" enough to make it clear that it's IFT for OBA, and TH for ordnance.

Yep, that's what it looks like to me as well.

As far as the SKRB goes, we are told in the RB text how to resolve the IFT DR once a hit has been secured:
7.11 Area Target Type Results:
"A hit using the Area Target Type vs an AFV is resolved on the IFT using half of the FP of the column representing the ordnance’s caliber size, using the same effects DR for all units hit by the attack. A final KIA result destroys the AFV and a final DR resulting in a K/# or one greater than a K/# Shocks the AFV on a turret hit or immobilizes it on a hull hit. TEM modifies the IFT DR, as do the following DRM: -1 if all AF are ≤ 4; +1 if all AF are ≥ 8."

But, as you point out, we have to consult the QRDC note (in fine print no less) to figure out that we use the "Original IFT DR for the hit location," and not the TH DR as we do when using the VTT. It would seem that this was intentional (maybe someone thought that would be easier for the poor newbie?), but one would think that for consistency's sake, the TH DR for the ATT would serve that purpose like if does for the VTT.

On a side note, there are other examples in SK where important information is given to us on the QRDC, but not in the RB text. (The FP status of a pinned unit in CC comes to mind).

I'm now thinking more along the lines I replied above - the SK3 table note is probably a transcription error rather than intent. When they created it from C7.7 they just changed "Indirect Fire" to "Area Target Type" and copied the note without thinking it through. If you ignore that SK3 table note then the ASLRB and the SKRB would be more consistent with each other and SK wouldn't be introducing an unnecessary change to using the IFT DR on ATT when it would be just as easy and random to use the TH DR like with VTT and ITT. And yeah - I remember us to diving around the SKRB during a game only to discover the answer was on the QRDC instead!

Thanks everyone! I felt like it should be the TH DR, and the ASLRB seemed to lean pretty well that direction with just a bit of ambiguity, but that SK3 table note had me scratching my head. For now I'm going to assume the SK note is erroneous (if essentially harmless as well).

 

[Jwil2020]

the SK3 table note is probably a transcription error rather than intent. When they created it from C7.7 they just changed "Indirect Fire" to "Area Target Type" and copied the note without thinking it through

Certainly, a plausible explanation. Especially since MMP has already made several corrections to earlier editions of the SK QRDCs. However, I see that in the corrected QRDC for DaE, that MMP provides on their resources tab, the same footnote in the AFV Destruction Table is still there:

https://mmpgamers.com/support/aslsk/ElstCharts.pdf

But as you said, either way, it's still essentially harmless.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I'm now thinking more along the lines I replied above - the SK3 table note is probably a transcription error rather than intent.

I agree....I noticed the QRDC in ASL SK#4 has the same "error".