Motion Attempt & DFF

milhaud

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
464
Reaction score
16
Location
Jerez, Spain
Country
llSpain
Hello there.
My question. An AFV does an succesful motion attempt and it changes its VCA/TCA.. then, should it to add Case A for any Fire in this enemy MPh? or only C4 Motion Firer would be used?.

References:
C5.11 says "All Guns use Case A to fire at targets outside their current CA when changing their CA for a shot in that phase".
D2.401 says "...may still use MOtion Fire (Case c4) thereafter.

Thanks in advance for any reply.
Best of wishes
Ramón
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,780
Reaction score
2,319
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Case A should not apply, since the VCA/TCA change was done "for a shot".

There is an old official Q&A - sort-of saying otherwise - at least for Gun Duel calculation purposes:
C2.2401 If an AFV successfully passes a Motion Attempt dr in the enemy MPh and changes its CA
(D2.401) but then becomes involved in a Gun Duel, must it use TH Case A?
A. Yes. [Gen25.2; An95w; An96]

...but I have my doubts as to the accuracy of this Q&A (even though it is official) - given that there is nothing in the 2nd Edition rules that says anything like it. At least not that I'm know of.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
439
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I've always been a little uneasy with no Case A on Motion attempts. I play that Case A never applies to the "free" TCA/VCA changes made with a Motion Attempt since that seems to be the consensus among the cognoscenti. Indeed, it is a possible interpretation of the word "freely" in D2.401:

A vehicle which gains Motion status during the enemy MPh is marked with a Motion counter and allowed to freely change its VCA/TCA (provided it passes any required Bog Check DR as a result), but may still use Motion Fire (Case C4) thereafter.
The problem is that this one word seems to be the only justification for not applying Case A, even though it may merely be saying that the AFV is free to select any TCA and any VCA without any MP penalty/requirements. We play that it also means the AFV can make the changes free from any firing penalty, but that's a lot to hang on one word despite the plausibility that the writers didn't imagine it that far.

I do take solace from the same sentence referencing Case C4, since it shows that the writers had firing consequences on their minds. But it sure would be clearer if Case A was also mentioned (or if Motion attempt CA changes were EXCepted under C5.1). Perhaps a 3rd Edition will solve this. For now, the Q&A regarding Gun Duels and Motion attempts just gnaws at our collective consciences! 😳

Besides, Motion Fire is a pretty big handicap as it is.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
439
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Besides, Motion Fire is a pretty big handicap as it is.
I think this shows the designers did "imagine it that far."
This doesn't really show anything, since Case A would apply to other already-in-Motion firers changing CA(s) during their opponent's MPh. But no argument was really intended. I'm happy with the rule "as played" (no CASE A in conjunction with a successful Motion attempt). I'm just pointing out that this is a matter the RB should and could easily clarify. We shouldn't have to infer something so significant from things left unsaid. Nothing under the Case A rules suggests that Case A wouldn't be applied in this case and nothing under D2.4 speaks to Case A directly.

But again, I'm satisfied with the current standard. Truth is, we can construct a pretty vivid reality-argument to show that NOT applying Case A to a Motion Attempt CA change is quite logical. And now that you mention it, the Motion Fire penalty (Case C4) does suggest another "proof" that Case A shouldn't apply:

D2.401 ...Even a vehicle in Motion may make a Motion Attempt dr in this manner so as to freely change its VCA/TCA at that time.​
While a Motion attempt by an In-Motion vehicle may simply be defensive (to face its stronger armor factor towards the enemy), avoiding Case A is a big reason to want to do this.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,780
Reaction score
2,319
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
The problem is that this one word seems to be the only justification for not applying Case A,...
I think that C5.11 provides justification as well....

5.11 All Guns use Case A to fire at targets outside their current CA when changing their CA for a shot in that phase....

IMO, a TCA/VCA change done via a Motion attempt is not "changing CA for a shot".
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
439
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I think that C5.11 provides justification as well....

5.11 All Guns use Case A to fire at targets outside their current CA when changing their CA for a shot in that phase....

IMO, a TCA/VCA change done via a Motion attempt is not "changing CA for a shot".
I agree...more fuel for your fire (see also, my post #6 above). But again, it's another inference. Perhaps such a Motion-attempt CA change IS the act of changing CA for a shot (when the shot is made immediately after rolling the attempt) - hence the Q&A's verdict that Case A would apply.

P.S. Sorry for muddying the swamp waters that the RB sometimes are! Consensus is Good and, in fact, necessary for some of this RB stuff. I guess I'm just trying to prod the 3rd-Edition writers to be...
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
H
I think that C5.11 provides justification as well....

5.11 All Guns use Case A to fire at targets outside their current CA when changing their CA for a shot in that phase....

IMO, a TCA/VCA change done via a Motion attempt is not "changing CA for a shot".
However, using that very same statement one could creditably argue that it does indeed include Case A as if your motion attempt & CA change was immediately followed by a shot, you certainly would be changing your CA for that shot. Clear as mud to me, but because of the Q&A I have always inferred that Case A does apply to all successful Motion attempt shots and that "freely" simply means that during a motion attempt one may change their CA without firing. Pretty slim ground to stand on either way.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,780
Reaction score
2,319
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
However, using that very same statement one could creditably argue that it does indeed include Case A as if your motion attempt & CA change was immediately followed by a shot, you certainly would be changing your CA for that shot.
IMO, they are two separate actions, ymmv.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
796
Reaction score
130
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
But again, I'm satisfied with the current standard. Truth is, we can construct a pretty vivid reality-argument to show that NOT applying Case A to a Motion Attempt CA change is quite logical. And now that you mention it, the Motion Fire penalty (Case C4) does suggest another "proof" that Case A shouldn't apply:

D2.401 ...Even a vehicle in Motion may make a Motion Attempt dr in this manner so as to freely change its VCA/TCA at that time.​
While a Motion attempt by an In-Motion vehicle may simply be defensive (to face its stronger armor factor towards the enemy), avoiding Case A is a big reason to want to do this.
Motion attempt is almost entirely defensive IMHO. I think it's a pretty limited case where you want to hold fire and use a motion attempt rather than use MG fire to shift TCA/VCA facing. Motion attempts are for getting the correct armor facing, and the +2 protection of being a motion target, and occasionally it's also critical for an AFV to be able to spend its first MP (when its Mph comes in the next turn) in another hex -- allowing the AFV to escape a firing squad cued by that "start" 1MP.

Looking at some actual DRMs I think it's pretty clear Motion is not an attractive option if you're trying to accomplish things with the MA.

A Defender NT AFV faces due south directly away from a BFF'ing AFV attacker from 3 hexes north of Defender. Attacker has entered LOS, spent 3MP and declared a stop with the 4 expenditure. Now....

If the Defender declares DFF -- his stopped DFF shot will be Case A (+5) -- no C+B and NO x2 ldr. Whereas, If Defender makes a successful Motion Attempt on MP 4 the subsequent shot will be C(+3NT)+ B(+2) + x2 ldr ... The same +5 DRM but with double lower dr added. So -- even without Case A added -- the Motion DFF shot is pretty much trash. If this is a ROF MA weapon, the difference becomes extreme... The stable AFV's ROF shot at the same target will have no A,B,C at all... just -1 for TA. But the poor motion AFV would get the exact same mods no matter how many times it got rate -- +3+2 x2 ldr and TA never gets placed by motion [EXC gyrostablizers]. Sure, Motion Attempt lets you keep your ability to fire -- but you can't do anything effective with it... and the motion AFV will have to take its chances with BFF or AFPh in the next turn (Prepfire NA for motion vehicle). Even defensively the Motion Attempt has its drawbacks. The Defender has to wait for the enemy to spend MP in LOS, and if the MP expenditure is less than 6 the Motion attempt can be missed. If the stopped Defender has an unfired BMG it is usually more effective to spin the AFV to the correct facing with a BMG shot at first sight of the attacker. Of course the motion attempt could be taken vs a non threatening unit that enters los on the other side of the map where no fire is involved. Any number of possibilities exist. But in general, to the best of my knowledge, Motion Attempt has no offensive benefits (preparing for an OVR maybe?) and is almost exclusively about gaining: the case J +2 DRM, a defensive facing change, and no 1st Start MP. That +2 DRM for motion does come in handy when getting CC'd.

I wonder if anyone has experimented on the change in gameplay that would occur if motion fire caused only x2 ldr and applicable Case A, but case C+B were dropped entirely. I think the effect would be modest. But Motion DFF would have just enough teeth to be non-ignorable.
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,903
Reaction score
188
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Question to fantastic Pleva house rule allowing the motion attemp to stop.. which are the modifiers to apply to any DFF shot after the suscessful stop attemp?.. similar to adv fire modifiers after entering a new hex?
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
439
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Motion attempt is almost entirely defensive IMHO. I think it's a pretty limited case where you want to hold fire and use a motion attempt rather than use MG fire to shift TCA/VCA facing. Motion attempts are for getting the correct armor facing, and the +2 protection of being a motion target, and occasionally it's also critical for an AFV to be able to spend its first MP (when its Mph comes in the next turn) in another hex -- allowing the AFV to escape a firing squad cued by that "start" 1MP.

Looking at some actual DRMs I think it's pretty clear Motion is not an attractive option if you're trying to accomplish things with the MA.

A Defender NT AFV faces due south directly away from a BFF'ing AFV attacker from 3 hexes north of Defender. Attacker has entered LOS, spent 3MP and declared a stop with the 4 expenditure. Now....

If the Defender declares DFF -- his stopped DFF shot will be Case A (+5) -- no C+B and NO x2 ldr. Whereas, If Defender makes a successful Motion Attempt on MP 4 the subsequent shot will be C(+3NT)+ B(+2) + x2 ldr ... The same +5 DRM but with double lower dr added. So -- even without Case A added -- the Motion DFF shot is pretty much trash. If this is a ROF MA weapon, the difference becomes extreme... The stable AFV's ROF shot at the same target will have no A,B,C at all... just -1 for TA. But the poor motion AFV would get the exact same mods no matter how many times it got rate -- +3+2 x2 ldr and TA never gets placed by motion [EXC gyrostablizers]. Sure, Motion Attempt lets you keep your ability to fire -- but you can't do anything effective with it... and the motion AFV will have to take its chances with BFF or AFPh in the next turn (Prepfire NA for motion vehicle). Even defensively the Motion Attempt has its drawbacks. The Defender has to wait for the enemy to spend MP in LOS, and if the MP expenditure is less than 6 the Motion attempt can be missed. If the stopped Defender has an unfired BMG it is usually more effective to spin the AFV to the correct facing with a BMG shot at first sight of the attacker. Of course the motion attempt could be taken vs a non threatening unit that enters los on the other side of the map where no fire is involved. Any number of possibilities exist. But in general, to the best of my knowledge, Motion Attempt has no offensive benefits (preparing for an OVR maybe?) and is almost exclusively about gaining: the case J +2 DRM, a defensive facing change, and no 1st Start MP. That +2 DRM for motion does come in handy when getting CC'd.

I wonder if anyone has experimented on the change in gameplay that would occur if motion fire caused only x2 ldr and applicable Case A, but case C+B were dropped entirely. I think the effect would be modest. But Motion DFF would have just enough teeth to be non-ignorable.
Of course you are right - MA shots while in Motion are pretty much %#&@! So I probably should not have included such a “big” adjective. 😟

But think about approaching Infantry versus a vehicle well-endowed with MGs. A Motion attempt may even be made vs MFs spent by the enemy, and a "south-facing" AFV with a 4/4/- MG allotment may need at least 2 hexspines to bring all MGs to bear. Before TEM and FFMO/FFNAM, you get 8 FP +4 (Case A) or 4 FP (Motion Firer) no mod... I'd prefer the latter (besides all the defensive benefits).

True enough, Motion is typically a reactive action, and such behaviors are inherently "defensive." But whether a tactic is ultimately offensive or defensive depends a lot upon the situation-in-context plus the thinking of the one performing the action. Why was my vehicle stopped where it was? Perhaps it had been there for two turns and now its work was done. Perhaps it was HIP. I was just looking for an opportunity to start her up, spin her a few hexspines (freely!), and send her off to achieve the next objective (like chasing the fools who just triggered my Motion attempt)!
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
796
Reaction score
130
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
But think about approaching Infantry versus a vehicle well-endowed with MGs. A Motion attempt may even be made vs MFs spent by the enemy, and a "south-facing" AFV with a 4/4/- MG allotment may need at least 2 hexspines to bring all MGs to bear. Before TEM and FFMO/FFNAM, you get 8 FP +4 (Case A) or 4 FP (Motion Firer) no mod... I'd prefer the latter (besides all the defensive benefits).
That is a great point. It's also kind of an odd point in that for some reason MGs, including the CMG are penalized less in Motion DFF (1/2FP) than in non-stopped BFF (1/4 FP)... whereas this is not the case for the MA. That Motion Attempt works for a little extra bite with the MGs. I still honestly think the tactic you've proposed would be a defensive minded move most of the time... sort of a 'shoot your way out of the saloon move' ...because if it's about winning this fight, here, then you're probably better off stopped, taking what bad shots you have now, and setting up for having low or no drm shots in your upcoming turn. Motion is usually more for running out of a jam than staying to fight. I fully admit all is contextual and you are absolutely right there is some offensive value to Motion and MGs... particularly if the MA is malf or useless against infantry and the plan is to use the MGs now in DFF going to an OVR attack when the friendly MPh comes.

(off topic, but why the heck wasn't some cannister ammo standard load out for AFVs... I mean Warships had been firing grapeshot since time immemorial)
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,813
Reaction score
1,381
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Another way to look at it....

Could this just represent that although it is your MPh and your are maneuvering against the enemy, this local defining AFV gets the jump on you, and that is why Case A or reduction of MG FP does not happen... It is like a mini initiative win...sort of like a Gun Duel.

Besides the Klasian these are 2 separate action approach to looking at it.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
IMO, they are two separate actions, ymmv.
I tend to agree but simply note that the poor wording compounded with the Q&A response could lead to such a inference that freely may simply mean "without firing". However, having said as much I would think adding Case A would be kind of adding a double penalty as Case C4 already include Case C which addresses Stabilized Gun, T/ST and NT Guns already.
 
Top