moving tanks and PBF

[Oberst Balck]

Hi,

Nother brain teaser........

A Pz IV moves towards a T 34 gets adjacent and stops.



Pz IV T 34
moved due to being drunk, stopped
but stopped


Does the Pz IV get PBF if at 1 & or 2 hexes?

Thank you

 

[Reepicheep]

Provided the T 34 is also stopped then yes, your Pz IV would get PBF at range 1-2 hexes.

 

[Reepicheep]

btw, this is a Rules question so I've moved it to the rules folder.

 

[Oberst Balck]

answers

This question has bugged me for ages.

It should go in " glorious rules" to rememeber....

 

[Ole Boe]

Well, C6.3 says: "Ordnance ... firing at a range of one or two hexes ... adds ... Case L ... unless firing at a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle... Case L is not applicable if ... the firer is in-Motion/Non-Stopped/Aerial."

So the rule clearly spells out that it is applicable unless the firer and/or target is Motion/Non-Stopped - which means that it applies whenever both are Stopped. It doesn't even require you to look up more than a single rule, so it is one of the easier rules to verify

 

[Oberst Balck]

Well, C6.3 says: "Ordnance ... firing at a range of one or two hexes ... adds ... Case L ... unless firing at a Motion/Non-Stopped vehicle... Case L is not applicable if ... the firer is in-Motion/Non-Stopped/Aerial."

Well C 6.3 is full of needless verbage as is quite a lot of the ASL Rulebook. I could never understand why MMP never took that oportunity to do a complete re write of it.

Perry's idea of " do no harm" is just crap. HOW would you do harm by rearanging rules so that they were in the right place - in parrticular one place - or simplifying some of the totally unecessary embedded rules?

Where in the table does non- stopped have any effect in comparison with a vehicle in motion that stopped ? To me its just an added embuggerance that only a lawyer could be greatfull for.

Ta

 

[Ole Boe]

Well C 6.3 is full of needless verbage as is quite a lot of the ASL Rulebook. I could never understand why MMP never took that oportunity to do a complete re write of it.

Perry's idea of " do no harm" is just crap. HOW would you do harm by rearanging rules so that they were in the right place - in parrticular one place - or simplifying some of the totally unecessary embedded rules?

Well, it would take several years to do (I know, since I've used three quarters of a year to rewrite the PM rules), and several new errors/ambigiouties would probably sneak in.

Where in the table does non- stopped have any effect in comparison with a vehicle in motion that stopped ? To me its just an added embuggerance that only a lawyer could be greatfull for.

A vehicle that is not Stopped, is Non-Stopped during its MPh and in Motion any other time, so this rule needs to mention both.