Multiple Hits, ever pick the higher roll?

[jfardette]

Just looking at one of my tanks and noticed that despite the 75mm gun, it is allowed multiple hits, with the owner getting to choose which roll to take. Under what circumstances would someone take the higher of the two rolls? Maybe if they needed some prisoners and preferred a PIN they could follow up with a CC capture attempt instead of a Break? Seems like the defender would just voluntarily break in that situation and still rout away. Any others? Maybe to avoid the risk of creating rubble or a flame?

 

[Sparafucil3]

If I don't want my opponent to have SMOKE cover I might not take the burning wreck. Of course, that risks a crew survival roll. -- jim

 

[Mister T]

Sniper activation should be considered.

 

[jfardette]

That’s good, hadn’t considered snipers. Also didn’t think about other terrain changes. Might not want shellholes either. Or if firing into a melee might not want to risk the random selection of a KIA or K/# if you have the higher morale or plan on reinforcing the melee.

 

[Roundhill]

In order to affect the Hull/Turret hit location. Different armour values or if the target is Hull Down, for example.

 

[Thunderchief]

Sniper activation should be considered.

Probably 15+ years ago I asked if a SAN could be avoided by this (choosing the higher roll) and the answer was no, not sure it it became Q&A or not.

 

[jfardette]

In order to affect the Hull/Turret hit location. Different armour values or if the target is Hull Down, for example.

I don’t think multiple hits affects the hit location, just the resulting effect dice rolls. Or maybe I’m mistaken. Just got back from Winter Offensive with a half page of rules I’ve been playing wrong so why not this one?

 

[Treadhead]

I don’t think multiple hits affects the hit location, just the resulting effect dice rolls. Or maybe I’m mistaken. Just got back from Winter Offensive with a half page of rules I’ve been playing wrong so why not this one?

Hi,
The first TK DR acts as the hit location for the second TK DR. Second to last sentence of C3.8

 

[Treadhead]

Probably 15+ years ago I asked if a SAN could be avoided by this (choosing the higher roll) and the answer was no, not sure it it became Q&A or not.

Hi,
That's interesting.
My take on this

The Sniper attack occurs after resolving all effects of the DR that activated it...

is:
If the first TK DR is the SAN, and the second TK DR is not the SAN, and you take the second TK DR... since you are not resolving the effects of the first (SAN) TK DR, you are not thereby activating the Sniper.
Interesting.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hi,
That's interesting.
My take on this is:
If the first TK DR is the SAN, and the second TK DR is not the SAN, and you take the second TK DR... since you are not resolving the effects of the first (SAN) TK DR, you are not thereby activating the Sniper.
Interesting.

There is no SAN on a TK DR, first or other wise. -- jim

 

[Philippe D.]

There is no SAN on a TK DR, first or other wise. -- jim

That's a good reason why you cannot avoid a SAN by picking a non-SAN TK.

 

[Treadhead]

There is no SAN on a TK DR, first or other wise. -- jim

That's right, of course.
I out-thunk myself...

I had in mind the idea of selecting which of two IFT DR to use on a Multiple Hit, and then conflated my two responses when composing my latter reply about hit location.
The logic following that, if you resolve the effects of the second IFT DR, then you ignore the first IFT DR even if it is a SAN, because the results were not resolved.

 

[Vinnie]

If I don't want my opponent to have SMOKE cover I might not take the burning wreck. Of course, that risks a crew survival roll. -- jim

I've seen this happen with an ATG frozen by a halftrack.
He needed to weigh up the possibility of smoke blinding him against the chance of no effect if he fired HE.

 

[Thunderchief]

There is no SAN on a TK DR, first or other wise. -- jim

OK I must be mis-remembering, it was a long time ago - ASLML perhaps.....