Not using an MA in an overrun

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I find the idea that a vehicle can decline to use its base 2 FP in an OVR attack so that its FT is unaffected by beneficial TEM to be mind boggling. If it does not use the base 2 FP, in what way does the "OVR" differ from simply using bounding first fire? Why should the target be penalised for being in OG if the attacking vehicle (by forfeiting the 2 FP) is not actually overrunning it? The only logical way that I can interpret this is that the rule is effectively saying that an OVR using a FT is going to affected by defensive TEM and thereby suggesting indirectly that the way to avoid this is to use bounding first fire instead.

Going back to the original question posed, does the answer not lie in the fact that a vehicle cannot conduct an OVR if it is already marked with a "bounding fire" counter? If a vehicle has used its MA as bounding first fire, why would it be prohibited from conducting an OVR if it were possible to decline use of the MA as part of the OVR attack? It could simply conduct the OVR using its MG armament. The fact that the rules prohibit this suggests that an OVR attack involves the mandatory use of all weaponry available to the overrunning vehicle, including the MA.
 
Last edited:

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The rule's footnote seems to indicate that the MA is not used at all for most OVR.

ASLRB Chapter D Notes said:
9. 7.11 FP: Ordnance is given little weight in calculating the FP of an OVR attack because it is of little value in the close-quarter fighting reflected by an OVR. The vehicle depends primarily on its movement, imposing presence, and secondary armament firing on targets of opportunity for its lethality. Most OVR situations would not leave the vehicle with time to bring its MA to bear against targets at such close range and probably in full flight nor might the vehicle commander be willing to stop his vehicle long enough to aim in such close proximity to enemy Infantry without escorting Infantry of his own.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
This is an interesting question as many scenario VCs involve AFVs with functioing MA.

The extra 4FP versus 2FP does not buy you another IFT column if your AFV's MG total is 5, 7, 10 or 12; so in those cases never use the MA (if that is the allowable result of a Perry Sez).

Does seems a bit crazy that a MkVIB would choose to OVR with a 2FP and not use the 10 FP CMG MA because the MkVIB commander peaked at the scenario card's VC.

Rich
 
Last edited:

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I find the idea that a vehicle can decline to use its base 2 FP in an OVR attack so that its FT is unaffected by beneficial TEM to be mind boggling. If it does not use the base 2 FP, in what way does the "OVR" differ from simply using bounding first fire?
OVR allows you to use the FT multiple times in one MPh.
Why should the target be penalised for being in OG if the attacking vehicle (by forfeiting the 2 FP) is not actually overrunning it? The only logical way that I can interpret this is that the rule is effectively saying that an OVR using a FT is going to affected by defensive TEM and thereby suggesting indirectly that the way to avoid this is to use bounding first fire instead.
I don't really know how to respond to this as you've answered your own question except to say that ASL has been played for a very long time with a completely different answer from your own.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
OVR allows you to use the FT multiple times in one MPh.
I appreciate that and the OVR also differs from bounding first fire by giving the defender the option of using non CC reaction fire but that isn't really what I had in mind. Purely as a matter of common sense (and I know that the rules don't always show this), an OVR by definition must presumably involve the attacking vehicle actually physically overrunning the defenders. That is what the base FP represents and every armed vehicle conducting an OVR (including the unarmored variety IIRC) has one. If a FT conducts an OVR, logic would suggest that it has to use a base FP of some description. An AFV conducting an OVR has a base FP of 2 even if it has no other usable weapons. IF the vehicle is not using some form of base FP, then it does not really appear to be conducting an OVR at all. That is why I wonder whether D7.15 is simply badly worded?


I don't really know how to respond to this as you've answered your own question except to say that ASL has been played for a very long time with a completely different answer from your own.
Never having had the pleasure of using a FT AFV to conduct an OVR or the misfortune to be on the receiving end, I can't comment! It all goes back to the issue posed in the original question though, which appears to divide opinion. If an overrunning vehicle can opt not to use one weapon, it can presumably disregard its base FP as well, however odd that might seem. If it can't opt out, it follows that D7.15 is simply poorly phrased. I have sent a query to "Perry Sez" which will hopefully clarify matters. :)
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
An overrun does not automatically involve it running over the target merely that it is getting darn close to them, a lot closer than normal.
If it was actually going over it, then every AFV overrun would destroy a gun, not just ones where the gun was unmanned.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I appreciate that and the OVR also differs from bounding first fire by giving the defender the option of using non CC reaction fire but that isn't really what I had in mind. Purely as a matter of common sense (and I know that the rules don't always show this), an OVR by definition must presumably involve the attacking vehicle actually physically overrunning the defenders.
The footnote describes what the designers had in mind. It's one of the rare instances where they actually wrote it down and published it. Personally, I think that the OVR rules are SL leftovers that ended up being ported in because people like making tank noises and knocking stacks over. I would ditch the rule altogether in a rewrite.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
An overrun does not automatically involve it running over the target merely that it is getting darn close to them, a lot closer than normal.
If it was actually going over it, then every AFV overrun would destroy a gun, not just ones where the gun was unmanned.
That would depend on whether the crew of the overrunning vehicle were able to drive straight enough actually to locate and run over the target. Not all attacks succeed in their execution but by making an OVR attack they are at least making the attempt. Closeness to the target is already reflected in the use of TPBF which is only halved as opposed to quartered as is the norm for a moving vehicle conducting a bounding first fire attack with its MGs.


The footnote describes what the designers had in mind. It's one of the rare instances where they actually wrote it down and published it. Personally, I think that the OVR rules are SL leftovers that ended up being ported in because people like making tank noises and knocking stacks over. I would ditch the rule altogether in a rewrite.
True, but the footnote doesn't suggest that the MA isn't being used at all; just that its effect is much less than if it were being fired normally. Sometimes it will fire and sometimes it won't. The fact that it just adds a miserly two FP to the attack says it all really.

I have read a few articles on AFV combat in ASL and I don't recall any of them suggesting that use of any part of a vehicle's armament in an OVR was optional. The OVR flowchart doesn't appear to allow for the possibility either. If use of the MA is not compulsory, there appears to be no reason why a vehicle is apparently prohibited from carrying out an OVR if its MA is marked by a bounding fire counter. Why not say that it could conduct the OVR with the armament that is not so marked? Allowing players to decline use of the MA leads to situations where some AFV will never attack at full OVR strength because the additional 2 FP makes no difference to the resolution of the attack on the IFT table (unless using the incremental IFT and even then the extra FP is likely to be of negligible value). That seems to be unduly "gamey" to me.

Hopefully all will become clear if I get a reply to my "Perry Sez" enquiry.
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If a Swiss tank, the crew would pull over to the side of the road and stick their heads in the sand until the war passed by. [I hope this post was as passive-aggressively puerile as yours.]
You made me smile. Thanks.
I would add that the Swiss would try to find how to make money from their situation, like selling their ammo to the side which pays the most.
I was not passive agressive.
Just having fun following jrv's post on how an anarchist crew would behave.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Having checked the OVR flowchart after getting back from work, it confirms that use of base FP and other armament can be declined when a FT is being used. Therefore the issue is whether the option to decline use of other armament etc can only be exercised if a FT is involved or whether it has more general application to all OVR attacks.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Having checked the OVR flowchart after getting back from work, it confirms that use of base FP and other armament can be declined when a FT is being used. Therefore the issue is whether the option to decline use of other armament etc can only be exercised if a FT is involved or whether it has more general application to all OVR attacks.
D7.15 evokes not adding other FP to the FT's in relation with not applying the TEM DRM.
It is very specific and I find it difficult to extend that point of the rule to not using a Gun MA.
Note too that the rule doesn't seem to allow not to use a MA FT. It just says that one may choose not to add other FP to it.
There is a case to consider that the FT must be used and that only other FP may not be used - which extended to other applicable MA would mean that among all FP values, the MA's is mandatory for an OVR...
D7.15 ... If the ATTACKER adds any other FP (including the two base FP of any AFV) to the OVR FP of a FT, the DEFENDER receives full TEM (A.5).
Btw, would not using the non MG/FT/MTR/ATR/IFE-capable MA bring the basic 4 OVR FP down to the (AFV) 2?
The rule doesn't seem to adress that side effect, so if the MA could possibly be declared as not being used, there would be good reasons to claim the full 4 FP value anyway, as it is not conditioned to using the Gun, but just to "an AFV whose MA is manned and functioning" (D7.11) whether used or not... And everybody should abstain from using the MA if there were no FP loss.
That would be another reason to make the use of the MA mandatory in an OVR - besides the fact that the rules don't allow not using it.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Sometimes the FT is secondary armament. D7.15 doesn't distinguish between its use as MA or SA but simply states that an OVR with a FT has the option of not using any other armament or base FP factor in order to avoid TEM applying to the defender. How often this might be to the attacker's advantage is debatable.

I agree that the wording of Rule 7.11 appears to exclude the possibility of declining the MA modifier as a general principle but this does appear to conflict with the situation where a FT is used as SA. I suspect that this will turn out to be an exception to the general rule.

One thing that I have managed to clarify in my own mind is that, even if it is possible for the MA FP base to be declined, it would not be possible to use the MA for any subsequent attacks given the terms of D 3.3.and D3.4.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I don't have a rule book to hand but I wonder whether there is a third possible answer here that nobody has considered? Might it be that the MA is not subject to random selection for breakdown purposes at all? As has already been noted, just because it is "manned and functioning" doesn't mean that it is always actually used. That would negate any temptation to "decline" the base 4 FP for non-FT attacks as there is no negative outcome to its use. From memory, the rule talks about "weapons used" during the OVR attempt when discussing possible breakdown but I can't remember whether the MA is specifically included in this. If it isn't, there might be an argument that breakdown only affects MG/IFE/FT weapons. Just a thought!
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If it isn't, there might be an argument that breakdown only affects MG/IFE/FT weapons. Just a thought!
Which, I believe, makes quite suspect the idea that use of the MA is not mandatory.
Or one could also use no armament at all and make a 4 FP OVR, with no risk of malfunction.

Reading the rule, I also see that the 4 base FP only applies to an AFV with a functioning (applicable) MA.
An unarmored vehicle with such an MA only has 1 base FP... quite like an unarmed unarmored vehicle.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I don't have a rule book to hand but I wonder whether there is a third possible answer here that nobody has considered? Might it be that the MA is not subject to random selection for breakdown purposes at all? As has already been noted, just because it is "manned and functioning" doesn't mean that it is always actually used. That would negate any temptation to "decline" the base 4 FP for non-FT attacks as there is no negative outcome to its use. From memory, the rule talks about "weapons used" during the OVR attempt when discussing possible breakdown but I can't remember whether the MA is specifically included in this. If it isn't, there might be an argument that breakdown only affects MG/IFE/FT weapons. Just a thought!
D7.17 "All weapons that added to the OVR FP (including AFV MA) are eligible for malfunction."

JR
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
D7.17 "All weapons that added to the OVR FP (including AFV MA) are eligible for malfunction."

JR
So if I have a B11 or B10 my bad numbers increase quickly. This is the main reason I think there should be a choice. Would a tanker shoot the MA while moving (waste ammo) ? I tend to think no.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
So if I have a B11 or B10 my bad numbers increase quickly. This is the main reason I think there should be a choice. Would a tanker shoot the MA while moving (waste ammo) ? I tend to think no.
Would a tanker blaze away with every weapon available when intending to go in harm's way? I think yes.

JR
 
Top