jrv
Forum Guru
An OVR using a FT vs Open Ground will get a -1 DRM.
JR
JR
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.
OVR allows you to use the FT multiple times in one MPh.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?
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.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 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?OVR allows you to use the FT multiple times in one MPh.
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.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.
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.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 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. 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.
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.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.
You made me smile. Thanks.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.]
D7.15 evokes not adding other FP to the FT's in relation with not applying the TEM DRM.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.
Btw, would not using the non MG/FT/MTR/ATR/IFE-capable MA bring the basic 4 OVR FP down to the (AFV) 2?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).
Which, I believe, makes quite suspect the idea that use of the MA is not mandatory.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."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!
Ah well. Back to the drawing board!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.D7.17 "All weapons that added to the OVR FP (including AFV MA) are eligible for malfunction."
JR
Would a tanker blaze away with every weapon available when intending to go in harm's way? I think yes.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.