Ordnance SMOKE and Target Size

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
What does it take to hit P4 with SMOKE for each of the Brit Vehicles?









A is the tank in K2 while B is in I5. If we play this the Bishop-Taylor way, I think the TH's are:
1A - 9
1B - 9
2A - 5 (target size and concealment)
2B - 6 (target size and hindrance)
3A - 9
3B - 9
4A - 9
4B - 9
5A - 9
5B - 9

Case 2A is truly bizarre. I don't mind the +2 for concealment, but I don't understand the target size at all. A smaller unit you can't even see is harder to hit than a SMC you can't see? I fail to see the logic in justifying that...

Steve
 

Jon

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
136
Location
Albany, Australia
Country
llAustralia
ATT HE would need to hit a target in the hex to affect it. SMOKE should only have to hit the HEX, or ANY target in the hex including the hex itself to be placed.
And there is the rub. You want it both ways :) You want the SMOKE to be placed if you hit the HEX or ANY target in the hex.

So correct me if I misunderstand you but you want each of the following to occur

1) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at an empty hex at a range of 6. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed

2) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a Kubelwagon. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the HEX even though you missed the Very Small Target size vehicle in the hex.

3) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a King Tiger. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 11. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the Very Largel Target size vehicle in the hex, even though you missed the HEX

See the problem? :)

Cheers
Jon
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
And there is the rub. You want it both ways :) You want the SMOKE to be placed if you hit the HEX or ANY target in the hex.

So correct me if I misunderstand you but you want each of the following to occur

1) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at an empty hex at a range of 6. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed

2) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a Kubelwagon. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the HEX even though you missed the Very Small Target size vehicle in the hex.

3) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a King Tiger. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 11. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the Very Largel Target size vehicle in the hex, even though you missed the HEX

See the problem? :)

Cheers
Jon
I'm not sure if Fort agrees, but I don't think target size should ever count for a smoke shot. Therefore, in case number 3, I think it should miss.

Jim Taylor,
You think smoke is already too powerful, but you want to make it easier to smoke out panthers and tigers, but harder to hit kubelwagens. Seems to me that my interpretation weakens smoke in this aspect, no?

Steve
 

Morbii

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,320
Reaction score
392
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
A is the tank in K2 while B is in I5. If we play this the Bishop-Taylor way, I think the TH's are:
1A - 9
1B - 9
2A - 5 (target size and concealment)
2B - 6 (target size and hindrance)
3A - 9
3B - 9
4A - 9
4B - 9
5A - 9
5B - 9

Case 2A is truly bizarre. I don't mind the +2 for concealment, but I don't understand the target size at all. A smaller unit you can't even see is harder to hit than a SMC you can't see? I fail to see the logic in justifying that...

Steve
I don't think 2A is right. You can't hit the ground location, so it shouldn't factor in (like when a mortar hits targets that it can't see if it hits the hardest to hit target otherwise).
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
And there is the rub. You want it both ways :) You want the SMOKE to be placed if you hit the HEX or ANY target in the hex.

So correct me if I misunderstand you but you want each of the following to occur

1) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at an empty hex at a range of 6. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed

2) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a Kubelwagon. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 9. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the HEX even though you missed the Very Small Target size vehicle in the hex.

3) Gun with Smoke Depletion #11 firing at 6 hex range on a hex that contains a King Tiger. Modified TH# is 9. Original TH DR is a 11. Smoke is placed in the hex because you hit the Very Largel Target size vehicle in the hex, even though you missed the HEX

See the problem? :)

Cheers
Jon
No I don't see any problems, because I don't want vehicle size to matter for SMOKE TH.
The more I think about it, Target size should not matter for any ATT TH...HE or SMOKE.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
A is the tank in K2 while B is in I5. If we play this the Bishop-Taylor way, I think the TH's are:
1A - 9
1B - 9
2A - 5 (target size and concealment)
2B - 6 (target size and hindrance)
3A - 9
3B - 9
4A - 9
4B - 9
5A - 9
5B - 9

Case 2A is truly bizarre. I don't mind the +2 for concealment, but I don't understand the target size at all. A smaller unit you can't even see is harder to hit than a SMC you can't see? I fail to see the logic in justifying that...

Steve
I find it just as bizarre that you pay for the hindrance to hit this target, but when the LOS is blocked to the lower elevation by the wall, you then get to ignore the hindrances and shoot at the upper level unhindered. :p
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I don't disagree, but what you're asking for is a rules change and that change is inconsistent with everything else in the game when it comes to shooting ITT/ATT. I argue for consistency.

Right, but it does hit any vulnerable PRC with GCA by rule D.8B when you roll the attack on the IFT. When it comes to a motion Wasp which can never go BU, I don't think this is the intent of what you're asking for, but it is an unintended consequence of allowing a player to shoot to hit the hex instead of forcing them to hit a target within the hex. If you're intent is to change the rules anyways, just make sure you account for this when you're chatting with Perry (or at least mention it so he is aware of it otherwise he will miss it for sure).
I disagree that to hit a hex with a vehicle in it you MUST hit the vehicle...simple as that. It is consistent and logical.

D.8B redirects twice to C3.33...where it explains how to apply an ATT shot to vulnerable PRC WHICH MUST BE HIT TO BE AFFECTED BY THAT SHOT. Personally I don't care if the vehicle crew would be affected by a hit on a hex with ATT or not....and think it probably should anyway.

I am not intent on changing the rules. I am intent on not letting yet another silly, sleazy situation creep into/remain in the lexicon.

There is zero, zippo, nada, no reason to have a vehicles size matter when a hex is being fired upon with ATT...it is illogical, and just plain silly.
 

James Taylor

I love women with brains
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
6,486
Reaction score
377
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
I'm not sure if Fort agrees, but I don't think target size should ever count for a smoke shot. Therefore, in case number 3, I think it should miss.

Jim Taylor,
You think smoke is already too powerful, but you want to make it easier to smoke out panthers and tigers, but harder to hit kubelwagens. Seems to me that my interpretation weakens smoke in this aspect, no?

Steve
I'm not paticularly worried about kubelwagens because I can count on one hand the number of times I've played a scenario with a kubelwagen.

I'm ok with the smoke being easier to hit Panthers and Tigers.

I'm happy that it is more difficult to smoke the 75L or 81mtr compared to the Panther or Tiger, because in my reality that works, i.e. the game rules make sense to me here.

And fundementally, I'm wary of making a change here because I think the rule has stood the test of time. As I said before, I've never seen anyone try the "kubel-smoke-sleaze", so I don't think we need to make a change to accomodate it.

Merry Christmas.

JT
 

James Taylor

I love women with brains
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
6,486
Reaction score
377
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
There is zero, zippo, nada, no reason to have a vehicles size matter when a hex is being fired upon with ATT...it is illogical, and just plain silly.
I disagree with your assessment here Fort. It is entirely possible that the intent of the target size modifier is a design for effect to reflect that smaller targets are less likely to even be seen by the enemy and therefore the reduction in chance to hit could incorporate a fog of war element.

Terms like "illogical" and "just plain silly" don't move the argument forward, because they are subjective interpretations that fall in the realm of ad hominem.

That is why reality arguments don't work in ASL... because we can all have our own version of reality.

Absent some information as to the original intent of the designers we are left to *guess* why the rules are the way they are. I'm can completely agree that SOME of the rule artifacts are the way they are by *accident*.

However, separating the accidents from the intentionals is probably not something any 2 ASL players would agree on 100%.

JT
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
D.8B redirects twice to C3.33
Sorry Gary, but I see no references to C3.33 in any of the D.X rules, let alone D.8B. There are references to multiple hits not causing multiple collateral attacks (that would be Specific Collateral Attack (SCA) and NA to the discussion at hand), C8.31 HE Equivalency (also SCA I believe), and C7.42 (shocked/stunned). No mention of C3.33.

...where it explains how to apply an ATT shot to vulnerable PRC WHICH MUST BE HIT TO BE AFFECTED BY THAT SHOT. Personally I don't care if the vehicle crew would be affected by a hit on a hex with ATT or not....and think it probably should anyway.
Sure, this is all good, but you have to tie it back to D.8 and you haven't so far. Here is another for you: the same Wasp is in open ground and being used as part of an armored assault it was decided to shoot a 76L at the Infantry. Final TH # is an 8 and an 8 is the Final DR. The effects DR is a 7 on the 12 column. Results are a 1MC on the Infantry and an NMC on the Wasp Crew (7 +2 CE DRM, Final DR is a 9). If the Wasp itself was targeted, it would only hit it on a 6. If a hit was secured, a HE TK DR would occur with the same DR resulting in a 12 +2 attack should the Wasp survive the TK DR. The bottom line is--according to that chart immediately under D.8B--if you make the hex a valid "target" using ATT then any AFV in that hex would be subject to a GCA.

I am not intent on changing the rules. I am intent on not letting yet another silly, sleazy situation creep into/remain in the lexicon.
Unless you can point out the rules chain you tried to establish above, its a rules change. It's not something I would like to see, but that isn't intended to be an indictment either.

There is zero, zippo, nada, no reason to have a vehicles size matter when a hex is being fired upon with ATT...it is illogical, and just plain silly.
Interesting, this is exactly what I said when it was pointed out to me. But I also suggested motion shouldn't have anything to do with it either since the hex itself wasn't moving. But unfortunately, the rules just aren't there to support this conclusion. Ce 'est la vie I guess. -- jim
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I disagree with your assessment here Fort. It is entirely possible that the intent of the target size modifier is a design for effect to reflect that smaller targets are less likely to even be seen by the enemy and therefore the reduction in chance to hit could incorporate a fog of war element.
SMOKE is almost never used to screen an individual vehicle, it is almost always used to screen an area...worrying about vehicle size is just not something that should be a factor, and I do not believe that the rules as written for smoke do account for vehicle size...in that you can fire at the hex and if you hit the hex the smoke is placed...any unit (other than concealed or unknown to firer) should not come into play or be accounted for in any manner.

U.S.Army Infantry School. "Employment of screening smoke (Infantry School Teaching)," Infantry School Mailing List, Vol. XVIII, Chapter 4. (July 1939); 35 pages, 34 illus. Price 4.00 {Item No.10142} [Includes: Introduction, Screen smoke materials and munitions, Weather and terrain influences on phyiscal characteristics, Drag effect, Settling out, Reinforcing a smoke cloud, Effect of position of a screen on rifle fire, Screening with projectiles, Screening with a following (6 o’clock) wind, Screening with a flank wind, Screening with a head (12 o’clock) wind, Screening with a quartering (oblique) wind, Screening with smoke pots or candles, Screening with a following wind, Multiple emplacement, Group ignition, Tactical employment of smoke, Missions, To facilitate the advance of foot troops by blanketing hostile forward positions, To enable troops to pass by an area of hostile resistance or attack it from flank or rear, To blind hostile observation points, To protect troops halted for the purpose of reorganization, To protect against enfilade fire, To conceal daylight movement of tanks within our own position, To protect tanks during an attack and withdrawal to assembly point, ‘Smoke cage’ or ‘Closed Field’ method, Smoke on the tank objective, Special uses: Attack of an river line, Landing on hostile shore, Use of smoke in defense, Screening a daylight withdrawel, Screening a daylight withdrawal from action]

Smoke screens are usually used by infantry to conceal their movement in areas of exposure to enemy fire. They can also be used by armoured fighting vehicles, such as tanks, to conceal a withdrawal. They have regularly been used since earliest times to disorient or drive off attackers.

Smoke is and has been used to screen movement. Direct fire on a vehicle is not a consideration in placing smoke.

I can't understand why this is not getting through. When using SMOKE, the affect being modeled is the process of screening an AREA of the battlefield.

It has been argued that a MOTION vehicle should be harder to hit with smoke...why? You are NOT trying to hit the vehicle with smoke round, you are merely firing several smoke rounds in the area (Hex) the vehicle occupies/is moving through...that Motion vehicle, in it's turn, will be able to move out of the smoke screen..effectively modeling the difficulty of smoking up enough area to more than inconvenience the motion vehicle momentarily.

The more that I think about it the more I think Target Size should not matter for ATT IN ANY CASE...but that WOULD be a rules change...(for the better I might add).
 
Last edited:

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
re: Collateral Attacks.

The D.8B rule states "When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc. by) FP which is not required to predesignate it as the target, "

We see from C3.4 that if you are firing ATT you only affect those targets you hit.

If you fire ATT HE and do not hit the tank, the tank is not subject to fire and therefore there is no GCA on any vulnerable crew.

Not sure where the confustion is here.

When you fire IFT at a Location, we see that in A7 (and more specifically A7.4) that "all the Personnel-units/ unarmored-vehicles/ Vulnerable-PRC in the same Location are considered targets of fire that does not have to specify a particular target, ". I can;t find the specific reference at this time, but I think it is generally accepted that small arms fire targets a Location(s) and affects all vulnerable targets in that Location based on their individual situations.

Any fire that requires a TH roll first can only affect the targets hit. There is a big difference between the two types of attacks, and how they come into play as far as GCA is concerned.

I believe the earlier thread concerning SCA/GCA and armored assualting infantry was incorrect (and didn't realize it at the time).

If you have infantry armored assualting with a CE Tank, you can clearly hit the infantry easier than the tank. Since you must use ATT to hit both, you could easily hit the infantry and not the tank. Per D.8B, in order to have a GCA against the tanks PRC you must subject the vehicle to firepower, which you do not unless you actually hit the vehicle.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
re: Collateral Attacks.

The D.8B rule states "When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc. by) FP which is not required to predesignate it as the target, "

We see from C3.4 that if you are firing ATT you only affect those targets you hit.

If you fire ATT HE and do not hit the tank, the tank is not subject to fire and therefore there is no GCA on any vulnerable crew.

Not sure where the confusion is here.
I thought I had said this very thing previously. ;)
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
I thought I had said this very thing previously. ;)
I believe you did. Not sure why there is confusion. There seems to be a view that just by hitting something in a Hex/Location you automatically get a GCA against vehicles. The fact you roll on the IFT for an HE hit does not make it a small arms (i.e., IFT) attack.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I believe you did. Not sure why there is confusion. There seems to be a view that just by hitting something in a Hex/Location you automatically get a GCA against vehicles. The fact you roll on the IFT for an HE hit does not make it a small arms (i.e., IFT) attack.
Then you're suggesting the General Collateral Attack rules be placed in the scupper because there will never be an instance when they apply. Your position is the unit always has to be hit to be affected. I believe this to be in error, or can you provide an example of when the GCA rules would apply specifically when using ITT/ATT? After all, the Collateral Attack table suggests it would be subject to a GCA by the designation of the letter "G" under the AFV column. -- jim
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Then you're suggesting the General Collateral Attack rules be placed in the scupper because there will never be an instance when they apply. Your position is the unit always has to be hit to be affected. I believe this to be in error, or can you provide an example of when the GCA rules would apply specifically when using ITT/ATT? After all, the Collateral Attack table suggests it would be subject to a GCA by the designation of the letter "G" under the AFV column. -- jim
If there is a hex with just a CE Motion vehicle occupying it, and you fire upon it with ATT, HE...and you miss the vehicle...do you immediately do a GCA on it? No, because you have not "subjected" it to the FP of the attack.

If you hit the vehicle, then the IFT DR serves as a TK vs the vehcile and an IFT attack vs the exposed crew.

You may have still hit the Hex, you just have not hit the vehicle to subject it to the GCA.

If I fire HE, ITT at the you just have to hit your target...then any vulnerable PRC can get hit with the GCA.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Then you're suggesting the General Collateral Attack rules be placed in the scupper because there will never be an instance when they apply. Your position is the unit always has to be hit to be affected. I believe this to be in error, or can you provide an example of when the GCA rules would apply specifically when using ITT/ATT? After all, the Collateral Attack table suggests it would be subject to a GCA by the designation of the letter "G" under the AFV column. -- jim
I believe I am stating you should follow the Collateral Attack rules as stated, not to scrap them.

D.8B specifically states "When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc. by) FP which is not required to predesignate it as the target,"

I believe you are not interested in a Specific Collateral Attack and understand how that works - i.e., you must be targeting the vehicle, so you are using the VTT.

In order to be a General Collateral Attack you must use an attack which does not have the vehicle as its predesignated target. Notice this in D.8: "A Collateral Attack (whether General or Specific) is resolved as a separate attack vs the vehicle's Vulnerable PRC immediately subsequent to the resolution of the attack vs the vehicle, using the attacking weapon's/ammo type's IFT FP (which includes HE Equivalency; C8.31) and the same Original Effects DR that resolved the attack vs the vehicle"

You must be able to attack the vehicle in order to get any kind of Collateral attack versus the PRC.

Using the ITT, you could hit a vehicle. You still need to use any DRM applicable to the vehicle. Look at the example in C3.32 and the Q&A below:

C3.32 & D5.32 According to C3.32, AFV are immune to the Infantry Target Type, but not their Vulnerable PRC. According to D5.32 & D.6, a CE crew cannot be targeted separately from its vehicle, but only affected Collaterally. Are these rules in conflict?
A. No, an AFV may be hit via the Infantry Target Type; it (but not its Vulnerable PRC) is “immune to damage from such a hit.” ['98 Journal]

So for an ITT shot, if you get a hit against a vehicle in that Location, any PRC would undergo a GCA (since the vehicle was not predesignated). Lets use the C3.32 example, but change it a bit.

EX: A Russian 57LL AT Gun Prep Fires with HE on the Infantry Target Type at a shellhole hex six hexes away containing an CE-PzIV (0 size TH DRM), a Kuebelwagen (+2 size TH DRM) and an Infantry squad. An Original TH DR of 8 for the PzIV, 7 for the squad (+1 shellhole TEM), and 6 for the Kuebelwagen (+2 size TH DRM) is needed, so if that DR is <= 6 all three targets will be hit and their fate will be resolved on the "6" column of the IFT with a single Effects DR. An Original TH DR of 9 will not result in a possible hit vs one of the vehicles due to vehicular Overstacking (A5.132), because the Infantry Target Type was used. If the final DR is an 8 or less, the PzIV would be hit. Since it is immune to affects directly, but its CE crew is not, the crew would be subject to a GCA using the "6" column of the IFT, using the +2 CE DRM as a modifier to the resolution roll.

For an ATT shot it is just as simple. If you achieve a hit versus a vehicle in the hex, that vehicles' PRC could undergo a GCA. In this case, the example from C3.332 covers it. Given you hit the vehicle, and do not destroy it or stun/shock the crew/Passengers, the PRC are subject to the GCA. (the Riders would be subject regardless of any stun/shock).

How would there never be an instance where you hit a vehicle using the ITT/ATT and you do not kill it? This entire discussion started due to the issue of needing to hit a vehicle using the ATT in order to place SMOKE.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
This entire discussion started due to the issue of needing to hit a vehicle using the ATT in order to place SMOKE.
Because I am not concerned as much about the change as I am about the unintended consequences of the change you are proposing. That's my only reason for caring. -- jim
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
I'm happy that it is more difficult to smoke the 75L or 81mtr compared to the Panther or Tiger, because in my reality that works, i.e. the game rules make sense to me here.

And fundementally, I'm wary of making a change here because I think the rule has stood the test of time. As I said before, I've never seen anyone try the "kubel-smoke-sleaze", so I don't think we need to make a change to accomodate it.

Merry Christmas.

JT
Explain why it is harder to smoke a StuG than it is to smoke out a 7-0 leader? The StuG is much, much larger. I think Fort is right, size shouldn't matter for for any ATT because you are pounding the hex.

I never played taking into account size for smoke shots. That's a new issue for me. As far as standing the test of time, I'm not sure how universal that is. Perhaps someone should run a poll...

Steve
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Because I am not concerned as much about the change as I am about the unintended consequences of the change you are proposing. That's my only reason for caring. -- jim
However, at least one of the unintended consequences you have pointed out is in fact, not valid. I believe you have stated that if you played that any ATT shot hit the hex, and the units in it were not taken into account, you could suddenly get GCA against any/all PRC just by hitting the hex (if using HE).

The only concern I have is WP. The way the A24.31 rule was erratized is a problem.

"All units (including friendly ones) except a non-CE, CT AFV in a Location with a WP counter must take a NMC when the WP is placed (by any means) [EXC: non-moving units in First Fire] in that Location (not when it drifts or they move into it) or when hit by ordnance WP [EXC: if the WP does not rise to that elevation (24.4)]. "

The first part (i.e., placed) makes sense for placement of WP grenades. The second part, as changed, would be consistant for ordnance fire, i.e., you must hit the target in order to have an effect. However, the "by any means" change, along with the rules for smoke (where it states "placed" once a hit is achieved) kind of make the second part null, since any ordnance fire "places" the WP in the ground level, automatically hitting everything.

Perhaps that is what was intended, I don't know. I believe the second part was specifically put there in order to hit upper levels with WP.

By allowing SMOKE to hit any hex with the hex as a target could make WP more effective, although given the TEM / CE DRM maybe not.

As it stands now, the rules for hitting a non-occupied Location with HE and one with SMOKE are inconsistant. I can hit any Location with HE by hitting a hypothetical infantry unit in that Location, regardless of other units in that Location or other Locations in the hex. That is not true for SMOKE. If I can see other units in the hex, suddenly my ability to hit anything in the hex is changed.

I would like to see it become consistant, which would mean that any SMOKE fire at an un-occupied hex would need to add the +2 concealment, effectively making any ATT hit (regardless of ammo type) need to hit at least a hypothetical concealed infantry unit in any Location of the hex in order to hit the hex.

Again, the issue is not as simple since SMOKE includes WP. If you clarified the rules and specified "hit the target hex" meant "hitting the hex" vs "hitting a unit in the hex", you could effectively hit a large target, and have a WP effect, without hitting the hex. I'm not sure if that would work. Prior to v2 this was not the case, since "or when hit by ordnance WP" was not part of the v1 WP rules.

I do believe the way it is played now, and I do not believe the rules are as clear as they should be, the treatment of HE and SMOKE in certain cases is very inconsistant. The difference in what the effect is (placing smoke, vs a an attack against units) makes it different to begin with, so it is not unreasonable. On the other hand, the actual game mechanics for getting a hit should be consistant, and they are not.

I do agree that ANY changes/clarification need much more consideration before being made official. I also agree that if you want to run a small target vehicle into the perfect Location for me to lay down SMOKE, I will be pissed, but I will not argue about the rules allowing for it, instead I will just run my AFV into bypass, impose TSL on your troops, strip your concealment, and then generally make your day miserable.
 
Top