Ordnance vs. empty hexes/concealed units questions

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,653
Reaction score
2,224
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Hi,

A couple of questions:

Assume I have a Mortar and want to try and rubble a building in which there are no Known units. The bulding is 6 hexes away and there are no To Hit DRM, so Basic To Hit number is 7 on the ATT.

Now do I have to add Case K (+2) to this attack to see if I hit the building ?, i.e. I need 5 or less to score a hit and roll the effects DR,
or do I hit the building on a 7 or less ?

And alos, assume that there is a concealed enemy unit in said building.
Now I clearly need a 5 or less to hit that unit, but do I get roll against for fire/rubble vs. the building als o on a DR of 6 or 7 (i.e. I hit the buildning but not the unit therin) ?

Regards,
Klas Malmstrom
 

Chas Argent

Play to the end.
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
441
Location
Catonsville, MD
Country
llUnited States
I think Case K only applies if there are only "?" units in the hex; so no Case K is added if the hex is empty; therefore, a FTH# of 7.

As for your second question you only roll for Rubble creation before resolving an HE attack against occupants, as per B24.11; so I think you have to get a hit on the "?" units (a 5 or less in this case) to have a chance to rubble the building.
 

pzkfw5g

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
Idaho
Country
llUnited States
Chas Argent said:
As for your second question you only roll for Rubble creation before resolving an HE attack against occupants, as per B24.11; so I think you have to get a hit on the "?" units (a 5 or less in this case) to have a chance to rubble the building.
What if there are HIP units in said location? It doesn't make much sense that you can't rubble and empty (at least as far as you know) location since the men otherwise inside would add little to the structural integrity of the building. In fact, I would argue that you are more likely to rubble an empty building because you are more free to aim at structurally significant portions of the building than might be the case with live targets inside. That probably should not, however, apply to area fire. For those of you annoyed by this reality-based argument, please disregard this post.
 

Chas Argent

Play to the end.
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
441
Location
Catonsville, MD
Country
llUnited States
Not sure how to handle a HIP unit, frankly. I suppose the owner of the HIP unit might want to place it onboard under "?" to force the shooter to add case K.

As for your reality argument, I am indeed deaf :mrgreen:
 

paul

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
Country
llUnited States
Reading through the rules again, it does seem a bit weird that having
a hidden/concealed unit in the hex makes it more difficult to rubble.
But in fact I believe that to be the case. This is a bit more weird in that
if the hex contains both concealed and unconcealed units, you
will use two different TH numbers (i.e. the addition of a known unit
makes the building statistically easier to rubble vs it
containing just a hidden unit).

But I don't believe you get the same option using a empty building as
a target (i.e. one TH# for units (known and/or unknown) and one
for the hex)

My guess is that the rules really don't account for someone wanting to
target and attempt to rubble a building. Those loving reality could claim
that a unit isn't likely to continue to try and rubble a building while
ignoring real units in the building and hitting the building is likely to shake
up the contents (reveal something is present)

As for how to handle the situation with the hex containing a hidden unit.
I can't find any specific rule, so this is just a best guess based on
concealment loss rules and case K.

If the DR indicates a Hit (w/ out the Case K modifier), then defender would decree that the building actually contains one or more hidden
units. I don't think they would be placed on board unless they would
normally lose concealment (i.e. IFT roll PTC or higher). If the DR is
sufficent to hit with case K, then you roll on the IFT (checking for
rubble creation)

Does this make real sense, probably not. But the rules for handling
concealment seem to bump into your desire to have the highest
probability to create rubble.

-Paul
 

sgtono

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland, OR
Country
llUnited States
Don't have the rulebook in front of me but I believe there are some footnotes in Chapter C about OBA that would present some of the rationale behind the ASL rules on this subject.

Keith
 

pzkfw5g

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
Idaho
Country
llUnited States
Paul said:
My guess is that the rules really don't account for someone wanting to target and attempt to rubble a building.
I have, on two separate occasions, done just that while trying to stop artillery directed by a HIP leader in upper level locations. The look on my buddy's face when I said, "I'll take a 105* HE shot at that location to see if anything is there" - <DR=2> <rubble>, was priceless; thus ended the 150mm pounding of my guys (who were too far away to shoot there themselves). The other time was a CH from an 85L on a stone building, no rubble, but it "disabled" the radio.
 
Top