Passengers Disembarking in an enemy AFV's hex?

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,395
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I had this happen to me in a game: an early war Tank was in Smoke; a Truck transporting Passengers entered its hex under cover of the smoke, disembarked its Passengers, and moved away. In the CCPh the ex-Passengers attacked in CC, without having to pass a PAATC.

Is this correct? I thought there must be a hundred rules forbidding it, but couldn't find one.
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,545
Reaction score
719
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
I'd say it's covered right here. Unloading is moving into the same Location. The second they unload they're Infantry. Pretty sweet trick though if your opponent can pull it off. :D

4.14 ENEMY UNITS: Infantry may not move into the same Location containing an unconcealed enemy unit during the MPh [EXC: Berserk (15.43), Human Wave (25.23), Disrupted (19.12), Unarmed (20.54), and Infantry OVR (4.15)], but may do so during the APh. However, PRC (7.211, D6.5) and charging Cavalry (13.61) can dismount in such a hex during the MPh.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
PAATCs are required for Advancing into a Location with an AFV or for attacking an AFV during the enemy MPh. They are not required in the CCPh ever. If you manage to end up in the same hex with a vehicle in the CCPh there's no PAATC to make the attack.

JR
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,395
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Yes, that's how we played it - it's just that the whole sequence seemed strange, and it felt like there might be a rule disallowing it (we didn't spot A4.14).

So these guys would need a PAATC to advance into the enemy tank's hex, but if it's the bus driver telling them to dismount next to it, there's no problem... :(
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,545
Reaction score
719
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
PAATCs are required for Advancing into a Location with an AFV or for attacking an AFV during the enemy MPh. They are not required in the CCPh ever. If you manage to end up in the same hex with a vehicle in the CCPh there's no PAATC to make the attack.

JR
So you're saying you're allowed to unloading passengers into the same hex as an enemy AFV? Can we confirm this is correct?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
So you're saying you're allowed to unloading passengers into the same hex as an enemy AFV? Can we confirm this is correct?
D6.5 "PRC may unload or Bail Out in an enemy occupied hex with no special rules or consequences unless they do so from a vehicle in Bypass (A12.151)."

On further inspection in this case D2.6 would probably apply. The truck would probably not be allowed to stop unless it was a really battle-ready truck. That would put a crimp in the plan.

JR
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,545
Reaction score
719
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
Oh yeah because you can't stop or end in motion in the hex of an enemy AFV you can't kill with a TK or IFT roll of 5 or less.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Thanks for the replies... yes, it does look like I got robbed. :)
It is possible that the truck could stop if the AFV were in bypass on one side of a building and the truck entered in bypass on the other side (out of LOS). Most likely you just got snookered.

JR
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,395
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
OK, pulling this one out (including the "I can legally stop because you're out of LOS) would really be worth style points - but in the game I had in mind, it was just plain intimidation "I enter, stop, disembark Passengers, you're freezed", and I failed to react appropriately.

(Note I am in no way implying my opponent was positively trying to pull an illegal move - it was an honest mistake on both our parts)
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
3,261
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
What if the riders had Piat, baz or maybe a PF that could TK <= 5. Then they could stop.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,117
Reaction score
1,935
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
What if the riders had Piat, baz or maybe a PF that could TK <= 5. Then they could stop.
Don't think so.

If I understand D2.6 correctly, the vehicle has to "be capable of destroying or shocking it with an Original TK or IFT DR of 5 (using a non-Depletable ammo type available to the vehicle)."
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
What if the riders had Piat, baz or maybe a PF that could TK <= 5. Then they could stop.
D2.6 says "the vehicle" has to be able to make the attack. Riders and Passengers are not the vehicle, so I would say no for that case. There is the odd case where the vehicle has an inherent LATW that the crew can use while still inherent, e.g. the PIAT that shows up on some Bren Carriers. I would be ok with that. Late-war German crews have inherent PF, but can't use them while still inherent, so I would say that something like a SPW 251 can't stop.

JR
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
3,261
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I've had Piat toting Bren carriers drive right into my Panzer's hex. A baz or PSK should be enough also.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,274
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
On further inspection in this case D2.6 would probably apply. The truck would probably not be allowed to stop unless it was a really battle-ready truck. That would put a crimp in the plan.
What about the enemy being parked ON a Bridge and the friendly truck unloading beneath the Bridge?
  • LOS / no LOS?
  • Could CC occur?
Have not checked this.

von Marwitz
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
What about the enemy being parked ON a Bridge and the friendly truck unloading beneath the Bridge?
  • LOS / no LOS?
  • Could CC occur?
Have not checked this.
There is no LOS and CC cannot occur. Units can't even Advance from one Location to the other.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,274
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
There is no LOS and CC cannot occur. Units can't even Advance from one Location to the other.

JR
What if the passengers were Commandos? These could scale Cliffs and Buildings. Can they also scale Bridges? (By gut feeling, I doubt it.)

Edit:
It seems they can scale:
"B23.424 SCALING: Scaling is allowed only by specially-trained and equipped troops designated as Commandos by SSR or DYO purchase. Any Good Order Commando may descend/ascend the outside of a building/bridge by Climbing (11.4) and placing a Climb counter in the building/bridge hex with the arrow pointing to a vertex of the building hex not touched by the building depiction."

But they cannot climb up during the APh. There my aspired style points vanish...

von Marwitz
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,806
Reaction score
7,238
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Scaling is only done during the MPh, so they still can't advance onto the bridge.
 
Top