Questions

Kilroy

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
84
Reaction score
4
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
1) An AFV attacked by an AT minefield uses lowest hull Aerial AF .... for KIA purposes only.... what does 'for Kia purposes only mean???'

2) an Afv stops and shoots at range 1 bounding first fire.. does that get -2 PB mod at non motion target?

3) Red Barricades Refit Minefields.. EXC to both: A unit theoretically able to leave that minefield without being attacked and without entering enemy controlled location/mine is not subject to that NTC... any AFV can theoretically leave any AT mine without being attacked since there max value is 5...
Can someone clarify this rule for me.. or point me toward an official clarification
 
Last edited:

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
34
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
Kilroy said:
1) An AFV attacked by an AT minefield uses lowest hull Aerial AF .... for KIA purposes only.... what does 'for Kia purposes only mean???'
Not sure about the first question... will leave for someone else.


Kilroy said:
2) an Afv stops and shoots at range 1 bounding first fire.. does that get -2 PB mod at non motion target?
Yes.


Kilroy said:
3) Red Barricades Refit Minefields.. EXC to both: A unit theoretically able to leave that minefield without being attacked and without entering enemy controlled location/mine is not subject to that NTC... any AFV can theoretically leave any AT mine without being attacked since there max value is 5...
Can someone clarify this rule for me.. or point me toward an official clarification
NRBH, but sounds to me like it's saying an AFV can theoreetically leave the minefield without being attacked because even if the AT mine was at its maximum strength of 5, a dr = 6 will let the AFV leave without undergoing the attack. I think this is what is in view.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Kilroy said:
1) An AFV attacked by an AT minefield uses lowest hull Aerial AF .... for KIA purposes only.... what does 'for Kia purposes only mean???'
I think this is saying that if the vehicle is only immobilized, the 16 FP IFT collateral attack does not get the hull Aerial AF DRM.

Kilroy said:
3) Red Barricades Refit Minefields.. EXC to both: A unit theoretically able to leave that minefield without being attacked and without entering enemy controlled location/mine is not subject to that NTC... any AFV can theoretically leave any AT mine without being attacked since there max value is 5...
Can someone clarify this rule for me.. or point me toward an official clarification
Is this a change in the new RB/BV rules? I only have the old v1 RB rules and the stuff about an max value 5 is not in there.
The rules I have there is no exception to the AFV, it doesn't take a NTC - it undergoes attack as if it was leaving. The exception to both applies to both - "each infantry unit" and "including a crew that just disembarked...".
 

Hubbs5

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
Greeley, CO
Country
llUnited States
Kilroy said:
1) An AFV attacked by an AT minefield uses lowest hull Aerial AF .... for KIA purposes only.... what does 'for Kia purposes only mean???'

2) an Afv stops and shoots at range 1 bounding first fire.. does that get -2 PB mod at non motion target?

3) Red Barricades Refit Minefields.. EXC to both: A unit theoretically able to leave that minefield without being attacked and without entering enemy controlled location/mine is not subject to that NTC... any AFV can theoretically leave any AT mine without being attacked since there max value is 5...
Can someone clarify this rule for me.. or point me toward an official clarification
I see your point about being able to leave if the minefield owner rolls a 6 but I don't think theoretical DR's are what the designers had in mind. I would think more in terms of a vehicle in a minefield hex that also has a trailbreak though it allowing the vehicle to exit unattacked or infantry leaving a hex through the sewers and not being attacked by an in hex minefield. The first sentence in O11.6042 states that:

"An AFV in any type of minefield undergoes the appropriate type(s) of mine attack(s), fully resolved in the normal manner, as if attempting to exit the minefield Location."

Since your theoretical DR would void any of these attacks I think you can safely say that they were not intended to be considered as exclusions. JMHO.
 
Top