Recalled AFV with no route off board

[Vinnie]

My AFV just X'd out its MA. It is on a one lane bridge with a vehicle behind it so cannot exit the board along a friendly board edge. What does it do? Just sit there? Go into motion?

 

[von Marwitz]

Good one!

von Marwitz

 

[bendizoid]

Bails out of the vehicle and walks.

 

[Larry]

It isn't immobilized or bogged. The question then is whether the vehicle behind it on the one-lane bridge is going to sit there or get out of the way. I don't think that the traffic jam requires/permits abandonment.

 

[Eagle4ty]

My AFV just X'd out its MA. It is on a one lane bridge with a vehicle behind it so cannot exit the board along a friendly board edge. What does it do? Just sit there? Go into motion?

It will continue forward (i.e. toward the EBE) until such a time as it can turn around and start towards the FBE. It may have to stop at the entrance to the one lane bridge as the single diriection requirement of using the bridge would probably prevent him from entering it in the same turn as the rule states "...that AFV and crew must attempt to exit the playing area along a Friendly Board Edge via the shortest route (in MP) using Motion status. ESB attempts are NA." In your case the shortest route would preclude going in the opposite direction on a on lane bridge once the direction has been established (not allowed), nor would remaining on the bridge be an option in most cases (shortest route in MP), though if applicable it could probably use reverse movement.

 

[Pyth]

There's a Q&A about this in which the obstacle is a roadblock on a bridge over impassable water... it says crew abandons. But I take it the vehicle behind could theoretically get out of the way... so is that the same? I'd say so .... but if theres disagreement isnt there a rule somewhere about settling things like this with a friendly roll of the dice?

 

[Vinnie]

There's a Q&A about this in which the obstacle is a roadblock on a bridge over impassable water... it says crew abandons. But I take it the vehicle behind could theoretically get out of the way... so is that the same? I'd say so .... but if theres disagreement isnt there a rule somewhere about settling things like this with a friendly roll of the dice?

There's not too much of a disagreement. Both of us agreed we simply did not know the answer so we agreed yo put ba pin in it until the next meet up.

 

[Honosbinda]

Obviously against the spirit of the rule to deliberately block it up turn after turn to prevent the recall. But then, circumstances might dictate the other intact vehicle commander flip a bird and stay where it is!

I would say the original vehicle's crew are in terror and would go into motion and move to the bridge exit hex facing the bridge, go CE, stop, and raise hell for that other guy to get out of the way! If there is no path at the beginning of the next MPh, then abandonment because those guys want to leave the battlefield.

There are also new rules in Dinant HASL -- you could use DN10. But they don't abandon because of DN9. So I would still consider abandonment mandatory. Or if you think it's worth a Q/A....

 

[von Marwitz]

There's a Q&A about this in which the obstacle is a roadblock on a bridge over impassable water... it says crew abandons. But I take it the vehicle behind could theoretically get out of the way... so is that the same?

Exactly the point. It is a good candidate for a 'Perry Sez' IMHO.

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

Some years ago, I met a similar situation.
I seem to remember that I was answered that the crew abandoned the vehicle.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There's a Q&A about this in which the obstacle is a roadblock on a bridge over impassable water... it says crew abandons. But I take it the vehicle behind could theoretically get out of the way... so is that the same? I'd say so .... but if theres disagreement isnt there a rule somewhere about settling things like this with a friendly roll of the dice?

I'd say so as well - the roadblock could also, theoretically , get removed.

 

[Pyth]

Honosbinda: "Obviously against the spirit of the rule to deliberately block it up turn after turn to prevent the recall."

So true! If only it werent for the people who maintain that doing things against the spirit of the rules is not actually against the rules!

 

[Larry]

It all depends on whether the player needs the other vehicle on the other side of the bridge ... The recalled vehicle should not be allowed to fire in the PFPh.

 

[Vinnie]

I need to recalled vehicle to stay in the hex it is in, either in motion, as a wreck or abandoned woukd be fine. If I don't then my opponent has 5 tanks to go onto the bridge for a win.

 

[von Marwitz]

I need to recalled vehicle to stay in the hex it is in, either in motion, as a wreck or abandoned woukd be fine. If I don't then my opponent has 5 tanks to go onto the bridge for a win.

Hmmm.... Wrecks can be pushed off a Bridge as per B6.431, D10.42:

"D10.42 PUSHING: A wreck is removed at the end of the MPh by any tracked AFV (whose weight is ≥ 90% of the wreck's weight) which remains mobile while expending half of its MP allotment (in addition to any MP cost for entry of the wreck's hex) in that wreck's Location solely for that purpose."

But what of Abandoned vehicles? I should work the same way IMHO, but D10.42 only talkes of Wrecks.

Even if your vehicle may be wrecked and not Abandoned, your opponent might run out of MP due to pushing the Wreck away (provided his AFV is heavy enough to do so in the first place).

von Marwitz

 

[Larry]

If the blocking vehicle were a wreck, the recalled vehicle would push it out of the way, assuming weight etc.

Interesting that an armored copula "Although it cannot leave or be pushed out of its hex, it is free to change its TCA 360 degrees. An Armored Cupola is never eligible for concealment and leaves no wreck. " D9.52. If non-wrecks cannot be pushed, then the rule has no meaning. I did not find a reference to pushing non-wrecks.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

That entire first part of that sentence is pretty meaingless, IMO.

"Although it cannot leave or be pushed out of its hex, it is free to change its TCA 360 degrees."

What would the red text have to do with the ability to turn the TCA anyway?

 

[von Marwitz]

That entire first part of that sentence is pretty meaingless, IMO.

"Although it cannot leave or be pushed out of its hex, it is free to change its TCA 360 degrees."

What would the red text have to do with the ability to turn the TCA anyway?

Maybe it is somehow conntected to Dug In Tanks which are in some ways similar to Armored Cupolas.

von Marwitz

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Don't see the relevance their either. I mean, a normal AFV can't turn its TCA 360 degrees just because it can leave a hex. The whole sentence seems superfluous to me.

 

[Vinnie]

Hmmm.... Wrecks can be pushed off a Bridge as per B6.431, D10.42:

"D10.42 PUSHING: A wreck is removed at the end of the MPh by any tracked AFV (whose weight is ≥ 90% of the wreck's weight) which remains mobile while expending half of its MP allotment (in addition to any MP cost for entry of the wreck's hex) in that wreck's Location solely for that purpose."

But what of Abandoned vehicles? I should work the same way IMHO, but D10.42 only talkes of Wrecks.

Even if your vehicle may be wrecked and not Abandoned, your opponent might run out of MP due to pushing the Wreck away (provided his AFV is heavy enough to do so in the first place).

von Marwitz

It could be pushed off but that will take time.