TEM vs Mol...

[Tater]

Does TEM apply to Molatov attacks? Even against AFV?

With FT it specifically states that TEM doesn’t apply...but not so for mol attacks.

 

[Honosbinda]

okay so if it doesn't say 'TEM do not apply,' then.....?

Given that MOL are added to IFT attacks vs infantry, certainly TEM apply there. The example in A22.62 shows TEM applying. TEM never apply to TK rolls... as far as I recall not finding a rule that it does

 

[Eagle4ty]

Against an armored target as a TK, No. "No "?"/CX/SMOKE/Hindrance/TEM/LV/AFPh-use affects the DR" {An95w & An96} nor is the TK DR effected by cowering . However, even though the rule states one must use the IFT when using a MOL, per a long standing Q&A a FG could decline its small arms attack and attack only with the MOL to avoid a DRM that would normally apply if it were to be resolved on the IFT {Gen24.2, An95w & An96}

 

[Honosbinda]

Against an armored target as a TK, No. "No "?"/CX/SMOKE/Hindrance/TEM/LV/AFPh-use affects the DR" {An95w & An96} nor is the TK DR effected by cowering . However, even though the rule states one must use the IFT when using a MOL, per a long standing Q&A a FG could decline its small arms attack and attack only with the MOL to avoid a DRM that would normally apply if it were to be resolved on the IFT {Gen24.2, An95w & An96}

Interesting. I just went through the 2017 errata summary and did not find an entry like this, although I did find one for negating the gunshield DRM if using MOL alone. One could argue in favor of this. But it doesn't negate the TEM that the gun is sitting in.

In fact, the rules are more generous than this QA indicates:

	11.51 HEAT destroys a Gun using the same mechanics as an HE hit, except that it uses HE Equivalency (8.31). A FT/MOL attack destroys a Gun using Random SW Destruction (A9.74) but is slightly more effective than MG/Small Arms Fire because gunshields never modify a FT attack or a FG which includes only units attacking from outside the Gun's CA and/or using MOL.

In general, I disagree that MOL is anything like a flamethrower, a tossed bottle of gas, or even several of them, isn't going to get into every nook and cranny like an extended flamethrower shot would. The effect of the MOL should be sufficiently included in the extra +4 FP, which moves the fire up a column.

If this is a 'long-standing' QA, it should be incorporated in official errata by now, and it's not. I think these old QA should be regarded with a lot of caution.

 

[Tater]

Interesting. I just went through the 2017 errata summary and did not find an entry like this, although I did find one for negating the gunshield DRM if using MOL alone. One could argue in favor of this. But it doesn't negate the TEM that the gun is sitting in.

In fact, the rules are more generous than this QA indicates:

	11.51 HEAT destroys a Gun using the same mechanics as an HE hit, except that it uses HE Equivalency (8.31). A FT/MOL attack destroys a Gun using Random SW Destruction (A9.74) but is slightly more effective than MG/Small Arms Fire because gunshields never modify a FT attack or a FG which includes only units attacking from outside the Gun's CA and/or using MOL.

In general, I disagree that MOL is anything like a flamethrower, a tossed bottle of gas, or even several of them, isn't going to get into every nook and cranny like an extended flamethrower shot would. The effect of the MOL should be sufficiently included in the extra +4 FP, which moves the fire up a column.

If this is a 'long-standing' QA, it should be incorporated in official errata by now, and it's not. I think these old QA should be regarded with a lot of caution.

This Q&A is incorporated into the ASLRBv2...C7.344...

I never really thought about mol much...it is not very common...and vehicles in buildings isn’t very common...but it seems to me that tossing a homemade bottle full of volatile liquid ought to be more difficult to deliver onto a very specific target in a 40m area of a building...from outside that building.