Two D8.11 Multiple Immobilization Questions

[Von Kar]

Situation : an already Immobile AFV (its Immobilization was caused by a CC Attack) is hit by an ATR.

The ATR's Final TK# is 7 (= Basic TK# modified by range +2).
The AFV's AF is 4.
The ATTACKER rolls 2,1 resulting in a Hull Hit and Immobilization.

According to "D8.11 MULTIPLE IMMOBILIZATION: The Inherent crew of an immobilized vehicle that receives another Immobilization result may be subject to an Immobilization TC (5.5)."

Note "... may be subject to ...", so we need to check D5.5 in which we find :
"5.5 IMMOBILIZATION TC: An immediate TC is required of the non-Shocked, non-Stunned Inherent crew of a vehicle [EXC: one in a Water Obstacle; 16.3] that becomes immobilized by any non-CC attack, or that is already bogged/immobilized and is hit by Direct Fire ordnance which fails to destroy, Stun, or Shock it but that would have destroyed or Shocked it with an Original TK or IFT DR of 5."

As the first part of the rule (before "or") says "... becomes immobilized ...", an immediate TC would not be required IMHO.
The AFV is already immobilized.

So the second part of the rule would apply :

• the AFV is hit by Direct Fire ordnance (an ATR is ordnance (= any weapon which must score a hit on a To Hit Table before rolling again on the IFT or To Kill Table to resolve that hit); OK
• the hit failed to destroy, Stun or Shock it; OK
• "but that would have destroyed or Shocked it with an Original TK or IFT DR of 5"; not OK

In this case the Original TK# was 2 (Elim) or 3 (Sh T), so my interpretation is that an Immobilization TC would not be required (as 2 or 3 ≠ 5).

Q1
Is that correct ?
(In real life, the crew would not be impressed by a hit from such a light weapon ...)

Q2
What if the Original TK DR would be > 5 ?
One might expect the Immobilization TC to be required in that case (the crew is impressed by a hit from a heavier weapon).
So shouldn't the rule say "... but that would have destroyed or Shocked it with an Original TK or IFT DR of ≥ 5". ?


Thanks for clarifying both questions.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Q2 - if a DR > 5 would have killed it, then a DR of 5 would have done that as well.

 

[Kijug]

Regarding the “becomes immobilized...” there is the “or” in that rule that applies:

"5.5 IMMOBILIZATION TC: An immediate TC is required of the non-Shocked, non-Stunned Inherent crew of a vehicle...that becomes immobilized by any non-CC attack, or that is already bogged/immobilized and is hit by Direct Fire ordnance which fails to destroy, Stun, or Shock it but that would have destroyed or Shocked it with an Original TK or IFT DR of 5."

The bold text above tells me that the second immobilization shot requires an Immobilization TC.

Right?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

....only if a TK DR of 5 would have killed the Immobilized vehicle, and it sounded like that was not the case.

 

[Von Kar]

“The bold text above tells me that the second immobilization shot requires an Immobilization TC.”

My point is that the text doesn’t stop there.
All three conditions following “and” mentioned in my first post, must be met, too, don’t they ?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

“The bold text above tells me that the second immobilization shot requires an Immobilization TC.”

My point is that the text doesn’t stop there.
All three conditions following “and” mentioned in my first post, must be met, too, don’t they ?

Yes, they must all be met.