Upper Levels and OBA

[Vinnie]

The problem stems From The inclusion of a rule that changes nothing from the general rule. We tend to look for a reason for a rule to be there. In this case, the rule is clear (if the reason in the example is slightly out) but the rule is the same as the normal one and so was not needed.

 

[rreinesch]

Ok, sorry to belabor this but I am just trying to be clear.

So the example and rule text Vinnie quotes above suggests that indirect fire on the roofless location of stone multistory bldgs without a roof is subject to +3 TEM. But it also states that a unit on the Ground level in this presumable 2 story bldg would receive +4 TEM (+3 for Stone and +1 for the location above it). I agree this is not different than a normal treatment of roofed bldgs (B23.32). The only difference is that the topmost level in this building is roofless.

But it is different, as stated above, than the RB (O5.45) and VOTG rules (V7.7) on gutted/roofless factories and bldgs in that there is only a +2 TEM to indirect fire to units in the roofless location. Though even in the VOTG rules you get the additional +1 TEM if you are in a non-roofless location of the bldg for all levels above it, including the roofless level -- at least, I think that is implied by saying "non-rooftop locations."

The problem I am seeing is simply that phrase "Units subject to indirect fire ... while located in the topmost level of a roofless building may not claim the additional +1 TEM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level."

I think Vinnie's point is that there is no rule that states there is an additional +1 TEM in the topmost level of a building for an "intact roof" -- unless there is an SBR in CtR.

I don't have the ruleset in front of me, but would it be enough to simply state that Indirect fire on a roofless location is subject to the normal stone building +3 TEM. Further, there is an additional +1 TEM for all levels above units in non-roofless locations, including the roofless level.

I think that given the RB and VOTG rules it might still help clarify things.

Again, sorry to be pedantic about it -- I'm just trying to clarify it for myself (and maybe some others).

 

[rreinesch]

RB and VotG are in reference to HASLs related to Stalingrad. This is Corregidor, and the HASL rules for this pack make no reference to those other rulesets in regards to use on roofless buildings. What we have in place, really, is that Corregidor roofless buildings are to be treated no differently than buildings with a roof when it comes to Indirect fire, OBA, NOBA, Aerial attacks, bombs and Napalm. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately the whole reference to there being a rule that allows a +1 TEM for an intact roof has confused things and we'll be rewording that sentence to clarify.

 

[ASLSARGE]

1.3 INDIRECT FIRE TEM: Units subject to Indirect fire, OBA, NOBA, Aerial attack, bombs, and Napalm attacks while located in the topmost level of a Roofless Building may not claim the additional +1 DRM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level. They do receive the +3 TEM for being in a Stone Building.

Here is where my problem stems. Units on the top floor (level 1 here) of a stone building, with a roof, do not get an extra +1 for the roof, only +3. This is normal. I'm not certain if Corregidor is intended to act differently and there is at least one roofed building on the map. Units on the ground floor of a two level building get +1 for the level above and I believe this would still be the case for roofless buildings on Corregidor as per the example. "A Japanese 4-4-7 squad at ground level in Roofless Building hex GG11 is subjected to an OBA attack. They would receive a +4 TEM to that attack (+3 TEM for Stone building and +1 TEM for the floor between Ground Level and Level 1 ".

This being the case, there is no difference between a normal stone bulding under OBA fire and a roofless one. That may be what was intnended and if so, fine but then the whole section is not required.

My suspicion is that the intent was to make units in a roofless building ,more vulnerable, but the rules do not do this.

Secondly, can you place a 5/8th counter on the upper floor of a non-fortified roofless building?

1.2 All stone building rules apply normally except as amended herein. Contrary to C2.7, both AA Gun (≤ 20mm) and Mortar (≤ 82mm) fire is allowed from within a Roofless Building as long as the AA Gun/Mortar is located in the uppermost level of the Roofless building. Mortars on the topmost level of a Roofless Building or in the ground level location of a Roofless single story building may use Indirect fire as if they were on the roof (B23.85).

C2.7 PROHIBITED HEXES: A Gun cannot occupy an upper building level [EXC: Fortified Buildings and mortars on Rooftops], nor can it occupy a Water Obstacle, crag [EXC: mortars; B17.4], marsh, or Irrigated-paddy (G8.12) unless dm and possessed or in/on a vehicle/boat. Small-Target-Size Guns and AT/INF Guns that are not large targets are the only 5/8" non-vehicular Gun counters that may ever occupy a building/rubble hex [EXC: Rooftop mortars (B23.85); Fortified Building (B23.93)].
I think you can but wish it had been specifically made unambiguosly clear.

Regarding placing 5/8" guns in upper levels of non-fortified buildings....in Corregidor, yes. That is an exception to the standard ASL rule and that is why it was put in there. There is ample evidence of the Japanese placing several 20mm AA guns and even a couple 70mm mortars in upper building levels. The Americans also did this. On the second day of battle in 1945 there was a particularly troublesome Japanese gun in an upper building level near the Parade Grounds that prevented any movement in that direction. The Americans disassembled a 75mm pack howitzer and hauled it upstairs by hand inside another building about 100 meters distant. They reassembled the gun upstairs, fired three or four HE rounds at the offending Japanese gun, and it went silent. So yes, some 5/8" gun counters are allowed by rule to be placed in upper building levels in Corregidor.

 

[ASLSARGE]

Bottom line on the Indirect Fire vs a Roofless building issue. Text is being reworded and will be included in the Corregidor Errata so there will be no more confusion.
With Roofless buildings we were introducing a new terrain type and wanted to provide the information needed so that players would know how to apply the particulars of this new terrain type during play and that is why the rule is in there. To have not done so would have been unforgivable on our part. Rick has already put something together and should have it posted on the BFP Support page soon. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Vinnie]

Regarding placing 5/8" guns in upper levels of non-fortified buildings....in Corregidor, yes. That is an exception to the standard ASL rule and that is why it was put in there. There is ample evidence of the Japanese placing several 20mm AA guns and even a couple 70mm mortars in upper building levels. The Americans also did this. On the second day of battle in 1945 there was a particularly troublesome Japanese gun in an upper building level near the Parade Grounds that prevented any movement in that direction. The Americans disassembled a 75mm pack howitzer and hauled it upstairs by hand inside another building about 100 meters distant. They reassembled the gun upstairs, fired three or four HE rounds at the offending Japanese gun, and it went silent. So yes, some 5/8" gun counters are allowed by rule to be placed in upper building levels in Corregidor.

To be fair, this is the same wording in VotG and some Lone Canuck products. I'm just picky about these things

 

[Vinnie]

Bottom line on the Indirect Fire vs a Roofless building issue. Text is being reworded and will be included in the Corregidor Errata so there will be no more confusion.
With Roofless buildings we were introducing a new terrain type and wanted to provide the information needed so that players would know how to apply the particulars of this new terrain type during play and that is why the rule is in there. To have not done so would have been unforgivable on our part. Rick has already put something together and should have it posted on the BFP Support page soon. Hope that clears it up.

Thanks. I'm really impressed with the products you guys put out. I hope you don't think I'm grying to be arsey about it. I just want it to be as good as it can possibly be!

 

[ASLSARGE]

Thanks. I'm really impressed with the products you guys put out. I hope you don't think I'm grying to be arsey about it. I just want it to be as good as it can possibly be!

Then we are all on the same page.