US Vehicular Note V

Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
71
Likes
28
Points
18
Location
Oslo, Norway
#1
Hi all,

When replacing my old US chapter H with Yanks 2 pages, I noticed that one of the errata which I had noted down from before is now gone: Note V - add at the end "Such a weapon cannot attack in OVR".

This was meant to prevent AA halftracks such as the M16 MGMC to attack in OVR, presumably because their weapon cannot fire through the VCA.

Could someone confirm that meatchoppers can be used in OVR?

Thanks,
Arnaud
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,012
Likes
170
Points
63
Location
Michigan
#2
Hi Arnaud,

"Meatchopper" Overruns were not disallowed via an Errata, but rather due to it's MA being unable to fire in it's same-level VCA. Vehicular Note V hasn't changed (now on page 44), and still contains the sentence: "Neither the MA nor CMG may fire at a target that lies within the VCA and is also at the same or a lower level than the firer [EXC: during CC]."

I guess that an overrun still considers the enemy to be "in front " of the AFV, thus the ruling for the M16 MGMC. There was a Question issued with the answer you made note of:

Page H41: [US Multi-Applicable Note V]: Can such a weapon (i.e2, one that cannot fire in the VCA at the same level) attack in OVR?

A: No.
Technically, I see this as a ruling on the OVR chapter and not really based specifically on this ht (just as RMGs cannot be used in an OVR). Besides, Note V wording hasn't changed, and since the Q&A is still found on MMP's website, I would still accept this answer. But it could still OVR with 2 FP!!;)

BTW, assuming this ruling IS still in effect, it really should be made clearer somewhere within the main body of the RB (specifically D7) as it would affect many other vehicles (for example, the Russian ZIS-42-AA and IAG-10-AA halftrack).

P.S. I love your avatar!!!
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,782
Likes
1,565
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#3
That Q&A (IIRC) has been invalidated by a later Q&A - the M16 MGMC can use its MA in an OVR. I will try and find that Q&A.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,927
Likes
591
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#4
The original Q&A made no sense in any case. As noted, if it was intended as a "general" change to the OVR rule, than attaching it to a vehicular note for a single nationality is exactly the wrong place to put it. Many vehicles have MA that don't/can't point through the VCA, if the intent was to restrict all of them then the Q&A can only be regarded as a failure. Looking beyond that problem though is the question of why there should be such a prohibition in the first place? You have to start making some really convoluted -- and ultimately very unconvincing -- "reality" arguments to explain exactly why the vehicle can't ever point its weapons at the same-hex target during an OVR, but has no problems doing so during CC. Much more sensible to just void the old Q&A in the first place.

[This was one of two (IIRC) "silent" errata changes to the Chapter H pages in Yanks2. The other was with regard to armoured dozers due to a minor change in the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules for same.]
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,012
Likes
170
Points
63
Location
Michigan
#5
The original Q&A made no sense in any case. As noted, if it was intended as a "general" change to the OVR rule, than attaching it to a vehicular note for a single nationality is exactly the wrong place to put it. Many vehicles have MA that don't/can't point through the VCA, if the intent was to restrict all of them then the Q&A can only be regarded as a failure. Looking beyond that problem though is the question of why there should be such a prohibition in the first place? You have to start making some really convoluted -- and ultimately very unconvincing -- "reality" arguments to explain exactly why the vehicle can't ever point its weapons at the same-hex target during an OVR, but has no problems doing so during CC. Much more sensible to just void the old Q&A in the first place.

[This was one of two (IIRC) "silent" errata changes to the Chapter H pages in Yanks2. The other was with regard to armoured dozers due to a minor change in the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules for same.]
Glad to hear this Bruce, as the old Q&A seemed to open a huge can of worms! Besides, my understanding is that gunning people down is what the M16 MGMC did best!

That said, why is the old Q&A still posted on the MMP site?

And Klas, did you ever find that counter Q & A? I am beginning to have "trust issues" when it comes to Errata and "official" Q&As!!
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,782
Likes
1,565
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#6
[This was one of two (IIRC) "silent" errata changes to the Chapter H pages in Yanks2. The other was with regard to armoured dozers due to a minor change in the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules for same.]
Do you recall the change to the dozers rule? NRBH.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,927
Likes
591
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#7
That said, why is the old Q&A still posted on the MMP site?
One might as well ask why the errata from Journals 11 & 12 are not yet up on the site, either. Back when I was compiling the errata for MMP (quite a few years back), it took two years for them to update the web site with what was then the latest compilation. All they had to do was format it for HTML and upload it. After that debacle, I (a) stopped bothering to compile the errata and (b) stopped expecting to see up-to-date errata on the web site. Off the top of my head, I think all of the US / Japanese / Chinese / Landing Craft errata and Q&A currently in the "Chapter H" section should be moved to the "1st edition" section (although each entry would need to be double-checked to be sure). The "scenario errata" section for Paratrooper and Yanks also needs to be updated. I'm not surprised that this doesn't get done regularly, it's time-consuming and nobody shouts your praises for doing it. I would have thought that it's an essential part of customer service, though. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, the only way to make sure you have an up-to-date errata listing is to create your own compilation and update it yourself -- adding new entries as required, and deleting entries no longer required. That's what I've been doing since ca. 1995 ....

Do you recall the change to the dozers rule? NRBH.
I don't have the specific details to hand. IIRC, there was an errata note buried in the 1st ed. Chapter G rules for dozers. That errata note was expunged from the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules, I think following a query from me to Perry about it, because it affected the Sherman Dozer in the British vehicle notes as well as the US vehicle notes (and the errata had not been incorporated into the FKaC Chapter H pages). I guess the decision was made that the errata was no longer desirable (it added a +2 TH DRM when firing through the front, or something like that?). Any way, the deletion of the errata from Chapter G affected the US vehicle notes in the same way -- there used to be errata for that vehicle, and now there isn't. Hence the "silent" change. :) Given the "buried" nature of the original errata (a small entry in the rules for dozers, a rules section that I imagine is very, very rarely consulted by anyone) and the general non-appearance of Sherman Dozers in official scenarios (or even unofficial ones!), it's entirely possible that I'm the only person to ever notice this. :)
 

Eagle4ty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
2,653
Likes
658
Points
113
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
#8
I don't have the specific details to hand. IIRC, there was an errata note buried in the 1st ed. Chapter G rules for dozers. That errata note was expunged from the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules, I think following a query from me to Perry about it, because it affected the Sherman Dozer in the British vehicle notes as well as the US vehicle notes (and the errata had not been incorporated into the FKaC Chapter H pages). I guess the decision was made that the errata was no longer desirable (it added a +2 TH DRM when firing through the front, or something like that?). Any way, the deletion of the errata from Chapter G affected the US vehicle notes in the same way -- there used to be errata for that vehicle, and now there isn't. Hence the "silent" change. :) Given the "buried" nature of the original errata (a small entry in the rules for dozers, a rules section that I imagine is very, very rarely consulted by anyone) and the general non-appearance of Sherman Dozers in official scenarios (or even unofficial ones!), it's entirely possible that I'm the only person to ever notice this. :)
Yes, you know a while back we were having at AP33 SECOND CRISTOT and that very question came up, can't remember all the particulars of the circumstances, but it did have something to do with either the TH or effects in regards to the Dozer tank. By the way, thanks for doing the errata when you did. You're right, the best way is to immediately make changes in your rules when the errata comes out or notes when you notice, what you call, " a silent change".:thumbsup:
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,782
Likes
1,565
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#9
I don't have the specific details to hand. IIRC, there was an errata note buried in the 1st ed. Chapter G rules for dozers. That errata note was expunged from the 2nd ed. Chapter G rules, I think following a query from me to Perry about it, because it affected the Sherman Dozer in the British vehicle notes as well as the US vehicle notes (and the errata had not been incorporated into the FKaC Chapter H pages). I guess the decision was made that the errata was no longer desirable (it added a +2 TH DRM when firing through the front, or something like that?). Any way, the deletion of the errata from Chapter G affected the US vehicle notes in the same way -- there used to be errata for that vehicle, and now there isn't. Hence the "silent" change. :) Given the "buried" nature of the original errata (a small entry in the rules for dozers, a rules section that I imagine is very, very rarely consulted by anyone) and the general non-appearance of Sherman Dozers in official scenarios (or even unofficial ones!), it's entirely possible that I'm the only person to ever notice this. :)
I've checked this out now, and as far as I can tell there is no change - just a "clean up" of the text.

G15.13 used to have this in the text:
"[ERRATA: “+2 for HH” in U.S. Vehicle Note 18 is NA vs mortar fire.]"

This text was deleted in the 2nd Edition of Chapter G, because the U.S. Vehicle Note would be updated in the 2nd Edition of Yanks so the text in G15.13 was not really needed any more, and the same errata informaiton was published in MMP's website (which should now probably be moved to the 1st Edition section).

So in Yanks 2nd Edition the text in U.S. Vehicle Note 18 was changed from (changes/additions in red):
"Due to the extra protection afforded by the dozer blade, a special +2 To Hit DRM applies to the calculation of a front-hull hit vs a Tankdozer unless the firer is at least one full level higher than the target. This is signified by “+2 for HH” on the counter."

To:
"Due to the extra protection afforded by the dozer blade, a special +2 To Hit DRM applies to the calculation of a Direct Fire front-hull hit vs a Dozer unless the firer is at least one full level higher than the target. This is signified by “+2 for HH” on the counter. See G15.13 for tankdozer usage."

So now this paragrapgh looks like the same one in British Vehicle Note 23.
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,782
Likes
1,565
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#10
And Klas, did you ever find that counter Q & A? I am beginning to have "trust issues" when it comes to Errata and "official" Q&As!!
I did find it. However, it was a Q&A raised when the article Crosstown Traffic from ASL Journal 8 was being edited, so the Q&A itselft was never posted anywhere.

On page 4 of said magazine, in the third colum there is a paragraph describing an OVR by a M16 MGMC ht, and it does apply the 24 IFE from the MA. So it wasn't a contradictory Q&A, but rather an rules-article in an ASL Journal, of course those aren't part of the rules, and anyone not aware of this background might probably still apply that Q&A. Which is why the Q&A should (IMO) be removed from the MMP errata page.