Using IFT vs BU AFV

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Senior moment here.
May a unit use IFT fire vs a BU AFV otherwise than First Firing, even though there is no chance of harming it?
A7.307 vs ARMORED TARGETS: Small Arms and non-ordnance attacks [EXC: FT, DC, MOL, ATMM] have no effect vs armored targets but may leave Residual FP.
A reason would be to check LOS to the target before using Ordnance (either by an attacking vehicle's MG or by Infantry in that vehicle's Location)...

Now, A14.1 kicks in :
14.1 SNIPER ACTIVATION NUMBER (SAN): ... A player is subject to Sniper attack during any PFPh, MPh, DFPh or AFPh whenever he makes a TH, MC, TC, non-OBA IFT, or Entrenching, Original DR [EXC: those made for Prisoners] equal to the enemy SAN. Any such DR that can yield no game result other than a SAN is not made
So it seems that the answer to the question would be negative...
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,940
Reaction score
7,423
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
One can argue that knowning a LOS is a "game result" (which, btw, is a rather varje term, IMO). I would allow it.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
One can argue that knowning a LOS is a "game result" (which, btw, is a rather vague term, IMO). I would allow it.
OK.
In the situation from which stemmed the question, I fired the Ordnance and had LOS...
Just for the fun, here is how things developed...

The "G1" JgPzIV had moved to F6 but decided to wait until AFPh to fire.
The "U4" M8 HMC fired at it using HEAT (that is why I asked the question - tempted by using the 4 AAMG to verify LOS), but it was a hull hit (the JPzIV is HD).
The JPzIV fired back. No hit, but acquisition.
(Note that the M8 Armored Car had been occupied firing at infantry and anyway its 11 TK vs the JPz 11 front armour, barring a CH, would have no effect).
US PFPh : the M8 HMC fires at the JPzIV using HEAT. Snakes ! (pushing its TK up to 26). TK DR : 12 Dud!
It went IF, but with no effect...
The Armored Car had to fire at German infantry in strategical F4 building (it broke it).
During the DFPh, the JPzIV, licking its lips, tried to fish out APCR (A4 depletion) to kill the H8 HMC, and rolled... boxcars!
The picture is at the end of the US Turn (with US infantry having been able to sneak in F4 and G6 VP buildings.
Things are looking gloomy for the German.
But, wow, ASL is rock'n roll !
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The weapon could malfunction,that's a game result.
So that would rule out non MG, IFT fire.
But cowering could also be an effect - and if "knowing LOS" is a game result, well, there is about no situation where the A14.1 restriction applies : an obvious LOS could nevertheless be "checked" that way, and thus allow possible Sniper activation...
 

wsrt

Recruit
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
6
Location
Livingston
Country
ll
Any such DR that can yield no game result other than a SAN is not made

I have always understood this rule to mean that the SAN roll is not made if the triggering DR can have no other effect. I vaguely recall the rule changing to stop the gamey tactic of driving a BU AFV down the length of a FL in order to try and trigger a high SAN. I believe that you can make your roll to check the LOS, but it wouldn't trigger the sniper even if the roll matched your SAN.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Any such DR that can yield no game result other than a SAN is not made

I have always understood this rule to mean that the SAN roll is not made if the triggering DR can have no other effect. I vaguely recall the rule changing to stop the gamey tactic of driving a BU AFV down the length of a FL in order to try and trigger a high SAN. I believe that you can make your roll to check the LOS, but it wouldn't trigger the sniper even if the roll matched your SAN.
The rule speaks of the DR (= dice roll) that could generate the SAN dr (die roll).
So it is not about not making the SAN dr.
 

Barking Monkey

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
248
Reaction score
331
Location
Virginia
First name
John
Country
llUnited States
My understanding is the same as WSRT, now I'll have to go back and look at the text...
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,940
Reaction score
7,423
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
It is pretty clear that the rule means the DR that triggers the SAN - not the Sniper dr.

A14.1:
"..A player is subject to Sniper attack during any PFPh, MPh, DFPh or AFPh whenever he makes a TH, MC, TC, non-OBA IFT, or Entrenching, Original DR [EXC: those made for Prisoners] equal to the enemy SAN. Any such DR that can yield no game result other than a SAN is not made [EXC: the DR required for an attack negated by blocked LOS (6.11) is made]..."

"Any such DR" clearly (IMO) refers to the "Original DR" in the preceding sentence.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,407
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Firing at a vehicle with IFT is a way of laying down Residual Fire, and as far as I know, is perfectly allowed. In most cases Cowering is a possibility, so the DR would have to be made even without a SW usage.

I wouldn't say knowing LOS is a game result, but even if the SAN rule says the DR doesn't have to be made, I'd say that the announced shot is enough to allow the LOS check.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
My question is about non Defensive First Fire, when Residual Fire placement is not applicable.
Note that my example of play happens during DFPh.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,842
Reaction score
5,875
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Thanks to all the contributions.
I think that I applied A14.1 too strictly up to now.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,027
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
There is a rule for this:
D3.5 said:
A vehicle may use MG fire on a target it cannot affect (e.g., to check the LOS before committing his MA to fire).
 
Top