Vehicle Target Type vs HIP?

[M.Netto]

3.41C states that "The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack an unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such".

Ok, it's not difficult to see how we can hit a HIP target or even a concealed vehicle stack among other vehicles using those target types and Random Selection. Yet, 3.31C states that "The Vehicle Target Type can be selected only when firing at a specific vehicle (even if HIP/concealed) and must be used when firing at an AFV". Here, as I understand it, the vehicle must be predesignated and I can't really figure out how can we fire at a HIP vehicle or even on a stack with more than one concealed vehicle using it. It must be somewhere in the rulebook, but I wasn't able to find.

 

[Doug Leslie]

3.41C states that "The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack an unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such".

Ok, it's not difficult to see how we can hit a HIP target or even a concealed vehicle stack among other vehicles using those target types and Random Selection. Yet, 3.31C states that "The Vehicle Target Type can be selected only when firing at a specific vehicle (even if HIP/concealed) and must be used when firing at an AFV". Here, as I understand it, the vehicle must be predesignated and I can't really figure out how can we fire at a HIP vehicle or even on a stack with more than one concealed vehicle using it. It must be somewhere in the rulebook, but I wasn't able to find.

It is very unusual for vehicles to be able to set up HIP. On the rare occasion when this is an option, the vehicle would not be allowed to set up overstacked. Therefore, if you were so inclined, you could fire at an empty hex (or even an occupied hex where you suspect a HIP vehicle might be lurking) and declare that you are using the VTT. If, after applying all appropriate TH modifiers (including +2 for firing at an HIP/concealed target), a hit is achieved, the vehicle will be placed onboard and the TK DR will be resolved normally.

The situation where there might be two concealed vehicles under a concealment counter is impossible since being overstacked causes loss of concealment per A12.14 and Case A on the Concealment Table.

 

[M.Netto]

The situation where there might be two concealed vehicles under a concealment counter is impossible since being overstacked causes loss of concealment per A12.14 and Case A on the Concealment Table.

This one went unnoticed. Thanks.

 

[Blaze]

If hidden (which is VERY rare for vehicles) I'd use the area target type to attack the hex and see if a result would happen.

For concealed vehicles, I'd use the vehicle target type using the Case K modifier. But sometimes I'd use the area target type on a vehicle. You'll learn soon that mortars are serious AFV killers at times.


C3.332 An Area Target Type hit vs vehicles [EXC: motorcycle; D15.5] is resolved as per 1.55 (see also D5.311 for mortar Air Bursts). Vulnerable PRC are attacked Collaterally (D.8B) unless otherwise prohibited.

C1.55 vs VEHICLE: The ★ Vehicle line of the IFT (A7.308) is used for an unarmored vehicle attacked by a HE FFE (or hit by HE using the Area Target Type; 3.33). However, such attacks vs an AFV are resolved in a different manner on the IFT: A Final KIA result destroys the AFV but allows normal Survival (D5.6; D6.9) possibilities [EXC: a Final DR ≤ half of the Final DR that corresponds to a K/# result on that IFT column results in a Burning Wreck ... (continue reading)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

One can also make an attack without stating the Target Type - then C.9 kicks in.

C.9 UNDECLARED ORDNANCE TARGET TYPE: Any time ordnance capable of fire on more than one Target Type of the C3 To Hit Table makes a To Hit DR without first specifying the Target Type being used, the Target Type used for that To Hit DR is the topmost one listed on the To Hit Table that can legally be used vs a target in that hex by that firer (i.e., Vehicle, Infantry or Area in that order).

 

[Bill Kohler]

Which feels sleezy . . . "I'm using AP if there's an unseen vehicle there, but I'm using HE if there's unseen Infantry there."

I want to interpret this rule as a player being forced to either declare a specific target type or be considered to be firing at the terrain with ITT (or ATT if he can't use ITT). E.g., as if "known" were inserted before "target in that hex".

But Klas knows the rules pre-tt-y well.

And the situations where you might use this will be rare.

(I can rationalize Klas's application of the rule in this situation be imagining that a single ASL shot is actually modeling more than one shot, and that the firer uses HE first to see what pops out when all the trees sway and the camo is torn away, and then he switches to AP once he sees the tank. Or that maybe the firer sees a silhouette that sort of maybe looks a little like a tank, and that he firers at it just to be sure, and then scares the hidden Infantry into moving or panic firing.)

This issue was discussed recently on BoardGameGeek: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3032492/firing-reveal-hip-afvs-and-guns

 

[A_T_Great]

Which feels sleezy . . . "I'm using AP if there's an unseen vehicle there, but I'm using HE if there's unseen Infantry there."

I want to interpret this rule as a player being forced to either declare a specific target type or be considered to be firing at the terrain with ITT (or ATT if he can't use ITT).

But Klas knows the rules pre-tt-y well.

And the situations where you might use this will be rare.

(I can rationalize Klas's application of the rule in this situation be imagining that a single ASL shot is actually modeling more than one shot, and that the firer uses HE first to see what pops out when all the trees sway and the camo is torn away, and then he switches to AP once he sees the tank. Or that maybe the firer sees a silhouette that sort of maybe looks a little like a tank, and that he firers at it just to be sure.)

I don't think you are allowed to switch Ammo types. Just target types.

 

[Bill Kohler]

I don't think you are allowed to switch Ammo types. Just target types.

So if he chooses AP, then he must be using VTT; it's only with HE that can slide through the different Target Types. An interesting take--and that would solve my reality issues.

But C2.21 might be saying otherwise: In the absence of a declaration to the contrary, it is otherwise always assumed to be firing HE vs unarmored targets or AP vs armored targets, provided that ammunition type is available, is not Special Ammunition (i.e., has no Depletion #; 8.8), and is allowed on the applicable Target Type of the To Hit Table.

 

[Robin Reeve]

AP may be used with the ITT.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

AP may be used with the ITT.

C8.31 has the FP equivalent for Really Big Bullets, 1 FP, or 2 FP if ≥ 37mm. I've used that many times with weapons with limited or no HE.

 

[Bill Kohler]

<grin>

My mind was only half on that specific point when I posted the above after quickly scanning the Target Type rules. I got to "HE" and simply stopped reading. (Dolt!)

3.32 INFANTRY TARGET TYPE: The Infantry Target Type can be selected only when firing HE [EXC: AP or HEAT vs an unarmored target (8.31, 11.52)] and only against an unarmored target.

Yeah, I know about HE Equivalency, but my mind was in a groove . . .

--------

Robin and Scott, are you agreeing with A_T_Great's interpretation that even though the Target Type need not be specified, the Ammo Type should be in the case of firing at an "apparently" empty hex?

 

[Bill Kohler]

One can also make an attack without stating the Target Type - then C.9 kicks in.

C.9 UNDECLARED ORDNANCE TARGET TYPE: Any time ordnance capable of fire on more than one Target Type of the C3 To Hit Table makes a To Hit DR without first specifying the Target Type being used, the Target Type used for that To Hit DR is the topmost one listed on the To Hit Table that can legally be used vs a target in that hex by that firer (i.e., Vehicle, Infantry or Area in that order).

The question arises of what happens if there's a juicy stack of Infantry in a hex with a hidden AFV, and the firer doesn't state that he's using HE with ITT, after the snake eyes does the defender say, "Great shot! You killed my HIP APC! And it's blazing. And now my Infantry have an additional +2 modifier (-1 for Acq if it was a ROF firer)."

I don't think I could do that to my opponent.

 

[Paul John]

C8.31 has the FP equivalent for Really Big Bullets, 1 FP, or 2 FP if ≥ 37mm. I've used that many times with weapons with limited or no HE.

Especially fun vs. pillboxes!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The question arises of what happens if there's a juicy stack of Infantry in a hex with a hidden AFV, and the firer doesn't state that he's using HE with ITT, after the snake eyes does the defender say, "Great shot! You killed my HIP APC! And it's blazing. And now my Infantry have an additional +2 modifier (-1 for Acq if it was a ROF firer)."

Usually it's not an issue, as when there are Known targets in the Location, one usually declares the Target Type....

 

[Bill Kohler]

Usually it's not an issue, as when there are Known targets in the Location, one usually declares the Target Type....

I'm more careless and usually don't, as I think it's obvious and C2.21/C.9 has me covered.

Are you in agreement that if there're both HIP AFVs and HIP Guns in a scenario, and someone fires at empty Concealment Terrain, that the firer doesn't have to state whether he's using HE or AP, for the rules we've been discussing will switch him to whichever is appropriate for any HIPster that's present?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Are you in agreement that if there're both HIP AFVs and HIP Guns in a scenario, and someone fires at empty Concealment Terrain, that the firer doesn't have to state whether he's using HE or AP, for the rules we've been discussing will switch him to whichever is appropriate for any HIPster that's present?

I think that is the case yes....

 

[Bill Kohler]

I think that is the case yes....

Thank you.

I don't really expect this situation to arise often at all, but I've made note of it. (Although I still think C.9 should use "known target", not just "target".)

This ruling might also come into play, BTW, if a 5/8-inch Concealment Counter is sitting there, concealing possibly either a vehicle or a Gun (granted, though, Guns are usually HIP).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Agree, it is probably not something that will happen very often....

 

[Larry]

Not declaring a target type when the location has no known targets means that you cannot gain acquisition on the ATT. If there are no known units and you want to gain acquisition, then you have to declare ATT and HE -- not AP, APCR, or HEAT. So you have the option of not declaring but it does come at a price. Everything has a price.

 

[M.Netto]

Guys, I'll apologize if sometimes I place a question that triggers a more in depth discussion and I don't manifest anymore. But the fact is that such discussion may go beyond my present level of knowledge of the rules and experience with the system, so I just go on reading and learning with it.