Walls again!

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

Please set me right here;

If a tank in a building with a wall adjacent to it, it will get HD status right? The tank will not lose its wall advantage even if another tank rolls up to the walled in building?

Also, Can concealed units claim WA? will they lose concealment in LOS of an enemy unit?

YA WA is a little confusing to me.

Scott

 

[Robin Reeve]

There was a thread, about a month ago, about that question.
Go and see : http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21012
Here is extract of Ole Boes answer :

The rule is far from clear, but its intention is that an AFV behind a wall, in a hex that has in-hex TEM may choose this in-hex TEM instead of being HD - just like other units may choose in-hex instead of wall TEM.
...
As said, the rule is far from clear, so I'm happy to say that one of the Journal 6 errata that I suggested and Perry accepted was to make clear that only in-hex TEM can be chosen instead of being HD.

 

[Ole Boe]

If a tank in a building with a wall adjacent to it, it will get HD status right?

First, note that it can not claim Wall Advantage, since an AFV able to claim non-zero in-hex TEM can never claim WA (B9.32).

But vs fire from non-adjacent units (or adjacent units without WA), the tank can choose between in-hex TEM, or being HD by the wall - but not both.

The tank will not lose its wall advantage even if another tank rolls up to the walled in building?

It never had WA since it was in a hex with non-zero in-hex TEM. So when an enemy tanks rolls up, the enemy tank will claim WA. Fire from the enemy tank will then receice the building TEM, but the friendly AFV will not be HD.

Also, Can concealed units claim WA? will they lose concealment in LOS of an enemy unit?

Yes, it may claim WA as per B9.324. It may retain it, but if an enemy unit tries to claim WA, it must prove that it is a real unit by being momemtarily revealed - all per B9.324. It's no concealment loss action though.

YA WA is a little confusing to me.

Do you have the second edition WA rules? They should be much clearer than first edition.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi Ole and Robin,
So far, thanks for answering my questions, I know I asked these same goofy question on the list, but I accidentilly deleted those e-mails.

One last question, oh ya, we are using MMP's 2E ASL rules.
This question is from Bob Miller:

"Building in-hex TEM behind a wall. It is obvious the Tank cannot take the wall as a +2 TEM. The issue still remains unclear, What are the mechanics of a defending vehicle in the above situation in deciding to be hull down or take the building TEM on a To-Hit roll against that unit?"

Ole, I think you may have answered this on already, but I figure, Bob's computer is down, so at least give him a benifit of the doubt on this one.

Also, thanks for taking the time to answer this stuff.

Scott

 

[Ole Boe]

"Building in-hex TEM behind a wall. It is obvious the Tank cannot take the wall as a +2 TEM.

...at least it is obvious after the Journal 6 errata to D4.2, saying: "D4.2 line 7: replace “claim a” with “claim an in-hex” before “Case Q TH DRM”."

The issue still remains unclear, What are the mechanics of a defending vehicle in the above situation in deciding to be hull down or take the building TEM on a To-Hit roll against that unit?"

B9.31 says: "A target unit not claiming WA receives only in-hex TEM, but may instead use wall/hedge TEM vs enemy units which do not have WA over the hexside."
I understand this as saying that whenever an attack is declared, the owner of the vehicle can decide whether he chooses in-hex TEM or HD. So the attacker will not now the exact DRM when he declares his attack.
What to choose is a mathematical exercise, but as an attacker I would never declared a DI attack and hope the defender chooses in-hex TEM :nuts:

Also, thanks for taking the time to answer this stuff.

You're welcome, that's how I learn the rules.