Does an OVR on an unpossessed gun count as bounding first fire?

[John Fedoriw]

Hi gents,

A9.74 RANDOM SW/GUN DESTRUCTION:... A fully-tracked AFV may make an OVR attack vs a Location devoid of Personnel to automatically destroy any Gun/SW therein not in an entrenchment, but must pay normal OVR MP costs. See 11.13 for Random SW/Gun destruction occurring in CC.

Per D7.1: An OVR is a form of Bounding First Fire....

A9.74 says that an OVR'ing vehicle PAYS normal OVR MP costs but it doesn't say it is actually making an attack. So if I OVR an unpossessed gun can I go on to fire my weapons as non OVR Bounding First Fire later in the same MPh?

Thanks,
John

 

[EagleIV]

I also have a question related to this. If a fully tracked AFV starts the MPh in the hex with the Gun, can they pay the 1/4 cost to destroy the Gun or do they have to exit the hex, turn around and then enter the hex paying the extra 1/4 movement to destroy the Gun? (In my case the crew broke one turn and died for failure to rout, but the Gun survived.)

 

[clubby]

My feeling is of there's no roll on the ift no "attack" occurs. The MP expenditure is for driving back and forth over the gun to destroy it. Worth a perry sez I suppose.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hi gents,

A9.74 RANDOM SW/GUN DESTRUCTION:... A fully-tracked AFV may make an OVR attack vs a Location devoid of Personnel to automatically destroy any Gun/SW therein not in an entrenchment, but must pay normal OVR MP costs. See 11.13 for Random SW/Gun destruction occurring in CC.

Per D7.1: An OVR is a form of Bounding First Fire....

A9.74 says that an OVR'ing vehicle PAYS normal OVR MP costs but it doesn't say it is actually making an attack. So if I OVR an unpossessed gun can I go on to fire my weapons as non OVR Bounding First Fire later in the same MPh?

Thanks,
John

Have you checked the Q&A? To my eye, the answer is in the quoted rule: "A fully-tracked AFV may make an OVR attack vs a Location devoid of Personnel to automatically destroy any Gun/SW therein ..." Seems pretty straight forward. Gun/SW destruction is the result of an attack elsewhere in the rules. There doesn't seem to be any reason this should be different here. Maybe Q&A says something different. -- jim

 

[Carln0130]

Have you checked the Q&A? To my eye, the answer is in the quoted rule: "A fully-tracked AFV may make an OVR attack vs a Location devoid of Personnel to automatically destroy any Gun/SW therein ..." Seems pretty straight forward. Gun/SW destruction is the result of an attack elsewhere in the rules. There doesn't seem to be any reason this should be different here. Maybe Q&A says something different. -- jim

I agree with Jim here. There is no [EXC] in the Overrun rules for a hex with only a Gun in it, re: marking with a Bounding Fire marker.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

D7.17:
"If no weapon participating in the OVR can malfunction, or if the OVR is vs only inanimate objects (A9.74), the vehicle is immobilized instead if its Original IFT DR is a 12."

Careful when OVRing that unpossessed Russian LMG - it can immobilize your Tiger.

 

[clubby]

If there's an IFT DR associated with this OVR and not just the expenditure of MP my answer changes to marked with BFF.

 

[von Marwitz]

D7.17:
"If no weapon participating in the OVR can malfunction, or if the OVR is vs only inanimate objects (A9.74), the vehicle is immobilized instead if its Original IFT DR is a 12."

Careful when OVRing that unpossessed Russian LMG - it can immobilize your Tiger.

Good spot! I was not aware of this.

von Marwitz

 

[John Fedoriw]

Have you checked the Q&A? To my eye, the answer is in the quoted rule: "A fully-tracked AFV may make an OVR attack vs a Location devoid of Personnel to automatically destroy any Gun/SW therein ..." Seems pretty straight forward. Gun/SW destruction is the result of an attack elsewhere in the rules. There doesn't seem to be any reason this should be different here. Maybe Q&A says something different. -- jim

Damn!! I was totally wrong when I said A9.74 doesn't say that an OVR'ing vehicle is actually making an attack. It is clearly stated. I even quoted it in my question. How the hell did I miss that?

My perception of reality seems more to agree with clubby that the vehicle is simply driving over the gun not really attacking it. I wonder if this was clouding my vision so that I was fixating on the part of the rule that agreed with that and overlooking everything else.

Anyway sorry about that ...sometimes I get the blinders on & miss obvious stuff. Thanks everybody.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Damn!! I was totally wrong when I said A9.74 doesn't say that an OVR'ing vehicle is actually making an attack. It is clearly stated. I even quoted it in my question. How the hell did I miss that?

My perception of reality seems more to agree with clubby that the vehicle is simply driving over the gun not really attacking it. I wonder if this was clouding my vision so that I was fixating on the part of the rule that agreed with that and overlooking everything else.

Anyway sorry about that ...sometimes I get the blinders on & miss obvious stuff. Thanks everybody.

It takes a village. I wish I could play error free ASL. -- jim

 

[clubby]

Damn!! I was totally wrong when I said A9.74 doesn't say that an OVR'ing vehicle is actually making an attack. It is clearly stated. I even quoted it in my question. How the hell did I miss that?

My perception of reality seems more to agree with clubby that the vehicle is simply driving over the gun not really attacking it. I wonder if this was clouding my vision so that I was fixating on the part of the rule that agreed with that and overlooking everything else.

Anyway sorry about that ...sometimes I get the blinders on & miss obvious stuff. Thanks everybody.

And my original response was based on there not being an IFT roll. But it does appear that there is a roll.