What happens to an armored cupola that get hit by an immobilization result.

[John Fedoriw]

Hi gents,

What happens to an armored cupola that get hit by Non HE ammo that rolls = its TK# on the C7.7 AFV Destruction Table.

Per the rules it is like an immobile AFV, but has no hit location and is immune to Immobilization TC:

D9.5 ARMOURED CUPOLA: ...An Armored Cupola is considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below or by SSR...

9.53 SIZE:...It is not considered HD and Hit Location (C3.9) is NA...

9.51 CREW:...However, Immobilization TC are never required. All of an Armored Cupola's MG armament is usable in CC...

In spite of D9.53 it seems it does have a turret:

9.52 PLACEMENT: ... Although it cannot leave or be pushed out of its hex, it is free to change its TCA 360 degrees. An Armored Cupola is never eligible for concealment and leaves no wreck...

Is the hit simply NE? That's my guess but I am not 100% sure...

Thanks,
John

 

[Doug Leslie]

I would say NE.

Given that hit location is NA, the possibility of a “shock” result is excluded and it is of course already immobile.


As pointed out by Jim below, the cupola will be shocked if the DR equals the TK number and will presumably be subject to possible shock if it exceeds it by one.

 

[John Fedoriw]

I would say NE.

Given that hit location is NA, the possibility of a “shock” result is excluded and it is of course already immobile.

Even if it wasn't already immobile with hit location NA there is no possibility of an an immobile result. However we know the cupola does have a turret though (per D9.52)....does that mean its all turret?.....Then it follows the result must be "shock" because the hull cannot be hit? I am doubtful but have been wrong before.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I would say NE.

Given that hit location is NA, the possibility of a “shock” result is excluded and it is of course already immobile.

Even if it wasn't already immobile with hit location NA there is no possibility of an an immobile result. However we know the cupola does have a turret though (per D9.52)....does that mean its all turret?.....Then it follows the result must be "shock" because the hull cannot be hit? I am doubtful but have been wrong before.

See last sentence of D9.52. -- jim

 

[John Fedoriw]

See last sentence of D9.52. -- jim

D9.52 PLACEMENT: ... An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides unless it is Abandoned/in-Melee or its inherent crew is stunned/shocked.

So you are suggesting the crew is shocked? This doesn't really explicitly say that but seems to imply it I guess.

This is not a shot at you or anyone else who plays this game but I find it surprising that my question is not answered explicitly in the tome given how pedantic ASL players are on all the other rules.

 

[Sparafucil3]

D9.52 PLACEMENT: ... An Armored Cupola set up directly behind a wall/hedge is always assumed to have Wall Advantage over those hexsides unless it is Abandoned/in-Melee or its inherent crew is stunned/shocked.

So you are suggesting the crew is shocked? This doesn't really explicitly say that but seems to imply it I guess.

This is not a shot at you or anyone else who plays this game but I find it surprising that my question is not answered explicitly in the tome given how pedantic ASL players are on all the other rules.

An armored Cupola is an AFV by rule. The rule just reinforces what we already knew and made it clear, if only by inference. -- jim