Location of Molotov and Flamethrower TK's vs Vehicle

[CTABKA]

Andreas Carlsson wrote the following: Nowhere in the Rulebook the Target Facing for a FT and/or Mol is stated . This should probably be clarified and defined correctly.

[CTABKA]

In C3.2 an AFV facing is called its CA = AFV front facing, TCA doesn't matter when deciding the front CA facing of an AFV.

 

C3.2 ....A vehicle facing is called its Covered Arc (CA) and is derived by placing the counter such that its depicted vehicle front points directly at one of the six hexspines of its current hex.

 

In C7.21 the rear target facing (i.e., the opposite of the CA front facing) is what decides if MOL have an increased TK# of one, the turret facing means nothing in this regard, since only a To Kill DR is made with this type of weapon.

 

C7.21 CASE A; AFV REAR TARGET FACING: The Basic TK# vs an AFV hit (or attacked by FT/DC/MOL) in its armored rear Target Facing is always increased by one. All aircraft hits vs an armored Target Facing/ Aspect (3.9) qualify for the rear Target Facing modification. Otherwise, normal Target Facing rules apply.

 

In D3.12, the TCA facing is used when a hit is determined, otherwise it is not, the VCA is used vs MOL and FT To Kill attack #, and DC placement DRM of -1.

 

D3.12 TCA: ...The Target Facing of any turret/upper superstructure hit is based on the target’s TCA—not its VCA.

[CTABKA]

Andreas Carlsson wrote the following: Imagine a situation where you throw a Mol at an enemy AFV; TCA is front, Hull CA is Rear. You roll 2,3 on the Mol To Kill DR.
I’d say it’s a Turret Hit, but the Rules only mention TH DR.

Answer: The Vehicle front and rear CA facing is used vs MOL/FT To Kill#.

TCA only matters vs Attack using To Hit and Armor Factor facing is used, to determine the To Kill#.

[carlsson]

Värt att notera är också svaret från Perry på MMP:

Quote

TK DR serves as TH DR for Target Facing.

Rules do need correcting in this regard.

....Perry
MMP

 

[CTABKA]

Det är väl bara värt att notera om du tror att reglerna är fel?

[CTABKA]

Andreas Carlsson wrote the following:

Location of Molotov and Flamethrower TK's vs Vehicle

Answer: No Location hit is used to determine Molotov and Flamethrower TK's vs Vehicle, the VCA of the Vehicle front facing (C3.2) determine, if the TK# is increased by one [EXC: MOL & FT always attack a vehicle in the rear if in the same Location].

[carlsson]

17 hours ago, CTABKA said:

Det är väl bara värt att notera om du tror att reglerna är fel?

Jag anser att du krånglar till det i onödan. Frågan är var en MOL/FT träffar, det mest logiska är att man använder TK-slaget vilket Perry också har bekräftat. Varför går kringelikrokar för att försöka hitta ett annat svar?

 

Det finns faktiskt en urgammal FAQ från Scott Jacksons tid om detta också:

As FT attacks makes no TH, do you use the FT Original TK# DR to determine the Location of the
Hit (Hull, Turret), in order to know if Case A applies or not?
A. Yes, use the TK DR.

[CTABKA]

Regel är tydlig nog som det är skrivet.

Hur kan jag krångla till det i onödan när jag mestadels citerar regeltext.

Anser att du vill förvandla 'Burning Flame To Kill attacks' till en spikrak projectile attack'.

Tror du verkligen att om stridsvagns-torn träffas med brinnande rinnande vätska att ventilation insuget nedtill inte drar till sig 'träffen'?

 

[carlsson]

16 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Tror du verkligen att om stridsvagns-torn träffas med brinnande rinnande vätska att ventilation insuget nedtill inte drar till sig 'träffen'?

Härligt, realitets-argument, det gillar jag.   Alla vagnar har inte luftintaget där bak, är motorn avstängd så är även ventilationen (oftast) avstängd, osv. Men anta att det var tanken, så känner jag att en fotnot skulle varit på sin plats. Men jag gillar ditt argument!

Mer sannolikt är helt enkelt att Don Greenwod och gänget inte tänkte på detta när de skrev regeln.

Man kan också gissa att det skulle stått något i stil med "+1 if VCA Rear Target Facing" istället för bara "+1 if Rear Target Facing" om det nu var tanken.

 

Eftersom vi har två av varandra oberoende svar som båda säger att det är TK-slaget som också avgör detta, så väljer jag att gå efter den bedömningen.

[CTABKA]

Du började använda begreppet 'det mest logiska' utan att specifikt skriva vad du menar, jag fullföljer endast med mer logik och resonemang som du saknar.

Märker att du ej vill diskutera regler, utan endast luta dig mot andras tolkning av dessa. Dvs detta är inte regelsnack 'med eget tänk' som tråden och forumet avser att vara, utöver Perry Sez tänk ,har du inget regelmässigt att tillföra.

Du skrev 'Alla vagnar har inte luftintaget' där bak, du förvränger vad jag skrev , 99% av vagnar med torn har luftintag baktill, Kalle anka vagnar med grill intaget framtill är inte intressant.

Dessutom är 'stillastående vagnars' Ventilationsystem ofta påslagen om motorn är i drift (eller nyss avslagen), en 'stillastående' Stug/Pz IV/T-34 kan ej vrida sin VCA utan att ha motordrivet igång.

[CTABKA]

En T-34 som attackeras med MOL eller FT framifrån fordonets front facing (C3.2) och Tornet är vridet 180 grader bakåt, varför skulle en "träff" i tornet increase the TK# by one? när luftintags-gallret är baktill på T-34 (inte baktill på tornet).

[carlsson]

Som jag sa Mel så gillar jag ditt argument. Jag önskar bara att det hade varit tydligt i reglerna, vilket det inte är. Och eftersom det inte står på ett tydligt och konkret sätt måste jag luta mig på de som i dagsläget hanterar reglerna. Du vet att jag respekterar dina regelkunskaper, och jag älskar dessutom realitets-argument.

Jag ska dissikera dina regelhänvisningar vid tillfälle, men just nu är jag alldeles för trött. 😵‍💫

[CTABKA]

Låter bra, våran tolkning av MOL To Kill reglerna - utav mig Klasse och Patrik när det  begav sig för ca 20 år sedan resulterade i att jag tappade en rysk tank.

Se gärna över reglerna och fråga dig hur Perry kan få sådan felaktig uppfattning av reglerna, när det är uppenbart att varken MOL eller Flamethrower slår ett To Hit DR, utan endast ett To Kill DR.

C3.2 nämner fordonets CA front facing (dvs VCA), Turret CA tillämpas när To Hit attacker utförs.

[Maglica]

Varför tolkar du CA = VCA i C3.2?

[CTABKA]

1 hour ago, Maglica said:

Varför tolkar du CA = VCA i C3.2?

Reglerna skriver följande:

C3.2 ....A vehicle facing is called its Covered Arc (CA) and is derived by placing the counter such that its depicted vehicle front points directly at one of the six hexspines of its current hex.

[CTABKA]

On 1/29/2023 at 8:49 PM, carlsson said:

Som jag sa Mel så gillar jag ditt argument. Jag önskar bara att det hade varit tydligt i reglerna, vilket det inte är. Och eftersom det inte står på ett tydligt och konkret sätt måste jag luta mig på de som i dagsläget hanterar reglerna. Du vet att jag respekterar dina regelkunskaper, och jag älskar dessutom realitets-argument.

Jag ska dissikera dina regelhänvisningar vid tillfälle, men just nu är jag alldeles för trött. 😵‍💫

När du har tid att syna reglerna, svara då på om MOL kan träffa hull down AFVs bakom Wall or Hull down at crest Hill, enligt reglerna slår man inte To Hit DR bara To Kill DR, dvs, Hull down betyder ingetting mot MOL (FT, DC).

[CTABKA]

Jim Bishop ASL site, delger ofta en bättre förståelse av reglerna.

https://jekl.com/2024/03/19/attacking-partially-armored-vehicles/

Fann i artikeln om attacking-partially-armored-vehicles ett regel fel som hävdar i stycket RESIDUAL FIRE POWER ATTACKS (Figure 5) följande:

"The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP +2 General Collateral attack. This is not an attack against an unarmored vehicle, since the AFV is partially armored and there is no directionality to a Residual FP attack."

Texten bör bytas ut mot följande:

"The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP attack vs an unarmored vehicle, since rule D5.31 reads "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing."

I detta fall har, Target Facing of the Turret, ingen betydelse.

Edited January 1 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

Andra fel i artikeln:

Flamethrower

"Final TK# is an 8" (should be 9)

"on an Original DR < 7" (should be 8 )

"An Original DR = 8" (should be 9)

Molotov Cocktail

"on a Final < 7" (should be 8 )

"A Final TK DR = 8" (should be 9)

 

[Maglica]

Jag skulle tro att han uppskattar om du gör honom uppmärksam på eventuella felaktigheter. Möjligheten att uppdatera är ju en fördel med det valda formatet.

[CTABKA]

Varsågod att delge, ta även med "Figure 8" regelhänvisning ska gälla "C3.32" (not C2.32).

[Maglica]

Tack, men du får driva dina teser själv.

[CTABKA]

On 1/30/2023 at 7:23 AM, Maglica said:

Varför tolkar du CA = VCA i C3.2?

C3.2 ....A vehicle facing is called its Covered Arc (CA) and is derived by placing the counter such that its depicted vehicle front points directly at one of the six hexspines of its current hex.

[Sparafucil3]

@CTABKA Thanks for your input. I have made the changes as you are quite correct. I do my best to get these things correct and I have more than one person reviewing but as you know, no one can get everything right all the time. At the time I was writing these, I was coming to grips with the rules, the Q&A, and convincing people there is a difference between Target Facing and Target Aspect. 

On 1/1/2025 at 4:46 PM, CTABKA said:

Jim Bishop ASL site, often provides a better understanding of the rules.

https://jekl.com/2024/03/19/attacking-partially-armored-vehicles/

Found in the article about attacking-partially-armored-vehicles a rule error that claims in the paragraph RESIDUAL FIRE POWER ATTACKS (Figure 5) the following:

"The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP +2 General Collateral attack. This is not an attack against an unarmored vehicle, since the AFV is partially armored and there is no directionality to a Residual FP attack."

The text should be replaced with the following:

"The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP attack vs an unarmored vehicle, since rule D5.31 reads "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing."

In this case, Target Facing of the Turret has no meaning.

Your rule cite is fine here too, but it doesn't negate what I said: there is no directionality to "normal" residual fire power there for it cannot attack an unarmored Aspect. The broader point being made is that running a partially armored AFV up and down a fire lane is potentially more dangerous than some think. The second broader point is that even though the AFV has an armored Facing towards the MG, the AFV is consider an UNARMORED vehicle against the fire lane since there is an unarmored Aspect facing the MG. 

I appreciate you taking the time to read. I hope you find something useful in them. I would appreciate your feedback on the articles since the entire point of doing them this way is I can correct what is wrong so everyone can benefit. I hope you have a good rest of your week. -- jim (never perfect but always striving)

[CTABKA]

Although your article still read 4FP +2 DRM, my point being is that the German FlaK wagen only have front armor (not lika a Marder that also have side armor).

The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP attack vs an unarmored vehicle, since rule D5.31 reads "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing. "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing."

[Sparafucil3]

25 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Although your article still read 4FP +2 DRM, my point being is that the German FlaK wagen only have front armor (not lika a Marder that also have side armor).

The CE crew would take a Residual 4 FP attack vs an unarmored vehicle, since rule D5.31 reads "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing. "Non-Fire Lane Residual FP attack receive the CE DRM that applies to the Side Target Facing."

Maybe. I am not entirely sure but I can see your point. There really isn't a rule which says how to deal with this. That's one of the reasons this was so hard to cover. If you have a look at D1.22 you'll note when the rules were created, they only had things like the Marder in mind. Vehicles like this FlakWagen are not specifically covered in the rules. The idea that only the front was armored and the whole rest of the vehicle isn't doesn't have a rules reference in either the main rules or the HASLs in which they first appeared. Where it really breaks down is in the case you're highlighting: how do you handle RFP. I think your answer is perfectly reasonable. I understand the argument. I even think you're probably correct. I am just not entirely sure that is the intent. I will see if Perry agrees and if so, I will update the article. Thanks again. -- jim 

 

EDIT to add: To further my argument, D5.31 refers you to C3.9 which discusses how to determine the Location of Vehicular hits. RFP doesn't "hit". It basically comes from everywhere. I am not sure how to handle this. 

Edited February 18 by Sparafucil3

[CTABKA]

Played VotG CG upon its release about 6+months, and the Germans have plenty of this type of FlaK vehicles, and our understanding was that the RFP, attack the sides. 

Ex: a FlaK pz armor assault with a 467, fired upon front CA with 4 FP (-1 DRM and +1 AFV=0 blank). Another FlaK wagon armor assault with a 468, into the 2 RFP and Attacked, the FlaK veh as if unarmored and -2 DRM vs the 468 squad.

Playtested the popcorn scenario Bidermann's Escape with these 2 FlaK wagen about 30 times with over 10 players (all players In my area), notified M Rönnblom about this RFP issue and he agreed with me.

Reading rule D5.31 at start perhaps explain it better, A CE crew is  normally entitled to a +2 DRM due to the partial protection afforded by the AFV but some AFV receive more protection or less depending upon the target facing /aspect through which they are fired upon.

Another FrF scenario Mounted Madness (not released) have two German FlaK Pz I (non-official counters) that the Germans had about 250 of these veh and only with front armor, on the East Front.

[Sparafucil3]

I tend to think you're right, but sadly you or I do not have the final answer when the rules aren't clear. We can argue about how clear the rules are, and many will. In that case, there is a need for a final arbiter of what is and is not official. Like I said, there is no real rule covering these types of vehicles properly. I submitted the Q&A to Perry. We'll see if he responds. -- jim

[CTABKA]

We think Greenwoods writing is as clear it can be, only a re-write of an errata would change that, think your alone or in a small minority, about the rule not being clear.

[Sparafucil3]

In matters of taste there can be no dispute. However, if you look at the inside cover of your ASL binder, there is no counter depiction that covers the FlakWagens. The vehicle is still an armored vehicle and RFP still "comes from everywhere". If you bypass a hex with RFP in it, you still gain the benefit of the the in-hex TEM/SMOKE. The crew is physically occupying an armored crew compartment so it isn't unreasonable to say they should still benefit from some form of protection from the AFV. I can see this being a 4 +0 zero shot which Stuns the crew rather than a 4 +0 on the * Vehicle line of the IFT. 

WRT Greenwood's clarity, all I can say is A26.11. The index says we should treat a virgule (/) as "and/or". English punctuation rules says we should threat a virgule as "and/or". If you read it as written and defined in English and the index, you would gain control of a Location and/or hex and/or Building without the presence of enemy ground units in the same Location and/or hex and/or Building. Strictly parsing that according to the rules of English, you can control a Building by gaining control of a Location OR a hex OR Building (which is nonsensical to begin with). So strictly speaking, an AFV gains control of a hex when it enters it and maintains control as long as it's there. As such, when it gains control of a hex, it gains control of a Location and/or hex and/or Building. But we know that isn't correct. It can't gain control of a Building. That's when you realize the virgule (/) isn't used according to either English rule or the Index. It is used to indicate that when you pick one of the items in the list (Location - hex - Building) you should maintain that choice throughout the rest of the paragraph in order for that paragraph to make sense. Greenwood was good, he wasn't infallible. 

Lastly, I have spoken with a couple of friends about this issue. We agree yours is a reasonable answer but there is room for more than one reasonable answer. When there are more than one reasonable answer among reasonable people, those are the sorts of questions I like to get clarified. Just my .02 € -- jim

Edited February 18 by Sparafucil3