Andrew Gregory
Australia
flag msg tools
Just to clarify the errata for 20.16.2 and section 11.6 Unarmored vehicles and AT fire, this only applies during the ARC (and specifically the line 'Important: Direct fire Ranged Attacks against unarmoured vehicles are resolved using the Anti-Tank Fire table - not the RAT'), correct?

A normal direct ranged attack would use the RAT to affect an unarmoured vehicle in a hex outside of the ARC, correct?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Felsher
United States
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
To my knowledge, you are correct on both counts.

The idea behind using the AT table for a direct fire (return fire) attack using the "Ranged attack" value instead of the "Anti-Armor" value, is that the unit returning fire is using his machine gun instead of his main cannon.

This is most often used as returned fire against a gun, as the ranged attack value may be higher than the anti-tank value. I believe the modifier only exists in the AT table.

Be careful shooting a gun at a tank because of this- he'll return fire with his machine guns! Good to have several guns set up to support eachother, preferably with the ability to gain a flanking fire advantage and hopefully one of them can take out that tank!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mokszycki
United States
Snohomish
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Just to clarify the errata for 20.16.2 and section 11.6 Unarmored vehicles and AT fire, this only applies during the ARC (and specifically the line 'Important: Direct fire Ranged Attacks against unarmoured vehicles are resolved using the Anti-Tank Fire table - not the RAT'), correct?


No, not just during the ARC. 11.6 reads "Important: Direct fire Ranged Attacks against unarmored vehicles are resolved using the Anti-Tank Fire Table—not the RAT." The AT Fire Table is used regardless of whether the fire is part of the ARC.

Just in case it's not clear, a case where the attack is not part of the ARC would be a standalone attack during the phasing player's Combat Phase.

Even though you don't get to choose which table you use, you do get to choose whether you use your AT value or RAS value as your attack value when you roll on the AT Fire Table. But regardless of which stat you choose, you still apply it to your roll on the AT Fire Table. Hope that makes sense...

Why would you want to use your RAS in lieu of your AT rating? Consider that some units--especially lightly armored vehicles such as half-tracks and armored cars--have much higher RAS ratings than AT ratings. In a situation where such a unit fires on an unarmored vehicle, like a truck or Loyd carrier, the firing player will want to use the unit's RAS in place of its AT. You basically just pretend that the RAS is an AT rating of the same numeric value and roll on the AT Fire Table.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Gregory
Australia
flag msg tools
Mark, how does that work when conducting a ranged attack against a hex with infantry and unarmoured vehicles in it? If there's infantry and unarmoured vehicles in the same hex and I perform a ranged attack on the hex what happens and how is the attack resolved against them?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mokszycki
United States
Snohomish
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
See 10.7.4 Friction Fire + ARC vs. Mixed Stacks. Particularly relevant is the example which reads "A moving stack of infantry + tanks could be targeted by both [FF and ARC], so long as two different units were doing the firing." The same section states that "FF is resolved before the ARC." (EDIT: Obviously, tanks are armored and you're asking specifically about unarmored vehicles, but the rule is the same because it applies to mixed stacks of vehicles and leg units.)

If, however, this is not FF or part of the ARC (let's say that you're conducting a Ranged Attack against a hex of mixed vehicle and leg units, and doing it as your lone action during your own Action or Combat Phase), then you'd just roll normally on the RAT. The unarmored vehicle units would be affected by the fire normally, as if leg units, including any possible Suppressed or step reduction results. You wouldn't get to do a separate AT Fire attack on the unarmored vehicles unless you specifically declared that as that attack (vs. declaring a Ranged Attack which affects the entire target hex). Recall that Ranged Attacks affect a hex while AT Fire affects an individual unit.

Hope this answers your question! The nuances here can admittedly be a bit tricky, but this is a fringe situation that hopefully won't come up too often in the game. Normally, players will want to keep their unarmored vehicles in the rear areas and out of harm's way. Also, they won't stack them with leg units in order to avoid drawing ranged fire.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Gregory
Australia
flag msg tools
Thanks Mark, that's what I was hoping you would say. I know it would be a strange case to have unarmoured vehicles loitering in a hex with infantry or guns but I just couldn't find a reference to what would happen if the hex was subjected to a ranged attack. I guess the benefit of doing it over an AT attack would be the possibility of 2 step reductions for the hex vs a 1 step reduction on the AT table.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mokszycki
United States
Snohomish
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agreed. Also, since it's easy to achieve step reductions against unarmored vehicles using the AT Fire Table, I can imagine someone going that route just to rack up victory points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.