clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Post Reply
rcrichardson15
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:57 pm

clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by rcrichardson15 »

Recently had a situation where an infantry section was attempting to fire at a forward observer who was within 4” of a tank. Lengthy searching of the rule book resulted with no clear answer.

The relevant portion of 9.1.1 states, “Leaders and Forward Observers may be targeted
if they are more than 4” from any friendly troops…….. If a Leader or Forward Observer is within 4” of a Section or Team which loses men killed, the player must roll a D6 to see if they have been hit. A roll equal to or less than the number of men killed in that round of firing will mean that the Leader or Observer has been hit rather than one of the men.”

“Troops” is not defined within the glossary of terms in chapter 2; however in 8.2 "troops" is used to include a tank, “Troops on a higher level, such as a hill or the turret of a tank,..”

Chapter 12 does not appear to have any information relevant to the problem

The infantry section has LOS on both the tank and the observer.

Are vehicles “troops” as used in 9.1.1?

If they are “troops”, does that mean that the vehicle must move or be destroyed before the observer can be targeted or hit?

If they are not “troops”, in what section is that made clear?

The rule seems to be intended to represent the difficulty in picking out leaders from among a crowd of infantry but may be written in such a way to include vehicles that could provide a bubble of protection to observers and senior leaders.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7796
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Short answer no.

siggian
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by siggian »

TT is right. There's a difference between trying to target one man amongst a group of similar sized men and shooting at a man or a very large metal box.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7796
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by Truscott Trotter »

The intersting side issue is in this situation if you are trying to drive off the AFV with MG fire should there be a risk to the FOO standing beside it? 😄🤗

chris cornwell
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:33 pm
Location: Richmond, Surrey

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by chris cornwell »

There is no rule mechanic which enables you to share hits between an AFV and and infantry target.
Therefore you target one or the other.

User avatar
Capt Fortier
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:49 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by Capt Fortier »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:05 pm
The intersting side issue is in this situation if you are trying to drive off the AFV with MG fire should there be a risk to the FOO standing beside it? 😄🤗
Time for someone to draft a ricochet rule... ;)
Capt Fortier

“Frapper l'ennemi, c'est bien. Frapper l'imagination, c'est mieux.” - Jean de Lattre de Tassigny

rcrichardson15
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:57 pm

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by rcrichardson15 »

I understand that the answer should be no, but why is it no? Looking for a page or section number, or a faq or errata that I have missed.

siggian
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: clarification request on 9.1.1 hits on leaders and forward observers

Post by siggian »

Why is it no? Because of the Lardy motto: playing the period, not the rules.

I don't think it is detailed in the rules or FAQ. It is likely that Rich did not think it necessary to spell out in the rules because distinguishing between these two types seemed obvious to him.

I suppose that left to their own devices, some troops might shoot at the more threatening object, but that is why there are leaders and experienced troops to tell the others who to shoot at. If it helps, you can think of some of the misses representing random shots at the tank, which have no effect.

Post Reply