Bazooka Teams under fire

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

mgluteus
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:02 pm
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by mgluteus »

I have (as usual searched for hours on this as I know its been discussed before. No Joy as usual with this lame search engine!
A bazooka team has 2 points of shock, it moves slower but how do you handle the loss effect against an AFV?

What about a manned AT gun under fire firing against an AFV?

What about both if under covering fire?

Thanks
Dick Bryant

Captain W Martin
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:35 pm

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Captain W Martin »

Pretty sure its +1 to hit per point of shock.....

Also -1 for both under covering fire.

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

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Truscott Trotter »

The -1 off your to hit die for covering fire - remembering covering fire is against a terrain feature not a team.

Shock reduces your number of firepower dice by 1 for each point . EdIT also against AFV -1 of the to hit roll dor each ot of shock as detailed in Ch 12.

batesmotel34
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by batesmotel34 »

I've always interpreted the covering fire rule as meaning it was against an area as opposed to a unit, e.g. it might only affect part of a unit or possibly multiple units. Do others play that you can only use covering fire against a specific terrain feature and hence it can never effect troops in the open?

Chris

User avatar
oozeboss
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:25 am
Location: In the Shadow of the Temple of Mir-Anda, Sydney, Australia

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by oozeboss »

batesmotel34 wrote:Do others play that you can only use covering fire against a specific terrain feature and hence it can never effect troops in the open?
That's how I read it.

JimLeCat
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:57 pm
Location: Durham, England

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by JimLeCat »

Hi,

Rich's original reply to that was why would you want to put down covering fire when you can just shoot them...

For those odd occasions when there might be troops in the way, or who might attempt to move across the front of those laying down the covering fire, my current house rules are:-

1. they immediately go Tactical involuntarily.

2. if activated to fire, they suffer the covering fire penalty.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Jim

Thorpus Maximus
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:34 am

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Thorpus Maximus »

Hello all. First time poster. Long time lurker.

I submit that it is an error to suggest that a player may not order a unit to put down Covering Fire on open ground.

I note that the Glossary of Terms, when describing Terrain and Visibility, "...breaks terrain down into four groups as follows: Open or Hard Ground:..." I interpret this to mean that an area of open ground IS a terrain feature.

It is simply convention that open ground is those areas of the table that remain clear after other types of terrain are placed.

Lastly, as a thought experiment I can imagine an enemy JOP placed such that the majority of associated deployment area is open terrain. I can further imagine a player manoeuvring a unit to bring this JOP and the associated deployment area into clear line of sight. And I can imagine the player wishing to use covering fire (as an alternative to overwatch) to suppress any enemy units that may be about to deploy and fire.

I look forward to hearing what the community thinks of my interpretation.

Regards
Steven

Archdukek
Posts: 5208
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Archdukek »

To my mind the critical point about covering fire is that you have to be able to define the area to be covered for the fire to be focussed on which is easy to do with a piece of terrain, you don't simply blaze away without some kind of target.. Personally I would allow covering fire to be used against a static team in the open though as Jim says it might be more effective just to fire on them.

As to Steven's comment, if someone lays some covering fire down on a JOP and the enemy them deploys a team in the open in between the JOP and the team giving fire then I would allow the -1 on the deploying enemy assuming it's at the same level. After all the bullets aren't going to swerve aside to avoid them. It's back to playing the period not the rules.

John

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

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Covering fire in the rules allows you to fire at an unoccupied peice of terrain - in the hope that enemy will deploy there presumably cos its the place to deploy to shoot at your other moving troops.

It does not allow you to shoot at a JOP or other bits of hard to define open ground in anticipation, It would be unrealistic to do so.

I gather Rich did not feel the need to extend suppressive fire rules to all enemy units as I guess he thought the shock mechanisim in normal shooting covered that situation.

Feel free to bouserule a change in covering fire but please don't use the old play the period ploy to rationalize something that is actually not historically reasonable. If your target is men standing in the open your troops will fire to kill them not suppress them.

Personally I think covering fire should be restricted to automatic weapons as thats what I read in the first hand accounts. To suppress enemy in say a building you needed to put down a curtain of fire not just the odd rifle shot.

Thorpus Maximus
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:34 am

Re: Bazooka Teams under fire

Post by Thorpus Maximus »

Good morning all,

In support of my earlier comments, the rules provide an elegant mechanism which precisely defines the area of terrain upon which Covering Fire is being brought to bear - the 4" and 9" frontages.

I can see that it is possible to interpret the passage "...will target a piece of terrain with 4" frontage or 9" frontage..." to mean that the frontage is a parameter of the terrain. I feel this is too narrow an interpretation. Taken to its logical conclusion, it could be correctly argued that only terrain that is 4" or 9" long is eligible to be targeted by covering fire. This is clearly in error, and hence so is the interpretation from which it is drawn.

No. The frontage must be a parameter of the Covering Fire, independent of the type of terrain feature.

I therefore fail to see why an open area is any more difficult to specify as a target for Covering Fire than any other type of terrain.

I admit, the depth to which the effect of Covering Fire applies in open terrain is a somewhat more ambiguous question. One that I'll dodge at present.

With respect to JOPs, and the associated deployment area surrounding them, I feel that these are particularly easy to justify the use of Covering Fire. They are places that one's own recce has indicated that the presence of enemy troops is highly likely. They are places on the table where enemy troops can suddenly appear and fire at full effect.

It is up to the player to decide of Covering Fire or Overwatch suits his plans, but until enemy troops actually deploy and increase the available options, I see the use of Covering Fire to be perfectly valid, if not necessarily optimum. No house rules required.

Regards
Steven

Post Reply