If both sides only have AFVs in an assault (towb, woods, jungle) and choose to use the Assault table rather than AT fire, do they each get the +1 shift for unescorted AFVs?
That's what the table implies, and I guess I never thought about it before.
I presume you mean in town/woods/jungle. Interesting thought, but probably not how it was intended. I am guessing that Mr. Kipple (the mod is in the 2nd Ed chart) assumed that some non-HMG/WPN ground-pounders would always be present.
Based on that assumption, my call would be no.
Yes, I did mean town, woods , jungle. Original post fixed.
I'm curious what others think. I can see it both ways. One is the way you describe it the other is ultra short range shots making it deadlier.
If ultra shot shots were a consideration, why would the AT table say -1 for adjacent hex (not same hex)?
That's on AT fire, not the Assault table. I'm thinking of so close that MG fire goes through view slits tanks are ramming each other, more flank/rear shots as tanks round corners, etc.
(08-15-2018, 05:04 AM)J6A Wrote: [ -> ]That's on AT fire, not the Assault table. I'm thinking of so close that MG fire goes through view slits tanks are ramming each other, more flank/rear shots as tanks round corners, etc.
I don't think the presence or absence of Inf would effect that one way or the other. I'm inclined to say 'no'.
The implication in the original modifier is that the AFV is attacking something other than simply another AFV. The rationale for the modifier is that at close quarters in confined areas men are more mobile than AFVs. Thus, if nobody has anything other than AFVs, neither side gets the modifier.
However, if you want to use it go ahead, just use it both ways.
The consensus seems to be not to use it, and I agree with that, I just wanted to see if anyone else took the side of "use it for both sides" past my devil's advocate arguments.