Bombarding Tank Riders

[Blackcloud6]

When AFVs with tank riders are fired on by Bombardment is the +1 for "target is loaded wagon, truck or prime-mover applied?"

[Poor Yorek]

When AFVs with tank riders are fired on by Bombardment is the +1 for "target is loaded wagon, truck or prime-mover applied?"

In my opinion, no.

1. An AFV is not a wagon, truck, or prime-mover: hence, the +1 shift rule you cite does not apply.

2. The "tank rider" special rules stipulate a +1 shift for DF and Assault right after describing bombardment fire as affecting units "normally." Had the rules intended any col shift for BF, it would have been easy to be explicit at that point.

[tlangston28]

I don't think so but I believe the SSRs usually describe if there is an additional modifier for tank-riding casualties. In fact, I just checked Winter Soldiers and Invasion of Germany (the 50 scenario one) and in both instances, the text reads "Bombardment fire attacks that hit hexes containing tank riders affect the tank-riding units normally. Direct Fire and Assaults get a special +1 column modifier against them (but not the tanks they are riding on)....."

[vince hughes]

When AFVs with tank riders are fired on by Bombardment is the +1 for "target is loaded wagon, truck or prime-mover applied?"

Only allied tank riders

[plloyd1010]

As usual, I'm going to be the contrary here. While technically not a truck/wagon/prime-mover, the riders are still concentrated, and they are as exposed (and probably more so) as they would be in any other unprotected transport. So I think the +1 modifier does apply. To avoid writing out a special condition, just say 'yes'.

[plloyd1010]

[/quote]
Only allied tank riders
[/quote]

Makes a little rough on poor ol' Charles Mac, doesn't it?

[Poor Yorek]

As usual, I'm going to be the contrary here. While technically not a truck/wagon/prime-mover, the riders are still concentrated, and they are as exposed (and probably more so) as they would be in any other unprotected transport. So I think the +1 modifier does apply. To avoid writing out a special condition, just say 'yes'.

I would only counter-argue that Peter makes an argument for a home rule, but the rule (as written) does not apply: after all, if we simply invoke that AFVs are not technically trucks, wagons, or prime-movers, we can interchange rules at will for the two classes. I'm just saying that we need to maintain the distinction between what the rules actually state or intend and how we choose to modify them as home rules, particularly as - my point #2 - the specific rules for tank riders likewise do not mention a +1 bonus for BF.

I might be more in agreement with Peter's post had he said: "The +1 modifier ought to apply."

Maybe dealt with in 4th edition?

[Poor Yorek]

PS

If APL really meant the sentence Bombardment fire attacks that hit hexes containing tank riders affect the tank-riding units normally to mean what Peter suggests, I wish rather than the word "normally," they would have used the phrase "as per a loaded transport."

[plloyd1010]

That is quite litigious point and a valid one, should one accept the scriptural nature of game rules. Those of us who have been gaming a while (in my case coming to my 45th year), tend to notice holes in rules and when games are inconsistent with history/reality. I find it particularly galling when scenario is presented which has no possibility of working out the way things actually did. But back to the point, I don't think APL thought this particular rule out any better than many others that got added into the system after the rules were published (not to mention the rules themselves).

I would suppose we should first ask Fred which camp he is in. How about it Fred, are you a RAW/fundamentalist type, or are you a reader-how do you make this fit sort of guy?

[Poor Yorek]

Those of us who have been gaming a while (in my case coming to my 45th year), tend to notice holes in rules and when games are inconsistent with history/reality.

As I've just come back from watching Godzilla 2014 I can make use of a line from that movie: "Is my jaw supposed to drop?"

I answered the OP as best I could understand the PG rule set presuming that was his interest in posting here at PGHQ, not according to the antinomian Peter-as-Pope-unto-himself rule set. If I missed something in the rules that pertains, please advise: I don't claim omniscience. As I conceded, if, in fact, APL intended your interpretation, then, in my view, they crafted the language of the rule poorly (not altogether unheard of).