Target Acquisition

[gashlycrumb]

A StuG in hex 16-E4 fires on hex 16-H3 containing a British Para MMC and the StuG gains Target Acquisition on the Para's hex 16-H3 [14.3]. In the subsequent turn, an additional Para MMC moves into hex 16-H3.

1) If the StuG in hex 16-E4 now Op Fires on hex 16-H3 does it get the -1 OFT Mod for the Target Acquisition against both MMC targets in the hex?

Thanks!

 

[Qwirz]

Yep! Target acquisition is for ALL the non-vehicular units in the hex.

 

[gashlycrumb]

Thanks Qwirz!

Now I have another question I've re-read [14.3], but can't find anything in RAW for the following situation:

2) If a firing unit get's to place a Target Acquisition Marker, as per [14.3], on a target, what happens if the firing unit moves? Is the Target Acquisition lost?
3) Where is this resolution explicitly stated in RAW 4.1?

Again, can't seem to find anything in RAW 4.1, although the example on page 61, last paragraph, implies that Target Acquisition is lost if firer moves. However, there appear to be errors in the 4.1 examples, in both the modern and WW2 era, so am not sure how current the examples are.

Thanks again!

 

[Qwirz]

That's is implied in the rule saying that to benefit from acquisition, the acquiring unit must fire in its NEXT impulse. So If it undergoes any other kind of action, Acquisition is lost.

 

[gashlycrumb]

That's is implied in the rule saying that to benefit from acquisition, the acquiring unit must fire in its NEXT impulse. So If it undergoes any other kind of action, Acquisition is lost.

And an Assault Move & Fire cancels Acquisition because the firer must move first, as opposed to firing first (whether in the same Impulse or different Impulse). Thanks ever so much for the help Qwirz! It makes sense narratively that the firer would loose Acquisition if moving, but I had a difficult time understanding it from the rules.

 

[Carlos S. Olivares Pérez]

My point of view. 14.3 says "If the target doesn’t move and the ordnance fires on it during its next impulse, subtract one from the ordnance
to-hit roll".

1. Here, I disagree with Qwirz. The rule talks about the target that saved its ass, that is the MMC that received the attack. If in the next Impulse, an MMC goes there, the new unit may be attacked with the ordnance but I would only apply the "- 1" to the unit that was already attacked by the ordnance in the Impulse before. This implies that the To Hit Roll may fail against one of the units, but succeed against the other.
2. Yes, the markers are retired from the board.
3. 14.3, 3rd paragraph, "Remove the Acquisition and Acquiring markers if the target moves or the attacker switches targets". Assault Move is a Movement.

On other matters, how is this correctly said: "a MMC" or "an MMC"?

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Carlos got this right

 

[Qwirz]

Mmmm...I think this could generate some complications (....or I'm complicating myself...). I'll make some example trying to explain: So, a unit enters an Acquired hex. If the Acquiring fires, the acquisition modifier is taken into account ONLY for the NON moving unit. So the moving is treated as NON acquired. What if the original Acquired unit leaves the hex? Is the acquisition lost? Rules state that the acquisition is lost when ALL the non vehicular units leave the hex. Actually doesn't matter who was in the hex at the moment of the acquisition. For rule consistence is the HEX that is Acquired. Considering acquired just some of the units can generate confusion and IMHO goes against the rule. More complications: Unit acquired (-1). Moving enters. Fire. Acquisition -2. Is the new entered acquired at -2 as well or -1, since it was considered NOT acquired for the first shot?
Hope not to appear fool.
I think the only benefit of the moving unit is...the Moving to hit modifier.
Again: ALL the non vehicular units should be treated equally.....IMHO!!!!

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Acquiring means that the ordnance weapon (tank, bazooka team, etc.) is focussing intensely on the target, so much so that it is not required to spot it anymore.

The Acquired marker goes on the target so if this target moves, it is no longer acquired and the marker is removed, regardless of what's left in the hex.

Notice that target means one vehicle or one or more leg units. And don't forget, in the sentence you are quoting, the "if they were the targets" part, which is there basically to imply that if they were, for example two squads targetted and only one moves out, the ones left behind is still acquired.

Finally, what happens if one squad moves in while another is already acquired ? Well, I,ve never had that in my games because it is generally not a good idea to present yourself as a target to an ordnance weapon but it was to happen, I would simply treat it as not acquired, just like you don't put an acquired marker on accompanying infantry units when the target is a vehicle in the same hex.

 

[Carlos S. Olivares Pérez]

So the moving is treated as NON acquired. What if the original Acquired unit leaves the hex? Is the acquisition lost? Rules state that the acquisition is lost when ALL the non vehicular units leave the hex. Actually doesn't matter who was in the hex at the moment of the acquisition. For rule consistence is the HEX that is Acquired.

From my point of view, the new coming units are treated as NON acquired. So, in that hex there will be units under Acquisition and units not under Acquisition. I understand the red sentence as "the acquisition is lost when ALL the non vehicular units under the acquisition marker leave the hex".

To be honest, I had a misunderstanding relating with this rule time ago: "A firing unit under an Acquiring marker does NOT need to spot (10.1) a target with the same-lettered Acquisition marker". My erroneous reasoning was: a unit under Acquisition, does not need to be spotted. A unit that does not need to be spotted is Spotted. If a unit is Spotted, its hex is Spotted. But, this is not true.

 

[Qwirz]

I see your point, my friends, and would agree on a "real" battlefield. But in our favorite game, fire and acquisition regard ALL the LEG units in a hex. Units are always considered stacked together for game purposes. That's why, I you shoot in a hex, the fire will affect ALL the units, regardless their different posture. Your solution would imply some different ruling on the matter but is as good as other.
...BTW I would never enter an Acquired hex also!!!

 

[Carlos S. Olivares Pérez]

The attack affects all the legs units... but, from my point of view, not in the same way, and so, the modifiers are different. Something similar happens in the Opportunity Fire when a unit moves into an already occupied hex. Both units may be attacked by the same direct fire, but only the unit that moved has the + 1 on the DFT.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Qwirz,

Here are some relevant quotes form the rules:

1) Note, as per 14.1, ordnance fires either on a specific vehicle or all non-vehicular targets in a hex.
2) Remove the Acquisition and Acquiring markers if the target moves or the attacker switches targets.
3) All non-vehicular units (if they were the targets) have to leave the hex in order to remove the Acquisition marker.
4) A firing unit under an Acquiring marker does NOT need to spot (10.1) a target with the same-lettered Acquisition marker
5) A vehicle that can fire its main gun more than once can fire its gun at more than one target in the same impulse but the targets must be in the same hex or an adjacent hex.

The key word here is target, not hex and the last excerpt makes it pretty clear that more than one possible target could coexist in the same hex. So when a vehicle fires ordnance, it must choose its target. Either a specific vehicle or all non-vehicular targets in the hex AT THE MOMENT it is taking this decision. This vehicle or those non-vehicular units become its target. If another vehicle moves into the hex after the ordnance weapon acquired the first vehicle, it does not become a target. Same goes for non-vehicular targets; if two squads were acquired in a building by a tank and a third squad moves in, the third squad does not become a target. Would it suffer from an attack on the other two squads ? Maybe, depending on the die roll but the acquired target would be easier to hit than the non-acquired units, just like it is easier to "damage" a moving unit than non-moving units located in the same hex (as Carlos pointed out).

I really see acquiring as focussing on a very specific target. As long as the attacker does not switch target, move or is shaken and the target doesn't move, said target remains acquired. You cannot "include" new units in your targetting effort.

 

[Jeff Lewis]

Note, as per 14.1, ordnance fires either on a specific vehicle or all non-vehicular targets in a hex.
2) Remove the Acquisition and Acquiring markers if the target moves or the attacker switches targets.
3) All non-vehicular units (if they were the targets) have to leave the hex in order to remove the Acquisition marker.
4) A firing unit under an Acquiring marker does NOT need to spot (10.1) a target with the same-lettered Acquisition marker
5) A vehicle that can fire its main gun more than once can fire its gun at more than one target in the same impulse but the targets must be in the same hex or an adjacent hex.

I'm trying to stick to the main question here, and Stephane has provided all of the relevant info above. I've sort of only skimmed the rest of the thread as Stephane has covered it.

In the original situation of a 2nd MMC entering, remember we are talking about ordnance here, an OFT attack, and it's firing at ALL MMCs in the hex and thus gains the -1. However, the 2nd MMC is under a Moved marker, which add +1 to the to-hit roll. Thus it's all a wash.

Also, it's "a MMC" not "an MMC".