[ASLML] Carrier C question

[Bruce Bakken]

>
> >D9.51: "... Immobilization TC are never required."  Presumably, neither 
>are
> >they required for an entrenched AFV, since an Immobilization could never
> >occur (HD, dont' you know).
>
>An Immobilisation result certainly *can* occur against an entrenched AFV --
>from CC, for example.  Nor are vehicles ever HD to Indirect Fire or Aerial
>Attacks (D4.2), so such attacks could Immobilise (and this require an
>Immobilisation TC).
>

D'oh!

Thanks, I was getting tired and wanting to finish the post...

However, note that an Immobilization TC is not required due to CC attack.  
And, if it is already bogged/immobilized, only a Direct Fire hit could cause 
an Immobilization TC, so in that case a bogged/immobilized and entrenched 
AFV would be immune to Immobilization TC.

> >Have I missed something?
>
>One or two things (as above).
>

Still, not that big a difference between a Dug-In AFV and an entrenched one.

Thanks again.

Bruce Bakken

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
>Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
>"A planet where apes evolved from men?"
>ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>

_________________________________________________________________
Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/