Hard Cover – Hull Down Tank

[Eric T Holmes]

Is a hull down tank considered in hard cover, which would be similar to a dug-in vehicle?

Thanks

[Stuart Harrison]

Where have you seen reference to “hull down” with regards to Bolt Action?

Generally, you need to have half the vehicle obscured by terrain to gain cover, and what you are obscured by determines the cover – bushes etc would only be soft cover.
– walls, hills etc would be hard cover.

If there’s a specific mention of “hull down”, it’s not something I’ve spotted in the books I’ve got.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Stuart Harrison.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Stuart Harrison.

[Eric T Holmes]

Stuart,

Now that I think about it, “hull down” may have been a local interpretation that used the “dug-in vehicle” rule. Still your point about the vehicle being obscured is well taken. Would you consider a “hull down” tank to be 50% or more obscured? YMMV 😉

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Eric T Holmes.

[Stuart Harrison]

If it’s truly hull down, all you can see is the turret/upper superstructure. Most vehicles that’s significantly less than than 50% so cover would apply.

[Stuart Harrison]

Hull down Nashorn

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Stuart Harrison.

[Lee]

I think the hull down rule is in the western desert book?

[Master Chief]

Screenshots of the relevant pages under the “Western Desert Special Rules” section from the Western Desert Campaign book.

Attachments:

1. 

   20200207_201455.jpg
   

2. 

   20200207_201626.jpg
   

[Stuart Harrison]

That bit about -2 modifier even with indirect fire is a deal breaker for me. You’d need a six followed by a six until the third turn, when it’d “improve” to a six. How does having your hull obscured from line of sight make it so much less likely that a mortar can land a round on you?

As written, it’s better to be the guy advancing across the plain than being the guy dug in to stop him.

Also, what does whether you wanted them to fire or not have to do with whether you can FUBAR-Friendly Fire? Under normal circumstances, you can FUBAR-Friendly Fire a failed Rally (or any other order except down)!

[Master Chief]

Good points highlighted. I am guessing for indirect fire, they are “simulating” the fact that it is more difficult to range in on a turret rather than the vehicle’s body. But more likely it is for simplicity to have a -2 across all types fire.

For the FUBAR issue I think instead of calling it an Order test and then exclude the FUBAR roll with a “weird” reason, they could have just called it a “Hull-down” test or something … if passed the vehicle is hull down, if failed it has to reverse. Even the reversing is weird too, I would think the vehicle should just stop where it is and end its move (not Down though).

PS: I have the Western Desert book but have not played a single desert scenario yet … still painting my DAK army 😂

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Master Chief.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Master Chief.

[Stuart Harrison]

“For the FUBAR issue I think instead of calling it an Order test and then exclude the FUBAR roll with a “weird” reason, they could have just called it a “Hull-down” test or something … if passed the vehicle is hull down, if failed it has to reverse. Even the reversing is weird too, I would think the vehicle should just stop where it is and end its move (not Down though).”

Simple solution – orders test as per normal (if required by pins) to do the move part of the advance order, morale check instead of firing to go hull down. Succeed, you’re hull down – count as dug in. Fail, you’re simply down, no additional cover benefits and counted stationary – ie: vulnerable to infantry assault.

[Master Chief]

Yes, simple and to the point 👍

[Author]

Posts