[DS2]-Vehicle Designer v1.0 and a question on APSW

Hey...in case anyone remebers I put up a beta of this on my website a while
ago.

> Christopher K Smith wrote:

> Now to my question on APSW. Why would you put multiple APSWs on a

Because you CAN fire more than one APSW. You put four APSWs on your tank, and
you CAN shoot them all.

> Now to my question on APSW. Why would you put multiple APSWs on a

But can you fire them at separate targets..or are you just unloading four
APSWs on a singel infantry element?

> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Christopher K Smith wrote:

And you CAN engage multiple targets with your multiple APSWs. Multi-APSW
equipped tanks are deadly to infantry...as my cavalry militia found out
when they ran into a 3-tank platoon from the enemy's side...Poland 1939
all over again...

> Christopher K Smith wrote:
I allow four separate targets, or four APSWs on one element or any other
combination declared before chits are drawn. Twin APSW firing at one power
armour element is usually enough to finish it off.

I do see where the question comes from. Page 18 states "Note that any element
may only fire ONE weapon system per Combat Action; Multiple mount weapons of
the same type and class may count as
one system for this (eg: a vehicle with twin MDC/4 barrels in its turret
MAY fire them both togther, but only at the same target." And page 33 states
"...each element of the firing unit has its fire resolved on an individual
basis against a designated element within the target unit." And (lastly) page
35 states "They (APSWs) are fired in the same way as infantry Firefight
weapons, whether they are mounted on vehicld by a specialist infantry team."
Thus, the rules, as written, indicate that ALL ASPWs on a single AFV (element)
could only fire against one element of an infantry unit. But I think that a
house rule that each ASPW on a vehicle could attack a different element within
a single infantry element. But this house rule would have to be agreed to
before the game starts.

> Andrew & Alex wrote:

> Christopher K Smith wrote:

> Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net> wrote:
    Naturally, as with all house rules! ^_^