Originally Posted by Bernout

I disagree. It just happened that the blatant rule violation in that particular instance was of extreme benefit to your squad. There's no justification for it. Your squad got outmaneuvered and outgunned and you took the easy way out regardless of TG's own rules on the matter.

I very rarely see any confusion on the server regarding the use of HAT. It's LAT which IMO gets abused more often than not. Even last night (Mon) during Ghost Town I sent a text message asking that AT not be used against infantry. I got a quick response back basically saying "it was LAT so it was ok". This was after some lamer was on top of a hill and shot it close range into the ground killing a couple of my fellow squad members. IMO the use of AT is as much a game play issue as anything to do with realism. It just seems like a cheap kill to me. Not quite as bad as those bastard claymores in POE but close.

Bernout

Technically speaking, it was the other squad that was outmaneuvered and outgunned. Warehouse had the higher ground and the bigger gun. In all reality, this situation should end like it did at least 9 times out of 10. And I dont see how you can call it an unjustified and blatant rule violation. It was neither blatant (notice the "gray area" heavily discussed here) nor unjustified (it's you versus them! The object is to win!).

And in regards to your example of being shot from above by a LAT, I dont want to split hairs here, but Asch's explanation of when it's ok to use a LAT against infrantry does seem to support the use of the LAT from an elevated position on infrantry that are below you. The common vein in all of his examples is when the opposing infrantry is between you and a hard backdrop upon which the LAT can be used. When you are up high and looking down at an enemy / enemies below you, from your vantage that infrantry is between you and the ground. Thus the ground is, seemingly, a qualified backdrop. When you are on the same horizontal plane as another infrantry, the ground can not be said to be a backdrop. I say this not to defend the use of LAT's against infrantry necessarily, but to further depict the gray area that exists. If it's ok to target a backdrop in general, and not a single infrantryman in particular, then the high elevation situation, or one like it, should be ok.

I think my feelings on this matter are that the prohibition on LATs and HATs needs to be all or nothing. I say this because the gray-area rule leads to too much anger and confusion. When it's left to an individual to decide, and he or she goes for the shot and someone gets pissy and runs to an Admin, and the person who makes the shot finds themselves in hot water, that is not an ideal situation. There must be some sort of certainty. Similarly, if there was an outright prohibition, then there would be no excuse for a desperation move with either weapon. But then again, if there was no prohibition, then there would be douche bags running around like it was Vanilla and using them as a primary. I guess nobody can win.

I dont, and dont plan on ,making a habit out of it, and no one should. To get a HAT with the objective of defending an area from Infrantry is just dead wrong. If you see some infrantry running by that dont see you and you surprise them with a HAT to their feet, that's wrong. But to use it when it's a matter of them or you is, in my opinion, a different ball of wax.

The HAT's are too valuable to waste except in dire situations, and the LAT's are too. And this brings me to my second thought. Isnt the real loser the team that expends its HAT (or LAT) on a non-essential target? Someone else above me said it too. If you shoot your HAT at some guy and then an APC rolls in, it's the APC's team that usually wins that scenario. And if it doensn't then at least it was helped by the wasted HAT, no?

Either way, I will continue to use restraint with them because I think that's necessary, fair, and the rule. But im not going to lie - if there's another situaiton like the one in my original post, or ones like the other similar situations descrbied by people here (which there will be), im going to make that shot and deal with the pissiness later. I've never been in the armed forces or in battle (except in paintball, woot!) but I can't imagine a guy holding a HAT and hanging out watching his buddies die because he isnt allowed to shoot back. That's just crazy!