Concealment counters and doubletime

[DerBlitzer]

This one is sort of covered in the rules, but not quite.

Must units under a concealment counter declare doubletime and place a CX counter if they're using it and can't be seen? If so, do dummy stacks declare doubletime?

The rule for dummy stacks says this:

A stack of Dummies containing no real unit may be moved as if it contains a real unit (even to the extent of being able to move with leader/Double Time MF bonuses)....

The words I'm focusing on are "as if", which the parens are also a part of. In others, they may move "as if" they have a leader and are using doubletime, which to me means no CX counter is required.

But this seems so common there must be a standard way of doing this that's been well established.

 

[Rockford]

...as if it contains a real unit...

If it were a real unit, you would declare double time and place a CX counter. So, yes, you place a CX counter.

Under your interpretation, you would move the dummies using double time, and.... not place a CX counter? If that were the way, wouldn't that plainly reveal that the units are dummies? Clearly that can't be right.

 

[DerBlitzer]

Under your interpretation, you would move the dummies using double time, and.... not place a CX counter? If that were the way, wouldn't that plainly reveal that the units are dummies? Clearly that can't be right.

I had interepreted it that any unit under a concealment counter, dummies or real, would not place a CX counter. But if real and dummies both use CX counters, it's the same thing, disguising which are which. Thanks...

 

[jrv]

I had interepreted it that any unit under a concealment counter, dummies or real, would not place a CX counter. But if real and dummies both use CX counters, it's the same thing, disguising which are which. Thanks...

Could they Double Time the next turn too? If someone Advanced in, did they pay the CX penalties in CC? Just curious.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Must units under a concealment counter declare doubletime and place a CX counter if they're using it and can't be seen?

Yes.
Rule A4.5 doesn't make any exception for concealed units as far as I can see.

 

[JayH]

I believe the rule leaves you liberty to decide at any time what sort of unit you desire "as if" to be.

You could, IMO, move a single dummy as if it were a leader, 6 MF without cx, or you could move it cx 8 MF, or you could move it 5 and cx as if it were an MMC. I would suggest you be consistent or it will become obvious the unit is not real.

Also, you can stack a ?+40 in one hex containing a few leaders, a few squads, a few weapons and a gaggle of dummies and on turn one disperse them like the cockroaches they are, scurrying off to their own various shadows. I do this frequently in RB, as one reaction force stack uses one ? on top and the rest of my purchased ?s are each potential units, growing their own cover ? as they spread out. Four ?+1 would be one ?+7 and properly placed they will become seven ?+1 very quickly. Be sure to toss in a few real squads, though, or your foe will quicky figure out those big stacks that dissolve into a swarm are, in fact, nothing to fear.

JayH

 

[James Taylor]

I had interepreted it that any unit under a concealment counter, dummies or real, would not place a CX counter. But if real and dummies both use CX counters, it's the same thing, disguising which are which. Thanks...

NRBH, but as far as I've seen this played and remember from the RB.

You can declare double time with dummies and move 6 hexes and place the CX counter to make them appear as if they are real.

You can move 6 hexes with a dummy stack to make them appear as a leader or MMC(s) moving with a leader.

You can declare double time with a dummy stack and move 8 hexes and place the CX counter to appear as if a leader or a leader and MMC(s) are real.

Of course you can do things like this that will actually reveal that they are not dummies.

I'm pretty sure we have all at one time or another done the gaff of moving a stack of dummies using NA movement through an open ground hex... only to have them removed by our crafty LOS seeing opponent.

(Or is it just me?)

JT

 

[alanp]

one reaction force stack uses one ? on top and the rest of my purchased ?s are each potential units, growing their own cover ? as they spread out. Four ?+1 would be one ?+7 and properly placed they will become seven ?+1 very quickly. Be sure to toss in a few real squads, though, or your foe will quicky figure out those big stacks that dissolve into a swarm are, in fact, nothing to fear.

When Dummies split up into cockroaches, they do not get another "?" to top them off. See the penultimate sentence of A12.11, "A concealed stack under a single "?" can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created '?'." [italics added] At least I think that what this means.
:OHNO:

 

[Rockford]

When Dummies split up into cockroaches, they do not get another "?" to top them off. See the penultimate sentence of A12.11, "A concealed stack under a single "?" can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created '?'." [italics added] At least I think that what this means.
:OHNO:

Is that what you meant to type? Doesn't the rule you quoted actually exactly contradict your first sentence?

 

[JayH]

When Dummies split up into cockroaches, they do not get another "?" to top them off. See the penultimate sentence of A12.11, "A concealed stack under a single "?" can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created '?'." [italics added] At least I think that what this means.
:OHNO:

Sure they do based on your quoted rule... Walk through the following example to see if you agree...

The following stack, a topped concealment counter, five six dummy concealment counters and a 447, which I would described as a ?+7, exists in hex A

A
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
447

1st move is a single ? dummy counter is going to AM out of the stack to hex B

What remains on board is now a ?+6 in hex A and a ?+1 in hex B, as the hex B dummy will "get another "?" on top of it" as it leaves hex A

A B
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
447 ?

2nd move is another single ? dummy out to hex C

A B C
?
?
?
?
? ? ?
447 ? ?

Without running each example in turn, the net result at end of moves is:

A B C D E F G
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
447 ? ? ? ? ? ?

The stack of ?+7 has spread into the six surrounding hexes and left one unit under concealment in the original hex, spending only 6 FPP to create 12 FPP worth of dummies (in RB CG terminology). This is a common setup issue in that early scenario about The Tractor Works, where the interior hexes permits this sort of multiplication of force by centralization of dummies.

It may not seem a big deal, but every dummy the enemy is unsure of is a shot your real men may not have to face or a moment of hesitation in the enemy movement based on fear the dummy might have real FP with which to shoot them. This is a HUGE part of defensive strategy, IMO, especially in a fight like RB where you can preserve and shift very cheap dummies for a long time to hold far superior firepower at bay.

And there is nothing so fun as the enemy taking a 30 -1 shot with a 10-3 hmg killstack, snaking it and then getting the not so happy news that they killed a couple ? counters and activated a sniper that then kills their 10-3 leader or malfs a couple of its hmg in the same shot with a 12!

Only dummies don't multiply their dummies...

JayH

 

[JayH]

Well, the spacing got pulled fromt he post so the little ? stacks didn't line up correctly, but you can still get the idea.

JayH

 

[alanp]

Is that what you meant to type? Doesn't the rule you quoted actually exactly contradict your first sentence?

No, because a Dummy stack is not "a concealed stack under a single '?'".
Not sure I understand what Jay's trying to describe--sorry, Jay!--but what it looks like he's typed is not a description of "a concealed stack under a single '?'" either. [there are multiple '?' on top of one concealed counter.]

a stack: ?,?,?,447 could split into: ?,?,? + ?,447 OR ?,? + ?,447; BUT NOT: ?,?,?,? + ?,447 OR ?,? + ?,? + ?,? + ?,447. [there is no rule which allows a Dummy (3x'?') to "grow" a '?'. Nor a rule which allows a stack of mixed '?'+real to grow/add another '?' on top.] Jay's last sentence makes me think he agrees but his description of the tactic of 40 counters--some '?', some real--splitting up made me think he was growing/adding another '?' on top of stacks which already contained '?' counters.

 

[James Taylor]

No, because a Dummy stack is not "a concealed stack under a single '?'".
Not sure I understand what Jay's trying to describe--sorry, Jay!--but what it looks like he's typed is not a description of "a concealed stack under a single '?'" either. [there are multiple '?' on top of one concealed counter.]

a stack: ?,?,?,447 could split into: ?,?,? + ?,447 OR ?,? + ?,447; BUT NOT: ?,?,?,? + ?,447 OR ?,? + ?,? + ?,? + ?,447. [there is no rule which allows a Dummy (3x'?') to "grow" a '?'. Nor a rule which allows a stack of mixed '?'+real to grow/add another '?' on top.] Jay's last sentence makes me think he agrees but his description of the tactic of 40 counters--some '?', some real--splitting up made me think he was growing/adding another '?' on top of stacks which already contained '?' counters.

I'm not sure if I agree with you.

I do agree with the examples you have presented, but your statement that you can't get another ? for a dummy stack is what is confusing me.

At least as far as I have always seen this ruled played.

To make sure there is actually a difference of opinion here I'll use your example:

A stack of ?,?,?,4-4-7 could split into 3 stacks: ?,? - ?,? - ?,4-4-7.

Do you agree with this or no?

JT

 

[2 Bit Bill]

NRBH, but as far as I've seen this played and remember from the RB.

You can declare double time with dummies and move 6 hexes and place the CX counter to make them appear as if they are real.

You can move 6 hexes with a dummy stack to make them appear as a leader or MMC(s) moving with a leader.

You can declare double time with a dummy stack and move 8 hexes and place the CX counter to appear as if a leader or a leader and MMC(s) are real.

(Or is it just me?)

JT

or declare Double-time(Double-time harch) and move 2 or 3 giving the impression of moving a heavy SW. Meanwhile; the real Super Weapon is HIP/somewhere else. :devious:

Or they could be ski troops flying down the mountain

 

[serpico]

I'm more confused after actually reading this post than before......:angry:

 

[DerBlitzer]

A stack of ?,?,?,4-4-7 could split into 3 stacks: ?,? - ?,? - ?,4-4-7.

No, I don't think this is allowed. A single concealment counter cannot exist in a hex; it must always cover at least one counter, whether that counter is a real unit or another concealment counter. The top concealment counter creates concealment; those underneath it are the dummies. AlanP seems to have it right. So I believe the only split you could make with this stack is: ??? and ? 447, with the 447 being the unit that gets the extra concealment counter because it was concealed to begin with.

 

[jrv]

A stack of ?,?,?,4-4-7 could split into 3 stacks: ?,? - ?,? - ?,4-4-7.

No, I don't think this is allowed. A single concealment counter cannot exist in a hex; it must always cover at least one counter, whether that counter is a real unit or another concealment counter. The top concealment counter creates concealment; those underneath it are the dummies. AlanP seems to have it right. So I believe the only split you could make with this stack is: ??? and ? 447, with the 447 being the unit that gets the extra concealment counter because it was concealed to begin with.

JT has it right. Let's label concealment counters (question marks on top of a stack) as 'c' and dummies (question marks under a concealment) as 'd'. Commas separate counters in the same stack. Pluses separate stacks. The original, single stack is:

c,d,d,4-4-7.

After the split, the three stacks are:

c,d + c,d + c,4-4-7.

The count of dummies is the same before and after the split. I call this law the Conservation of Dummies. In ASL physics we learn that dummies can not be created by splitting a stack. The number of concealment counters can change, however.

You could also split into two stacks as you suggest, and dummies are preserved by the split.

c, d, d + c, 4-4-7

You could also split into two stacks differently, again resulting in two dummies after the split:

c, d + c, d, 4-4-7

And I believe that exhausts all the possibilities.

Both JT and AlanP have both conserved dummies and are both correct.

JR

 

[2 Bit Bill]

I think a ? x 3 (2 dummies covered by a ?) can split into two stacks of ? x 2(two stacks of 1 dummy each covered by a ?).
If they recombine they again become a ? x 3

 

[hershmeister]

its like the law of thermodynamics - additional dummies may be neither created or destroyed

(well except by fire and bumping of course!)

 

[alanp]

A stack of ?,?,?,4-4-7 could split into 3 stacks: ?,? - ?,? - ?,4-4-7.

Do you agree with this or no?

No; see A12.11, lines 11-12, "Dummy stacks can be created only during initial setup and among OB-designated "?" reinforcements during their initial turn of entry." What you're doing is creating two Dummy stacks where once there was none or one(?)

Again, I point out the penultimate sentence: "A concealed stack under a single "?" can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created "?". Your ?,?,?,447 isn't a concealed stack under a single '?'.

I think I've been unclear in previous posts, and with jrv and 2 Bit Bill going against me, I appear to be in the minority in this interpretation. :OHNO: