Change of Control - Does it have to be announced?

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Following situation:

VC require Building Control at game end. The opponent has a few Dummies with which he might be able to enter a relevant building previously not Controlled by either side.

Of course, with a Dummy, Control cannot be gained. But the friendly player cannot be sure if a real unit or a Dummy entered the Building in question, which might force him to allot some units for making sure.

If the opponent would be required to announce the gaining of Control, this would not be necessary.

Thus the questions:
Is the opponent to announce the gaining of Control?
If so, when must he do so?

TIA,
von Marwitz
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
A26.15 says "Dummy units cannot gain Control, but a concealed stack containing real units may if otherwise able to. Likewise, a dummy unit cannot prevent the opponent from gaining Control, but a concealed or HIP armed unit can. In all cases, control of a Location/hex/building by a concealed or HIP armed unit need not be declared until game end."

So if you're not going to stay in the building, you probably better temp reveal a unit to assert your claim of Control otherwise I see no requirement to announce anything during play.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I would play that a dummy stack can take "dummy control" of a building without needing to reveal whether the control was real until the scenario's end. This means that it is up to the other side to deduce whether the dummies were real, gamble that they were fakes, or send units in to verify and/or (re-)establish control.

I base this on the last sentence of A26.15 cited by zgrose:

In all cases, control of a Location/hex/building by a concealed or HIP armed unit need not be declared until game end.

What would be the point of real units not declaring control until game end unless there was the possibility that they were actually dummy units?

P.S. after rereading zgrose's reply, I am not sure if we agree or not!
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
P.S. after rereading zgrose's reply, I am not sure if we agree or not!
Let us assume PlayerA has a concealed stack of units and moves into a building PlayerB controls. Note that I believe it makes no difference if the concealed stack contains real units or not.

PlayerA can assume that he controls the building (if there are real units) since PlayerB has no HIP units. However, if PlayerA leaves the building empty and the game ends at a later turn, PlayerB has no evidence of an armed MMC having entered the building to control it.

Therefore, it seems to be that if PlayerA wants to gain control of a building with a stack of concealed units with whom he intends to exit the building prior to game end, PlayerA should temp reveal a unit to provide the validity of his claim that he believes he has control of the building, at which point they can mark/side-note/whatever control of the building.

If PlayerA is going to stay in the building, he isn't obliged to announce anything and he can let PlayerB make whatever assumptions he wants about whether the stack contains real units.

It gets funkier when there are HIP units involved but I think the point remains the same. During play you need to demonstrate the ability to take control but you might not actually have it when there are HIP units.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I see your point, zgrose: that it would otherwise be hard to keep track of...you may be right!

Still, I see nothing in the RB prohibiting my interpretation, and would probably prefer to play it "on the honor system" unless an official ruling existed. If concealed units took control of a building then left, players would have to make careful note of where they go in order to prove control was indeed taken at game end. Perhaps if a point is reached where it would become impossible to verify (like combining the stack with another concealed unit), then some proof would have to be given (unless, of course, players trust each other completely!).
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
...would probably prefer to play it "on the honor system" unless an official ruling existed...
Agree. I would trust Player B to keep track of whether a real unit entered the building, and in a smaller/medium scenario that should not be that hard to keep track of for either player.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
What would be the point of real units not declaring control until game end unless there was the possibility that they were actually dummy units?
My question was not about real units not declaring control but about Dummies trying to avoid declaration to keep it open whether they are real or not to force the opponent to take care of that building and commit resources to rule out the chance that the Dummies were indeed real units that could have claimed control.

Indeed, if the unit or Dummy left the building again, probably the honor-system is the way to go (or to have a witness from the next table if need be).

von Marwitz
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
My question was not about real units not declaring control but about Dummies trying to avoid declaration to keep it open whether they are real or not to force the opponent to take care of that building and commit resources to rule out the chance that the Dummies were indeed real units that could have claimed control.
I don't think you have to announced whether you have taken Control of the building or not - that it up to the opponent to figure out.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I don't think you have to announced whether you have taken Control of the building or not - that it up to the opponent to figure out.
Makes sense to me. And adds a little 'fog of war' and room for mind tricks. I am all for it.

von Marwitz
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
My question was not about real units not declaring control but about Dummies trying to avoid declaration to keep it open whether they are real or not to force the opponent to take care of that building and commit resources to rule out the chance that the Dummies were indeed real units that could have claimed control.
Understood. My post was really in response to zgrose. I am all for the Fog!
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I don't think you have to announced whether you have taken Control of the building or not - that it up to the opponent to figure out.

I wouldn't be satisfied if my opponent was *sure* he sent a concealed MMC into a Location/hex/building and that he was *sure* I didn't enter the building afterwards.

"In all cases, control of a Location/hex/building by a concealed or HIP armed unit need not be declared until game end."

I suggest that the intent of this phrase is best illuminated by inserting "present in the Location/hex/building" after "unit" but YMMV and I'm certainly not going to argue it.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
There's a couple of different ways it can work. It's pretty much all a type of head-game you're playing with your opponent.

You can move a dummy stack (or a concealed SMC) into an otherwise empty uncontrolled building and loudly proclaim that you now have control (you don't need to provide proof of that until it becomes important for the VC). If that's of concern to your opponent he will want to take steps to try and rectify the situation. If that means he becomes weaker where you have your real units, then you have achieved something at very little cost.

Of course at the end of the game you would have to demonstrate that you in fact never actually controlled the building after all. Also, if it was an "instant win" type of VC, then it wouldn't be useful because you would not be able to verify your claim of victory. And if your opponent is savvy he may well realise what you are up to and not be fooled by it regardless. Head-games typically don't work very well when the opponents are very familiar with each other's style of play.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I wouldn't be satisfied if my opponent was *sure* he sent a concealed MMC into a Location/hex/building and that he was *sure* I didn't enter the building afterwards.
I trust my opponent will know whether he Controls a building or not, but that does not mean I will not keep tabs on it as well.

E.g., if you and I were playing and you moved a concealed stack (possibly dummies) into a VC building, I will make sure to keep track of that stack, until I know for certain what is in it.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Of course at the end of the game you would have to demonstrate that you in fact never actually controlled the building after all. Also, if it was an "instant win" type of VC, then it wouldn't be useful because you would not be able to verify your claim of victory. And if your opponent is savvy he may well realise what you are up to and not be fooled by it regardless. Head-games typically don't work very well when the opponents are very familiar with each other's style of play.
How do you prove this at game end? Even if you have a complete move-by-move log of the game, it may be impossible. Say I have two concealed stacks, one of which should be a dummy and the other contain a real unit. One goes through an unoccupied building, the other does not; and they then recombine into a single stack before losing concealment. At this point, there is no way I can prove that I at some time gained control of the building (and there is no way my opponent can prove the opposite). Even a complete setup listing may not be enough - maybe the two stacks were set up as one but separated during play.

(One could even have the two stacks - one dummy, one real - "control" two different VC buildings, and have a situation where at game end, both players know that one of the buildings is controlled and the other is not, but nobody could prove which is which; but this would typically only be of interest to students of logic)

Edit: to clarify my position - I have no problem with trusting my opponent when he says he controls the building; in a game where it looks like the situation is going to happen, I'd remind him of the control rules and make him check, but not reveal, whether he controls a building. Of course, it might get confusing in situations where both sides have dummies, and both have suspicious concealed stack occupying a VC building...
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,202
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
...I have no problem with trusting my opponent when he says he controls the building;...
I too would go the "trust" route on this.

If one is truly worried, one can always ask a third party to verify (TD perhaps?) and record it on a piece of paper for verification later.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I've never had a situation in a scenario when it's been questioned who controls a building after the game is over. I can imagine it can be a problem in large CG and other variable purchase scenarios, but I very rarely play those.
 

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
451
Reaction score
164
Location
an Aussie in Falmouth, Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Just finished 2 years of FB Campaign 3
We used to mark control of a building by a concealed unit with a different control marker compared to a known unit

Then if it was me, I would record the control on a piece of paper if the concealed unit was REAL
My opponent was fully trusting of me, But I had a record of the actual control as a backup

Pretty easy IMO.
My opponent does not know if its a real control or not. He has to decide if it's something that he had to deal with in the long run
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
How do you prove this at game end?
Any time you play with concealed units doing stuff while remaining concealed, you and your opponent have to trust each other that you're not cheating. While I may make all sorts of bombastic claims to my opponent, in my head I know that my dummy stack hasn't taken control of that building, and if I need that control to win, then I need to do something more than just send in a dummy stack. If the dummy ploy works at all it will almost certainly only be to gain a very temporary advantage. I don't cheat when I play and if I can't trust that my opponent isn't also cheating then it's stupid of me to play him at all.

Which is not to say that we can't ask questions of each other -- "when did you have a real unit enter that building?" -- and if we can't convincingly answer those questions then my first instinct would be to play as if it didn't happen, and take the consequences.

I do hope though that this isn't going to develop into another conversation along the lines of "nobody can ever remember anything, so if you don't mark everything with a counter/write everything down/get a 3rd-party to verify then everyone will be cheating all the time". The vast majority of ASL games just don't play like that in real life. Both players are generally aware of what's going on. In those few cases where that "general awareness" isn't going to do the job, then you worry about taking the extra steps. I would have no problem showing my opponent that my concealed stack contains an actual MMC to confirm unequivocally that I have gained control if I felt that if I didn't do it now it might cause problems later -- but that would be an unusual situation (in my experience).
 
Top