Is temporarily revealing a concealed unit the only allowed way to prove it is real?

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Because a "unit" as defined in the index is:

Unit: any game piece or counter with its own MF/MP allotment and normally capable of movement without being portaged, pushed, or towed. Infantry, Cavalry [but not horses], Dummy stacks, and vehicles (even if Immobilized) are all different types of units
A SW does not fall into that definition. Nor does that definition of "unit" include any non-unit game pieces possessed by such a unit.

Substituting the definition of the term "unit" into the rule would have one temporarily removing concealment from a single GAME PIECE and not from what would be considered a stack of game pieces (MMC + SW) that would consist of units and non-unit counters.

I find the Q&A is completely consistent with the rules as written and strictly read.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
You miss the point.
I am fully conscious of the definition of what is a unit.
The fact is that the general rule about losing concealment doesn't evoke SW either.
So you could evoke the temporary concealment loss interpretation to apply it to any unit loosing concealment.
That is why I wrote about applying double standards in the interpretation of the rule.
But, as already expressed, I will abide to the Q&A, even though it introduces strange logics.
That said, I will move along.
<shrug>
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
Strange logic would be showing a SW when the rule clearly states unit.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
I play it the cool way, I believe my opponent if he says it's real. He doesn't have to show anything.
It is a gentleman's game, isn't it?

We at least pay lip service to ritual by requiring that boot be shown, but functionally the same.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I believe my opponent if he says it's a 467. He doesn't have to show anything.
There are several "house rules." Yours isn't so much a house rule as a convenience implementation of the written rule (so long as no one is cheating). You give out complete information on the nature of the counter; you just don't physically show the counter. Bob does play a house rule, which is the equivalent of showing a boot with the same convenience you use. In the house rule he plays one does not give out the particulars of the unit.

JR
 

Jeff Sewall

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
535
Reaction score
152
Location
Pittsburgh
Country
llUnited States
There are several "house rules." Yours isn't so much a house rule as a convenience implementation of the written rule (so long as no one is cheating). You give out complete information on the nature of the counter; you just don't physically show the counter. Bob does play a house rule, which is the equivalent of showing a boot with the same convenience you use. In the house rule he plays one does not give out the particulars of the unit.

JR
Thought it was obvious but I guess next time I'll include the smiley face. :)
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I also hide my DRs and expect my opponent to take my word.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
The relevant rule could simply be amended to avoid any unnecessary disclosure when the side wishing to strip concealment has no OB-given concealment counters (and hence no dummies).
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The relevant rule could simply be amended to avoid any unnecessary disclosure when the side wishing to strip concealment has no OB-given concealment counters (and hence no dummies).
Yes, but then someone would complain that when all the dummies had been revealed, you need not show real units any more, and then once you modified it again, some other case would "need" to be covered. You don't need the headache.

JR
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
And you don't know what type of unit is concealed, even without dummies.
However, one could add the condition :"if the player who controls the unit losing concealment requires it".
It would give place to any degree of confidence between players.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
If some show the boot, it's just because they -rightly- feel something is not right. It is possible to fix this easily (in whatever form, this is open for discussion)

Or for love of conservatism we should have stayed at Squad Leader. :study:
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The rule could suffer some adaptation indeed.
Adding some common sense considerations won't harm.
3rd edition, we are waiting for you!
 
Top