Retain concealment after minimum move advance into close combat?

FlatPackFred

Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
31
Location
Winchester, UK
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Played Got Milk today - great scenario and a tonic from house to house fighting in Stalingrad (also the subject of a good article in Journal 7 - although note that RR SSR state that bore sighting is not applicable).

One of my concealed squads advanced uphill, across barbed into close combat the Milk Factory with an unconcealed leader and unconcealed squad. This is a minimum move and hence the squad is marked with a CX system counter. Couldn't find any rule saying that a minimum move in the advance phase would lead to concealment loss - but didn't seem right as the squad couldn't have made this move using assault movement in the movement phase. My brother and I agreed that the squad would lose concealment.

Did we play this correctly?

Also if the squad had retained concealment would I have been entitled to the concealed unit Ambush modifier even though accompanyied by a leader and squad that were unconcealed?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,801
Reaction score
7,235
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Advance vs Difficult Terrain (A4.72) is, in itself, not a concealment-loss activity.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Minimum Move is during the MPh. It is concealment loss in most cases because it is not assault movement (but at night it might not be, for example). Advance vs. Difficult Terrain is a somewhat similar idea, but in fact the rules are very different. Using one to think about the other generally will not work out well. Advance is never concealment loss except into open ground (not at night). Non-assault movement is always concealment loss except at night.

JR
 

FlatPackFred

Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
31
Location
Winchester, UK
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Thank you. I should have said Advance vs Difficult Terrain not Minimum move and thank you for the clear answer (even though it does seem a little odd).

Now that there is one concealed squad with one unconcealed squad and leader entering close combat in a building would they be eligible for the concealed DRM when attempting ambush?
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,444
Reaction score
3,387
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Yes, each case of the modifier applies. Someone is concealed so the mod applies.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
961
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Minimum Move is during the MPh. It is concealment loss in most cases because it is not assault movement (but at night it might not be, for example). Advance vs. Difficult Terrain is a somewhat similar idea, but in fact the rules are very different. Using one to think about the other generally will not work out well. Advance is never concealment loss except into open ground (not at night). Non-assault movement is always concealment loss except at night.
Non-assault movement [while in LOS] is always [usually] concealment loss except at night.

My first edit is often missed by beginners. The second edit is because it's a crazy game of exceptions (trenches and bocage off the top of my head).
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Thank you. I should have said Advance vs Difficult Terrain not Minimum move and thank you for the clear answer (even though it does seem a little odd).

....
It is especially odd when one considers that ADVANCE is covered under the MOVEMENT (A4) rules as a sub-rule of that category. However, ADVANCE has been determined to not mean movement except when it is considered such (e.g. PP penalties-to a degree, Leader assistance, etc.). If during MOVEMENT one were to use all of its MF to execute a move in LOS of a GO/unbroken enemy unit within 16 hexes it couldn't use assault move and would lose concealment in most circumstances [EXC: Night] but if conducting an ADVANCE it could retain concealment for this "move". If I were the ruler of the universe, I would remove ADVANCE from the MOVEMENT rules altogether to avoid this conundrum of thought process or come to a common-sense approach that it is certainly movement. JMHO:rolleyes::cool:
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Are the costs for hexside terrain also doubled when crossed into higher elevation?

I had always assumed it was but looking at A4.13 and A4.131 the rules seem to make a distinction...in hex terrain being "COT" for movement (A4.13) and hexside being a +x to "COT" (A4.131). Looking at the Hill rules it's says that "COT" is doubled...not to mention that hexside terrain is always at the lower elevation part of a "Crestline" hex (EXC: hillside wall/hedge).
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Are the costs for hexside terrain also doubled when crossed into higher elevation?

I had always assumed it was but looking at A4.13 and A4.131 the rules seem to make a distinction...in hex terrain being "COT" for movement (A4.13) and hexside being a +x to "COT" (A4.131). Looking at the Hill rules it's says that "COT" is doubled...not to mention that hexside terrain is always at the lower elevation part of a "Crestline" hex (EXC: hillside wall/hedge).
Per B.2, the COT is "the normal MF/MP cost for entrance of a hex plus the movement cost of any Artificial Terrain therein." It then goes on to show by example that crossing a wall is an "added cost" and is not part of the COT. Therefore crossing a wall is not doubled while moving up a level as it is an "added cost."

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,376
Reaction score
10,269
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Per B.2, the COT is "the normal MF/MP cost for entrance of a hex plus the movement cost of any Artificial Terrain therein." It then goes on to show by example that crossing a wall is an "added cost" and is not part of the COT. Therefore crossing a wall is not doubled while moving up a level as it is an "added cost."

JR
Nor is Smoke.

von Marwitz
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Nor is Smoke.
SMOKE is "artificial terrain" [B.9], and its cost is doubled while *moving* to a higher level (there is a specific example in B.2). SMOKE MF, however, do not count during the APh when determining whether an Advance is vs Difficult Terrain [A4.72].

One thing I just noticed is that *other* artificial terrain (AFV, wrecks, roadblocks) are also doubled when moving to a higher level and also count for determining Advance vs Difficult Terrain. This is not something I had noticed before, and I certainly have played this wrong.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,376
Reaction score
10,269
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I stand corrected. But indeed now I remember. Only *advancing* won't double it.

von Marwitz
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I stand corrected. But indeed now I remember. Only *advancing* won't double it.
For purposes of figuring when an Advance is vs Difficult Terrain, SMOKE counts for *zero MF* and not for regular or double MF. Again, during the APh only.

JR
 
Top