Dummy stack into minefield

[Vinnie]

I'd always thought that if a dummy stack assault moves into concealment terrain which is a minefield, an attack is made and only if a ptc or better is achieved is the dummy stack eliminated. Recently one of my opponents asked about this and I couldn't support my position with the rules. Any help?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I'd always thought that if a dummy stack assault moves into concealment terrain which is a minefield, an attack is made and only if a ptc or better is achieved is the dummy stack eliminated. Recently one of my opponents asked about this and I couldn't support my position with the rules. Any help?

The dummy stack is eliminated.

A12.12:
"...Before announcing any mine attacks exposed by the movement of a stack topped by a “?”, the DEFENDER may force the ATTACKER to momentarily reveal a non-Dummy unit in that stack to show that an actual force exists there. If he cannot, or if the stack is friendly to the DEFENDER, the Dummy stack is removed...."

 

[Vinnie]

Thanks.

 

[STAVKA]

A concealed 447 squad that enters minefield only lose concealment if it suffers casualty reduction or Good Order status, even if the concealed Squad get marked with a PIN it will still not lose its concealment.

 

[Vinnie]

Need to re-read the rules....

 

[buser333]

One of the toughest rules to implement I think as using dummy stacks as recon forces is potentially an effective (if not sleazy) way to "find" mines.

 

[jrv]

One of the toughest rules to implement I think as using dummy stacks as recon forces is potentially an effective (if not sleazy) way to "find" mines.

As a practical matter, unless you are playing a CG the attacker rarely has dummy stacks and the defender rarely needs to find mines.

JR

 

[buser333]

As a practical matter, unless you are playing a CG the attacker rarely has dummy stacks and the defender rarely needs to find mines.

JR

This happens quite a bit in night scenarios with cloaking counters.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

This happens quite a bit in night scenarios with cloaking counters.

Yes, you lose a Cloaking counter and gain some intel. Doesn't necessarily have to be mines in the hex though.

 

[jrv]

As the defender at night I think elimination of a cloaking counter is quite a good result, even if a dummy. As Klas said, at night there are usually lots of reasons for elimination, so losing the cloak doesn't help as much as the attacker would like.

JR

 

[jrv]

The very existence of dummy counters is already a game mechanic and violates reality arguments. A dummy tells you where something is hidden, but perhaps even as important it tells you where something is not hidden. The dance when it encounters a hidden object is really a minor sub-violation of reality arguments. If you wanted to stay inside gamey mechanics perhaps you could have dummy HIP, but again here someone is going to get information. If the concealed unit encountering the dummy HIP is real it stays on and the defender knows it is real, and the attacker knows he knows. To truly fix the problem you would have to get rid of dummies entirely, and that probably means a double-blind umpired game.

JR

 

[STAVKA]

One of the toughest rules to implement I think as using dummy stacks as recon forces is potentially an effective (if not sleazy) way to "find" mines.

In Squad Leader there was Scout SMC, an overdesigned rule.

When you get intel with your dummies, think SMC-Scout. When your dummies is shoot by the enemy Sniper or wandering into a mine-field, feel some pity for the Scout(s).

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The very existence of dummy counters is already a game mechanic and violates reality arguments.

Not necessarily.

"Hey, Sarge, I'm sure I saw something moving over there, I swear it!"
... 5 minutes later ...
"Idiot! It's a dog. Here Boy, Here boy!"

 

[jrv]

Not necessarily.

"Hey, Sarge, I'm sure I saw something moving over there, I swear it!"
... 5 minutes later ...
"Idiot! It's a dog. Here Boy, Here boy!"

In the case you make the opposing player does not control the dummy. It is more along the lines of a random event, like jitter fire. Dummy units in control of the opposition would be something like the rubber parachutists or the phantom landing forces made with chaff on D-Day, the records the Krauts played with armor sounds to scare newcomers in the Ardennes, or the dust that John Magruder kicked up in the Peninsula Campaign. At the ASL level I can't think of any similar historical actions. So while a dummy unit might be used to generate a similar effect, it is under the control of the opposition and not random.

JR

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The whole idea of such an occurrence is that it occurs when least convenient for the enemy. There would be plenty of "What's that, wait ... nah, it's nothing." events that have no effect. As well there is the question of what the enemy expects to see. The "Watch that gap/house/hill" command which focuses the enemy on something that turns out to be nothing, wasting a lot of time or fire.

So while such effects may not in real life be generated by your side, for them to have the same psychological distracting or paralysing effect on your opponent they need be controlled by you in the game.

 

[jrv]

The whole idea of such an occurrence is that it occurs when least convenient for the enemy. There would be plenty of "What's that, wait ... nah, it's nothing." events that have no effect. As well there is the question of what the enemy expects to see. The "Watch that gap/house/hill" command which focuses the enemy on something that turns out to be nothing, wasting a lot of time or fire.

So while such effects may not in real life be generated by your side, for them to have the same psychological distracting or paralysing effect on your opponent they need be controlled by you in the game.

Understood, but once you make something that is random into a controlled game mechanic you open it up for abuse. Which is how we started talking about dummies and scouting.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

The very existence of dummy counters is already a game mechanic and violates reality arguments. A dummy tells you where something is hidden, but perhaps even as important it tells you where something is not hidden. The dance when it encounters a hidden object is really a minor sub-violation of reality arguments. If you wanted to stay inside gamey mechanics perhaps you could have dummy HIP, but again here someone is going to get information. If the concealed unit encountering the dummy HIP is real it stays on and the defender knows it is real, and the attacker knows he knows. To truly fix the problem you would have to get rid of dummies entirely, and that probably means a double-blind umpired game.

JR

I would propose an amendment to the Concelament and HIP rules for ASLRB v3:

Maybe we should implement some advanced ASL physics of quantum theory: More precisely the concept of "Schrödinger's Concealment" - it could be real or a Dummy at the same time. But only by actually measuring it, you will thereby determine its status at that time.

von Marwitz

 

[johnl]

While we're at it let's add in entanglement ("spooky action at a distance"). Result vs unit on one board also happens to unit in same hex on another board. I think some of the campaign games already handle teleportation.

 

[holdit]

The dummy stack is eliminated.

A12.12:
"...Before announcing any mine attacks exposed by the movement of a stack topped by a “?”, the DEFENDER may force the ATTACKER to momentarily reveal a non-Dummy unit in that stack to show that an actual force exists there. If he cannot, or if the stack is friendly to the DEFENDER, the Dummy stack is removed...."

Sorry for resurrecting this but I'm struggling with this at the moment. How could one of the DEFENDER 's stacks be advancing into one of the DEFENDER 's minefields during the ATTACKER 's turn?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think the rule tries to cover when the owner moves a dummy stacks into his own minefield as well.