A 8.15 Snap Shots

[karl]

Hi

A concealed unit is moving from a grain hex into a building hex using NAM. The hexside being crossed is open ground.

A unit with no LOS to the grain hex or the building hex snap shots at the open ground hexside being crossed.

Question
When does the unit lose concealment? Before the snap shot or after if there is a negative effect?

Cheers

Karl

 

[Reepicheep]

I'd guess it only loses concealment if the snap shot achieves a result on the IFT. Otherwise, the attacking unit hasn't had LOS to the unit in either hex to force concealment loss.

 

[Jeff Sewall]

I would go further than that.

The unit loses concealment only if it breaks!

Taking a PTC or MC doesn't strip concealment unless an enemy ground unit has LOS, which it doesn't have at the destination hex.

That's a good one for the guy who kept the "Physics of ASL" list, or whatever it was called. Wayne Hadady, right?

 

[zgrose]

A12.141

A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result.

 

[Reepicheep]

Thought I'd delete my own post before Zoltan's rules reference gave me egg on face!

 

[CHERDE]

This issue needs further consideration.


A 12.14 2nd dot says that if you get a PTC while in the LOS of an enemy you lose concealment.

A 12.14 says you lose concealment if you break regardless of LOS.

A 8.15 says you can be fired at if a LOS to the hexside crossed exists.

It also says that - if affected by the SnapShot - you are thereafter in the hex entered.


In my mind you lose concealmment if you get a PTC or worse in the SnapShot while crossing the hexside, EVEN IF THERE IS NO ENEMY LOS TO THE HEX ENTERED, because the LOS condition in the moment of attack is decisive. In the moment of attack there is a LOS to the unit.

Oher comments to this point ?

 

[zgrose]

I think we are in agreement that if the IFT result on a Snap Shot is PTC or better, concealment is lost.

 

[Jeff Sewall]

No, we're not all in agreement.

A Snap Shot is not made while the unit is on the hexside. It is made after the unit has entered the hex. The Snap Shot is just a defensive fire technique that allows the defender a better option (or the only option) in some cases.

Note the final clause of A8.15 --- a firer making a Snap Shot "may do so after other (even non-Snap Shot) attacks." So if you can resolve an attack on a unit IN the target hex, then later resolve an attack on that same unit using a Snap Shot, it's not consistent to move that unit back to the hexside.

11th line of A8.15: "If affected by a Snap Shot, the moving unit is considered in the Location entered thereafter." Isn't concealment loss one of the ways a unit is affected by a Snap Shot?

 

[zgrose]

No, we're not all in agreement.

A Snap Shot is not made while the unit is on the hexside. It is made after the unit has entered the hex. The Snap Shot is just a defensive fire technique that allows the defender a better option (or the only option) in some cases.

Note the final clause of A8.15 --- a firer making a Snap Shot "may do so after other (even non-Snap Shot) attacks." So if you can resolve an attack on a unit IN the target hex, then later resolve an attack on that same unit using a Snap Shot, it's not consistent to move that unit back to the hexside.

11th line of A8.15: "If affected by a Snap Shot, the moving unit is considered in the Location entered thereafter." Isn't concealment loss one of the ways a unit is affected by a Snap Shot?

Look at my rule quote again:

A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result.

As I read it:
If you attack with a Snap Shot and score a PTC or better, concealment is lost.
A Snap Shot opportunity (having LOS along a hexspine) is not enough. But if you Snap Shot and score a PTC or better, concealment is lost.

Which part of the above interpretation are you disagreeing with?

 

[Jeff Sewall]

Yeah, you're probably right. I started to put together a long defense of my interpretation, but decided to forget it and admit defeat -- sounded too much like some of the stuff on the ASLML.

I just don't like the double-negative wording of that section.