Duane
Member
If a hidden gun is not in the LOS of any enemy units and changes the CA is it revealed and placed under ? or does it remain hidden?
A12.34 Hidden Gun
- Thread starter Duane
- Start date
Justiciar
Elder Member
No. A12.32 first sentence.
A12.32 Hidden units may not move (even within their hex or to change a CA) or advance and remain hidden. If a hidden unit is to move/advance it must first be placed on the mapboard beneath a "?"...
So the gun would be placed on the board under a "?" and then you can change the CA.
So the gun would be placed on the board under a "?" and then you can change the CA.
Jazz
Inactive
Interesting...A12.2 first sentence talks about non-emplaced guns.
More to the point, looking at the ? Gain/Loss table:
Emplaced Guns, None in LOS, HIP is lost with Case F (F If it: becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded, is in a Location successfully Searched by the enemy, or is a Dummy in a building successfully Mopped Up by the enemy.)
According to the table, the emplaced gun would lose HIP if it changes CA, but it needs to be in LOS and within 16 hexes range.
After being recently wrong on ? loss for a PAATC, I am making a point of reading the rules in detail, and this one surprised me as well......I always thought HIP was lost even in CA change happened out of LOS. Does not seem to be the case.
Seems there is a contradiction between the ? Gain/Loss table and A12.32?
More to the point, looking at the ? Gain/Loss table:
Emplaced Guns, None in LOS, HIP is lost with Case F (F If it: becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded, is in a Location successfully Searched by the enemy, or is a Dummy in a building successfully Mopped Up by the enemy.)
According to the table, the emplaced gun would lose HIP if it changes CA, but it needs to be in LOS and within 16 hexes range.
After being recently wrong on ? loss for a PAATC, I am making a point of reading the rules in detail, and this one surprised me as well......I always thought HIP was lost even in CA change happened out of LOS. Does not seem to be the case.
Seems there is a contradiction between the ? Gain/Loss table and A12.32?
lightspeed
Senior Member
Last line of A12.121: "The Concealment Table always
takes precedence over the body of the rules (e.g., an uncommon cause of
"?" loss might be mentioned in the Concealment Table even though it is
omitted from the rules proper for the sake of brevity)."
If the e.g. were an i.e. instead, that would change the meaning.
FWIW, I have always played that a hidden gun loses HIP when changing CA outside
the LOS of a KEU.
Given the size and complexity of the rulebook, it's not a surprise that things fall through
the cracks. Even after all these years.
indy
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
I think A12.32 is a "general" rule not covered by the "?"-gain/loss chart.
There's no contradiction between the rules and the "?" gain/loss chart. A12.32 prohibits HIP units from moving or changing CA. The action is not covered by the chart because the rules don't permit the action in the first place. If you want to change the CA of a HIP gun, you must voluntarily drop the HIP, place it on board under a "?" counter, and then change it's CA. At that point the chart would cover loss of concealment as usual.
Jazz
Inactive
I have always played that changing CA removes HIP status. Still, by a strict reading of the rules you quoted above, the table takes precedence over the body of the rules.
I do see this as a contradiction....FWIW.....at the very least worthy of an official clarification.
I'm not sure a single yes or no answer does service to a question that is essentially a two part question where the answer to one part of the question is likely to always be no.
FWIW, it doesn't seem like any clarification is needed. Like cohort said, HIP units may move not or change CA and remain hidden. I think the Concealment Table taking precedence is mentioned for situations not clearly covered in the rules but mentioned in the Concealment Table. The rules specifically prohibit it, I don't think we need to refer to the Concealment Table to check on an action not allowed by the rules.
Justiciar
Elder Member
A12.32 is saying no. I just shortened the answer. "Hidden units may not move (even within their hex or to change a CA) or advance and remain hidden." No is a straight forward summation of that very sentence. There is no room for interpretation. You may not pass GO. You may not collect $200. Can a token pass Go?
See why and how I referenced A12.32 before cohort?
lightspeed
Senior Member
Agreed. The table also lists "Any other action" as a ? loss (case C). Case C has specific exceptions. Changing CA is not one of them.
I guess "changing CA of a Gun" could be added in the list of examples that would cause ? loss.
indy
mgmasl
Senior Member
The gun loses HIP status but remain concealed... Same as any hidden unit moving out of LOS.. I can' t see any contradiction, only a way to verify the hidden units are exactly placed as recorded at the start of the game.
BattleSchool
Elder Member
A strict reading of A12.31 suggests that the Gun would be placed onboard unconcealed regardless of any enemy LOS to it. I am not aware of any exception for changing CA.
jrv
Forum Guru
A12.32 ΅Hidden units may not move (even within their hex or to change a CA) or advance and remain hidden. If a hidden unit is to move/advance it must first be placed on the mapboard beneath a ''?''". Ordinary concealment loss would then apply, so if the gun changed CA within LOS of enemy units, it would lose its freshly acquired "?".
JR
JR
BattleSchool
Elder Member
Changing CA is not "moving," as no MF are expended.
If a Hidden Gun reveals itself in order to change CA out of LOS of any enemy unit, it must lose its concealment as it is neither moving nor advancing.
FWIW, I don't agree with the way A12.31 and 12.32 have been interpreted, in particular what is meant by "a revealed hidden unit" being "totally discovered." IMO, Hidden units that are placed on board should not lose concealment unless they perform a concealment loss activity. As is stands, a Hidden squad out of enemy LOS is "totally discovered" if it does not move/advance immediately after being placed on board. Contrast this with a Hidden Gun in non-concealment terrain (e.g. on a hill). It is placed on board concealed once an enemy unit has LOS to it.
If a Hidden Gun reveals itself in order to change CA out of LOS of any enemy unit, it must lose its concealment as it is neither moving nor advancing.
FWIW, I don't agree with the way A12.31 and 12.32 have been interpreted, in particular what is meant by "a revealed hidden unit" being "totally discovered." IMO, Hidden units that are placed on board should not lose concealment unless they perform a concealment loss activity. As is stands, a Hidden squad out of enemy LOS is "totally discovered" if it does not move/advance immediately after being placed on board. Contrast this with a Hidden Gun in non-concealment terrain (e.g. on a hill). It is placed on board concealed once an enemy unit has LOS to it.
James Taylor
I love women with brains
For the purposes of A12.32 I do think that a hidden Gun out of LOS that drops HIP to change CA is moving.
I know we would not normally classify changing CA as movement, but the phrasing of A12.32 is defining in hex movement or CA change inclusively under the term "move" by encompassing them in parentheses after "move":
12.32 Hidden units may not move (even within their hex or to change a CA)...
Consider the following:
You would allow the HIP Gun to be placed on board concealed and allow the player to attempt to push the gun, all the while maintaining concealment provided it was out of LOS, right?
Does it really make sense then to say that the Gun just changing CA should result in its concealment LOS even though there are no enemy units?
I think the intent of A12.32 is to allow the CA change without concealment loss provided there is no enemy LOS.
Absent a Perry Sez that contradicts that is how I would play it.
JT
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
There is actually already a Q&A that hints at a hidden unit being placed onboard does not lose "?"
A12.31 & A12.32
A Concealed Enemy unit performs a Concealment Loss activity in the LOS of a HIP Friendly unit. The HIP unit wishes to force
the Enemy unit to lose “?”. However A12.31 says a HIP unit is not placed on board concealed unless called for by the rule
covering that particular situation. A12.32 covers a HIP unit being placed on board concealed to prevent an opposing unit gaining
concealment. However A12.14 does not specify how to handle a HIP unit for forcing “?” loss. If the HIP unit was instead on board
concealed, it would only have to be momentarily revealed to force “?” loss. When a enemy performs a “?” loss action, may a HIP
Friendly unit in LOS be placed on board beneath a “?” counter, and then momentarily revealed as per A12.14, to force “?” loss on
the enemy unit?
A. Yes.
That being said, I think both A12.31 and A12.32 could benefit from some clarifications.
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
BattleSchool
Elder Member
I disagree. Changing the CA of a Hidden Gun is not moving.
Again, I disagree.
I do not claim to be an expert at parsing ASL rules. However, I take the first sentence of A12.32 to mean two different, albeit related, things. The first is that hidden units may not move or advance and remain hidden. For the purposes of this rule, movement within a unit's own hex (either during the MPh or APh), qualifies as movement. The second is that a hidden unit may not change CA and remain hidden.
Had the rule intended changing CA to be equated with "moving," it would have used an and/or operator (e.g. even within their hex/to change a CA). Instead, the parenthetical part of the sentence refers to two different conditions, namely movement within a hex or changing CA.
No it doesn't make any sense. But A12.31 is quite specific in this regard. It states that:
As I have argued above, changing CA is not moving. And the second sentence of A12.32 tells us only that before a hidden unit may move/advance it must be placed on board beneath a "?", and that normal concealment rules thereafter apply to its activity. A Manhandling Attempt involves the expenditure of MF, and thus qualifies as movement.
1) Would you also agree that a hidden AFV could be placed on board and change CA without losing concealment provided it was out of enemy LOS, i.e. without expending any MP?
2) Could the same AFV opt instead to be placed on board in order to change its CE/BU status during its MPh/APh, without losing concealment?
I think we can agree that the second case involves no movement expenditure whatsoever, and is not defined as "parenthetical" movement in A12.32. But does it warrant "total discovery" as per A12.31?
Moreover, why must a hidden Infantry unit that is not in enemy LOS be placed on board unconcealed (i.e., "totally discovered"), if it neither moves nor advances, nor satisfies any of the exceptions listed in A12.31? Why should a hidden SMC be treated differently than a hidden heavy tank that changes its CA?
As would I.
However, my underlying point is that there is an inconsistency in how A12.31 and A12.32 are being interpreted/applied.
In past discussions, some have argued that the CA exception has to do with the special nature of Guns. But if that were case, then A12.32 would have distinguished between Guns and vehicles changing CA. If we take your interpretation of A12.32 as true, then hidden vehicles have the same benefits as Guns when being placed on board out of enemy LOS. They need not expend any MP to satisfy the exceptions for "total discovery" listed in A12.31. They need only change (or attempt to change) CA. A hidden AFV in LOS of an enemy unit also could be placed on board under a concealment counter and attempt to fire a Smoke Discharger. If the attempt fails, no MP are expended, and concealment is retained.
Hidden infantry that are not manning a Gun are placed at an inexplicable disadvantage by A12.31. They must move, advance, or satisfy a specific exception listed in A12.31 in order to be placed on board beneath a concealment counter--even out of enemy LOS! I do not believe that this was ever the intent of A12.31 and A12.32. (My feeling is that the authors never considered some situations that have arisen as a result of newer scenario designs. Indeed, the Q&A Klas noted above is an example of an unforeseen situation.)
For the sake of consistency, I contend that a hidden unit placed on board voluntarily (regardless of Phase/Turn, in keeping with the intent of A12.14) should only be "totally discovered" when it undertakes a concealment loss activity in LOS of an enemy unit, IAW the Concealment Loss Table. IOW, a hidden unit need not move/advance, nor necessarily have to meet a specific requirement listed in A12.31 in order to retain concealment. It need only avoid conducting a concealment loss activity in enemy LOS. (This includes the special circumstances covered by A12.34, whereby a hidden Gun retains concealment under certain conditions.)