Another Concealment Question

Bocko

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Location
Dayton Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Can a NON-HIP Concealed Unit prevent an Enemy Unit from becoming Concealed without losing its own Concealment?

Thanks
Chris
 

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Yup;

Concealed units can deny concealment to non concealed enemy units in LOS. Dummy ? denies enemy units from gaining concealment. Hopefully this has not been changed in MMP's version 2E rules.


Scott
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Yes.

You need a Good Order unit to force Concealment loss, but only an unbroken unit to prevent Concealment gain. And concealed units - even dummy stacks - are unbroken.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
CPL ScottH said:
Yup;

Concealed units can deny concealment to non concealed enemy units in LOS. Dummy ? denies enemy units from gaining concealment. Hopefully this has not been changed in MMP's version 2E rules.


Scott
This is one reason to not just take known dummies off the board just because everybody knows its a dummy. They do prevent the opposing side from gaining concealment.
 

andy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Location
In an Ivory Tower
Country
llCanada
More concealment questions...

Ah, I though it required a "momentary reveal" of a real unit. Good to know.

a) When do you require a "momentary reveal" of a concealed unit, and how does the Assault-Move bump work?

Thx.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Re: More concealment questions...

Andy said:
Ah, I though it required a "momentary reveal" of a real unit. Good to know.


Thx.
Please note the difference between stripping ? and denying it.

Any un-broken unit (and dummies ain't broke) can keep you from putting a ? counter on somebody.

Only a real unit can make you take off a ? counter (hence the "momentary reveal").

Opinions vary as to just exactly what is revealed, and the rulebook is variously interpreted by (seemingly) reasonable people. Some folks say that "showing a boot" from under the ? counter is enough to verify the unit is real. Others say that you have to reveal the unit for what amounts to momentary inspection i.e. the other guy sees what the unit is and what he's carrying. In a gentlemanly game, my opponent's word that it's real is usually good enough for me.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Re: More concealment questions...

[quote="Jazz]Only a real unit can make you take off a ? counter (hence the "momentary reveal"). [/quote]
To be even more specific, only a Good Order unit, thus in addition to dummys the most important other units that don't force ? strip are broken and Melee trops.
Its nice to know that your concealed stack may move normal in OG adjacent to the broken enemy unit without loosing ?, and thereby not making the brokie DM. This again makes him stay during the RtPh and lets you advance in for a pretty sure Ambush and kill during CC, without loosing the ? at all.

Opinions vary as to just exactly what is revealed, and the rulebook is variously interpreted by (seemingly) reasonable people. Some folks say that "showing a boot" from under the ? counter is enough to verify the unit is real. Others say that you have to reveal the unit for what amounts to momentary inspection i.e. the other guy sees what the unit is and what he's carrying. In a gentlemanly game, my opponent's word that it's real is usually good enough for me.
I used to play in this "gentleman" manner and only get my opponent's word that a real unit saw him. I have changed my view however. Not because I don't trust my opponent's, but because that's not what the rules say.
The rules tell that the unit must be momentarily revealed, i.e. I will be able to look at the unit for a few seconds. (IIRC it has been clarified that it means that I will get a good look at the unit).

I like this rule, since it gives the defender an interesting, but though choise. Will he reveal information to the attacker to strip concealment, or will he choose to let the opponent keep concealment, and thereby keeping the opponent guessing about whether you have real units or dummys, or which kind of real units.

By not sticking to the written rules, you give the attacker a slight advantage.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Re: More concealment questions...

Ole Boe said:
The rules tell that the unit must be momentarily revealed, i.e. I will be able to look at the unit for a few seconds. (IIRC it has been clarified that it means that I will get a good look at the unit).
Hey Ole,

Just where was this clarified? A Perry Sez? A published Q&A?

The "show me a boot" camp claim the "momentary" implies that I only reveal enough to verify that the unit is indeed real.

I'm not particularly dogmatic about it and will pretty much play it as my opponent does, as I feel the rule as written can be differently interpreted by reasonable people.

I would be tickled pink if there was an official clarification. Hell, even a semi-official clarification would be nice....
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
It doesn't say "partially" reveal, it says momentarily reveal. Thus I request that the entire counter be revealed.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
I couldn't find any Q&A on the subject, but I believe I've seen it somewhere. But I agree with pitman's logic. When you reveal a counter, the entire counter must be revealed.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
pitman said:
It doesn't say "partially" reveal, it says momentarily reveal. Thus I request that the entire counter be revealed.
OK, (and I'm just relating the arguments I've heard in the past) does that mean that you get complete right of inspection along with an SW possessed? Or does it only happen very momentarily to verify that it is indeed a real unit. Or something in between?

I realize it's a nit, but it is a nit that's been picked in the past, and picking nits in the rules is how a lot of things are the way they are in the game.

Last I checked, momentarily weren't among the strictly defined ASL terminology....and some folks are faster than others....
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
No, you don't get to look at support weapons or anything else. This is a COWTRA situation. The rules say you get to see the alleged actual enemy unit for a bit. So that's what you get to see--for as long as it takes you to verify that it is indeed a valid enemy unit. You don't get to see "extra" stuff like SW, nor must you settle for only seeing a corner of the unit. You get to momentarily see the unit itself.
 

ds

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, CA
Country
llUnited States
I think some people might be using the 'show me a boot' philosophy based on the description used in Right of Inspection: A12.16 "..The required response to this demand is limited to showing only the information needed for verification.."

Also, the INTENT (that dam word again!) behind revealing a unit for a land mine attack verification, seems pretty well explained in A12.11 by the phrase: "to show that an actual force exists". Again, showing a boot would verify that an 'actual force exists'.

However, our group has agreed to not make such distinctions, and we always reveal an entire unit, purely for reasons of simplicity, of course...
 

Bocko

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Location
Dayton Ohio
Country
llUnited States
CONCEALMENT

So what you are saying is, that a non-hip concealed unit is being used as the LOS unit to an enemy unit to cause the lose of concealment has to momentarily revealed (if asked of the opponent) his units?

for example: a concealed unit nonassault moves into a woods hex and the only unit within 16 hexes is an enemy concealed unit. My initial thinking was the unit loses concealment. After futher comments, my thinking is that the unit only loses concealment if the enemy unit is willing to Momentarily Reveal its own units.

Is this correct or not?

Thanks
Chris
 

andy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Location
In an Ivory Tower
Country
llCanada
The bootcamp etc.

Hi Guys,

It would be good to get a ruling on what the minimum is: boot, the unit, or unit + SW. I know in A12.16 and CC, it requires that the strength factors be shown momentarily for attack odds calculation during ambush. Now is that just a "boot + strength" (full unit) or do you get to see SW?

I'm playing PB Night III. I allowed him to setup onboard cloaked (not sure if that's kosher), anyway he's running cloaking counters through strategic control hexes.

Can he claim hex control without momentary reveal? Does this turn the cloaking counter into a concealment stack? The rules say he can sit there and declare control at game end when the cloaking comes off. Or if I have HIPsters I can declare it if he's not in hex and hasn't search/mopped me.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Re: CONCEALMENT

Bocko said:
for example: a concealed unit nonassault moves into a woods hex and the only unit within 16 hexes is an enemy concealed unit. My initial thinking was the unit loses concealment. After futher comments, my thinking is that the unit only loses concealment if the enemy unit is willing to Momentarily Reveal its own units.

Is this correct or not?

Thanks
Chris
Yup, that is correct.

Again, note that you do not need to prove it's a real unit to keep him from gaining ? in the CC Phase. You do need to prove that it is real to remove ?

It's often a bit of a mind game as to what's dummies, what's real, and what the defender wants to reveal to strip ?. I tend to put a HS or two someplace with good LOS to a probable approach and will keep him guessing as to the identity of those big stacks.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Re: The bootcamp etc.

Andy said:
It would be good to get a ruling on what the minimum is: boot, the unit, or unit + SW. I know in A12.16 and CC, it requires that the strength factors be shown momentarily for attack odds calculation during ambush. Now is that just a "boot + strength" (full unit) or do you get to see SW?
Remember that is says reveal, and that the modification is momentarily, not partly. Compare this to other places where a unit must be revealed, as in A12.15:

A12.15 said:
...DEFENDER must immediately reveal at least one concealed unit in that Location and thereby force the moving unit back
.
Now, if you moved a HS into your opponent's Location, and he didn't remove the "?", but only moved it slightly to show a boot, and kept the "?" this way, would you be content and admit that he had revealed the unit?
I guess not.
The same argument goes for A12.14, the difference is that the unit is revealed only for a short time. There is BTW a Q&A asking if the momentarily revealed unit's SW has to be revealed as well, and the answer is no.
I'm playing PB Night III. I allowed him to setup onboard cloaked (not sure if that's kosher), anyway he's running cloaking counters through strategic control hexes.
It is kosher if the PB CG rules defines him as the Scenario Attacker, even though he didn't enter all from offboard. If there is no such definition, he shouldn't be using cloaking at all.

Can he claim hex control without momentary reveal? Does this turn the cloaking counter into a concealment stack? The rules say he can sit there and declare control at game end when the cloaking comes off. Or if I have HIPsters I can declare it if he's not in hex and hasn't search/mopped me.
I don't have the PB rules available, but generally, control is something you either have or not, it doesn't matter what either player claim or think. So one player can enter a Location with a dummy unit, getting the opponent to think that he lost control without actually doing it. Similarily, a player can enter a building with a GO unit, stating that he got control, but then see at scenario end that there was a HIP enemy unit, meaning that his statement was wrong.

I'm most used to the RB CG. There you may place a control marker when you gain control of a Location. Thus if you enter a Location with a concealed or cloaked unit, you cannot mark it if you entered with a dummy (since you didn't gain control), but you may if it was a real unit. Its therefore best not to mark the control when using concealed/cloaked units to gain control so that you don't tell your opponent whether it was real units or not.

The last time I played a RB CG, we solved this by always placing control markers when unconcealed units gained control, but never when concealed/cloaked units gained control. We did note those Locations under question though, and when the concealed unit was later revealed, we marked the Locations if it was a real unit, but not if it was a dummy.
 

andy

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Location
In an Ivory Tower
Country
llCanada
Thanks Ole

Hi Ole,

Thanks for the clarification. So the Q&A says whole unit, not SW for momentary reveal. I also like your solution to the conceal/cloaked hex control problem.

Re: Cloaking in PB Night III. In reading the Ch. E. night rules (NRBH) I seem to remember something about scenario attacker getting equivalent cloaking counters to the number of offboard entry MMC. The PB rules for night II have a SSR saying as Scenario Attacker, Germans can setup onboard cloaked. This SSR is not present for night III leading me to believe that if the British Night III attackers setup on board, they do so concealed. I think they also have the option of setting up offboard under cloak (using entry hex).

Anyway we're both newbie rules lawyers and average 1.5 turns/4 hours. :)
 
Top