Attacking From Smoked Hex to Smoked Hex

Dagney

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
34
Reaction score
4
Location
Canberra
Country
llAustralia
Hi,

currently playing a scenario in which the Germans have called down an OBA smoke barrage on the Soviet front line. There is a concealed Soviet squad in a building hex, and two German squads, one with a DC, in an Adjacent road hex. Both hexes are Smoked from the OBA (+3 each).

I understand that smoke does not prevent Searching (A12.152) even if Smoke is present in both the Searchers hex (+4 hinderance) and the Searchees hex (+3 hinderance). So the German unit without DC could Search and remove the Soviet concealment counter. The Soviet squad could then roll to attempt to inflict Search Casualties iaw A12.154 - even though neither unit could actually see the other to shoot. Is my assumption correct?

So, now that an Enemy unit has been revealed in the Adjacent hex, what could the German squad with the DC do? Could they:

a. Shoot - no, +7 total Hindrance so the enemy unit is not Known. Could they Area fire at the hex?
b. Place the DC in the enemy location iaw A23.3? What would the enemy be attacked at - full or half? Could the enemy DFF/DF at them as they placed it?

The example in A23.3 indicates that a Fortified location can be breached by a DC even if both hexes are Smoked as above, and that the +6 hindrance would have no additional impact on the enemy squad.

Any assistance appreciated.

Apologies if this has been dealt with in another thread. I searched but couldn't find anything.
 

Philippe R

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
Location
FRANCE
Country
llFrance
Classic use of Smoke : to deny Visibility between adjacentes hexes (+ 3 Hindrance in each hexes = total 6: no LOS as per B.10)
Nevertheless, these hexes are ADJACENT (see Index) even wihout LOS due (solely) to Smoke.
ADJACENT-related activities (such as Searching, Placing a DC) are therefore unhindered, whereas LOS-Related Activities (Firing, LOS of ?, Rout, DM) are restricted.
So if your Searcher roll the good dice, the enemy unit is Revealed (even if no LOS exists. It's like a Mopping Up: no need to see all the Building Locations). Search casualty may occur.
No Firing between the hexes, even in AREA (No LOS). But it's possible to place a DC (the bearer will even not lose its concealment !!) and the DC will attack normally.

Even if it's not wealthy elsewhere, it's wise/encourage to smoke in ASL !!
 

buser333

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
722
Reaction score
224
Location
central WI
Classic use of Smoke : to deny Visibility between adjacentes hexes (+ 3 Hindrance in each hexes = total 6: no LOS as per B.10)
Nevertheless, these hexes are ADJACENT (see Index) even wihout LOS due (solely) to Smoke.
ADJACENT-related activities (such as Searching, Placing a DC) are therefore unhindered, whereas LOS-Related Activities (Firing, LOS of ?, Rout, DM) are restricted.
So if your Searcher roll the good dice, the enemy unit is Revealed (even if no LOS exists. It's like a Mopping Up: no need to see all the Building Locations). Search casualty may occur.
No Firing between the hexes, even in AREA (No LOS). But it's possible to place a DC (the bearer will even not lose its concealment !!) and the DC will attack normally.

Even if it's not wealthy elsewhere, it's wise/encourage to smoke in ASL !!
I have to disagree. The last sentence of A23.3 says "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21) {EXC: Cave; G11.8331}.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,319
Reaction score
2,804
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I have to disagree. The last sentence of A23.3 says "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21) {EXC: Cave; G11.8331}.
Correct - no DC placement either.
 

Philippe R

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
Location
FRANCE
Country
llFrance
So is the A23.3 example cited by the OP wrong?
Maybe.. I reckon there is some confusion between the main body of A23.3 (which refers to ADJACENT hexes) and the last sentence which refers to adjacent hexes without LOS (such as RowHouses Hexes).
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,662
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
So is the A23.3 example cited by the OP wrong?
No Busser & Klas are incorrect. Since adjacent is more general statement of a condition and ADJACENT is more specific one a DC can still be placed in ADJACENT Locations {See the first sentence of A23.3 and A.8} but not necessarily in adjacent Locations. That is to say for example if a unit with a DC was in a higher elevation hex with a Cliff hexside and it potential target was in an adjacent lower elevation hex across that cliff hexside and both hexes were enshrouded in +3 smoke, the DC couldn't be placed/thrown on the lower elevation unit. The same would be true in the instance of a unit in an upper level of a multi-story building attempting to place/throw a DC to a lower level of that building where they may be adjacent but not ADJACENT. Is the A23.3 EX wrong? No it is simply a clarification for last sentence of rule 23.3 which in and of itself is poorly presented and misleading unless one reads the example.
 

peterd1973

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
109
Reaction score
52
Location
Cleveland, OH
First name
Peter
Country
llUnited States
From the index:
"ADJACENT (Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably--ignoring any enemy presence--advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance."
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,724
Reaction score
5,812
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
From the index:
"ADJACENT (Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably--ignoring any enemy presence--advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance."
True. Per the last sentence of A23.3, "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21)". Thus while ADJACENT ignores SMOKE for determining if there is LOS, placing/throwing DCs seemingly does not.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,662
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
True. Per the last sentence of A23.3, "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21)". Thus while ADJACENT ignores SMOKE for determining if there is LOS, placing/throwing DCs seemingly does not.

JR
The last sentence of the rule 23.3 states the limitations of placing/throwing a DC but is not all inclusive in its statement alone. The examples clarify the implementation of the rule which allows the placement of the DC as long as the units are ADJACENT, regardless of smoke, there is no room for argument there as the example {...If the unconcealed 5-2-7 were merely not Known to the 4-6-7 (e.g., due to +3 Smoke DRM in both Locations [still ADJACENT]...} clearly lays that out (unless the example/clarification is incorrect).
 

buser333

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
722
Reaction score
224
Location
central WI
The last sentence of the rule 23.3 states the limitations of placing/throwing a DC but is not all inclusive in its statement alone. The examples clarify the implementation of the rule which allows the placement of the DC as long as the units are ADJACENT, regardless of smoke, there is no room for argument there as the example {...If the unconcealed 5-2-7 were merely not Known to the 4-6-7 (e.g., due to +3 Smoke DRM in both Locations [still ADJACENT]...} clearly lays that out (unless the example/clarification is incorrect).
I agree that does seem to be the case here. I remember playing a night scenario with 0 NVR and thinking I could place a DC, then reading that last sentence of A23.3 thinking I could not, then reading "something" later thinking I could (must have been the example you just cited). Though I hope I am wrong, as it does not feel right that reciprocity would not apply.
 
Last edited:

fanatic+1

Ryan Kent
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
314
Reaction score
37
Location
San Rafael, CA
Country
llUnited States
The last sentence of the rule 23.3 states the limitations of placing/throwing a DC but is not all inclusive in its statement alone. The examples clarify the implementation of the rule which allows the placement of the DC as long as the units are ADJACENT, regardless of smoke, there is no room for argument there as the example {...If the unconcealed 5-2-7 were merely not Known to the 4-6-7 (e.g., due to +3 Smoke DRM in both Locations [still ADJACENT]...} clearly lays that out (unless the example/clarification is incorrect).
Perhaps the apparent discrepancy between the rule and the example is because the example is dealing with a breach attempt.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,978
Reaction score
3,265
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
So, to put it in a nutshell - per A23.3:

ADJACENT but no LOS: Placement or Throwing of DC ist possible.
Adjacent but no LOS: Placement or Throwing of DC is NOT possible.

Did I get this right?

von Marwitz
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Correct - no DC placement either.
I remember a Q&A allowing placement of a DC into and adjacent Rowhouse location across a black bar.. if the Q&A exits and this is possible this placement is done to a hex ADJACENT but out of LOS.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
A23.3 & B23.71
Can a unit with a DC place it from ground level of a rowhouse to an ADJACENT ground level location across the rowhouse hexside?
A. Yes
Does the defender where the DC is placed have any shots at the placing unit (assuming the rowhouse bar blocks LOS between the two locations)?
A. Yes, unless the attacker is trying to breach the rowhouse wall.
If so, does the attacker have to declare which vertex he is placing the DC from? A. Yes. {4}
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,662
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
A23.3 & B23.71
Can a unit with a DC place it from ground level of a rowhouse to an ADJACENT ground level location across the rowhouse hexside?
A. Yes
Does the defender where the DC is placed have any shots at the placing unit (assuming the rowhouse bar blocks LOS between the two locations)?
A. Yes, unless the attacker is trying to breach the rowhouse wall.
If so, does the attacker have to declare which vertex he is placing the DC from? A. Yes. {4}
I wouldn't have guessed that one as correct but after thinking about it the Location can be ADJACENT. However having expressed my initial doubts, I think the example clearly shows that placement/trowing a DC from an ADJACENT Location is possible regardless of the LOS due to SMOKE (or in the case of the rowhouse, the black bar) but placement/Trowing a DC is not an option if the units are only adjacent with no LOS (e.g. from differing adjacent levels of a building hex with no stairwells).
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Maybe it’s needed some clearification about DC placement vs unit out of LOS..
Thinking about the answer for the Rowhouse case defender is in LOS at the exact moment in which the DC is placed so may be fired by the defender.. this is not the case with the smoke. If using this interpretation both answers may be valid ones. Ie, no placement for out of LOS except if temporary in LOS at the moment of the placement..

Any thoughts looking for a clearification will be welcome
 
Last edited:

Philippe R

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
Location
FRANCE
Country
llFrance
I remember a Q&A allowing placement of a DC into and adjacent Rowhouse location across a black bar.. if the Q&A exits and this is possible this placement is done to a hex ADJACENT but out of LOS.
You cannot place the DC "across" the Black bar : your unit needs to choose an hexspine outside of the building, from where it attempts to place the DC (3 MF).. and suffers a potentiel PBF@-2 shot.
Clearly Rowhouses Hexes are adjacent, but without LOS, so not ADJACENT.
The unit can also attempt to breach the Rowhouse bar, but then the DC FP are halved for Area Fire against any unit behind the bar (if this one is detroyed).
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,079
Reaction score
1,662
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
You cannot place the DC "across" the Black bar : your unit needs to choose an hexspine outside of the building, from where it attempts to place the DC (3 MF).. and suffers a potentiel PBF@-2 shot.
Clearly Rowhouses Hexes are adjacent, but without LOS, so not ADJACENT.
The unit can also attempt to breach the Rowhouse bar, but then the DC FP are halved for Area Fire against any unit behind the bar (if this one is detroyed).
However, note the DC would not be halved again if the defending unit were also concealed behind the rowhouse bar and you were attempting a breach (the same is true if placed from a +3 smoke location into a +3 smoke location on a concealed unit - it would only be halved once).
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,319
Reaction score
2,804
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
However, note the DC would not be halved again if the defending unit were also concealed behind the rowhouse bar and you were attempting a breach... ... - it would only be halved once).
It would be halved twice for the attack on the defending units if they are concealed, from the A23.3 example:

"..Furthermore, the 4-6-7 could instead attempt to breach the X5-Y6 hexside of the Fortified Building Location (B23.9221 and B23.711); normal FP applies to the Breach attempt and Area Fire to the attack vs the 5-2-7, with Fortified Building TEM applying to them both. A NMC result on the Breach attempt (30 FP with +4 TEM) Breaches the building hexside. An Original DR of 9 would be just enough to create a Breach but the 12 FP attack vs the 5-2-7 would have no effect. If the 5-2-7 were concealed when the DC was operably Placed, the Breach attempt would be unaffected but the resulting attack vs the 5-2-7 would be halved again to 7.5 FP (6 FP column)..."
 
Top