CC & Ambush

Juan SantaX

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
186
Reaction score
65
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
Something very basic but I dont know if I have played it badly from the begining...

One concealed 447 squad ambush 2x467 squads.

It attacks first just one 467

a) it rolls a 4, kills it
b) it rolls a 5, CR it

Do the 447 lose the concealement?

I think at a) it doesn´t lose the concealement, as A11.4 says"The side with an Ambush advantage may also maintain any concealment it has in CC until it attacks without eliminating/capturing its target. "

I think at b) it hasn´t eliminated its target so it will lose concealement....

And, its the point that make me doubt, I´m not sure if it will lose the concealement after the attack because there is a 467 over there that wasnt target of the 447 attack....
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I think it loses concealment, and it receives the attack of the other unit. Target here is ALL enemy ambushed, and if not ALL of them killed/eliminated there is a melee with unconcealed units.
IMHO It has to attack and Kill all of them to stay concealed..

Other option is not attacking at all and stay concealed, after CC resolution may move away, or move away before to roll any CC attack -possible if ambush occurs-.
 

Juan SantaX

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
186
Reaction score
65
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
I know your rule knowledge is much better than mine, Miguel, but I think that doesnt keeps with A11.4 and 11.12. ("...Units may attack any unit or combination of units in the same Location [EXC: SMC; 11.14], so long as no unit attacks or is attacked [EXC: Infantry OVR (4.152) or CC vs/by a vehicle] more than once per CCPh. All units in the hex do not have to be attacked, nor do all units have to make an attack...")

I think the other 467, even ambushed, isn´t a target of the 447 attack...,

Are you sure?

Anyway, I want to be sure, because its something so basic that I´m a bit ashamed of asking it...
 
Last edited:

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
2,045
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I agree with Juan.
A11.4 only speaks of the units that the concealed unit attacks ("its target"), not all units in the Location.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
If it attack it lose concealment except if everyone there is killed because Melee is initiated and no unit may be concealed in a melee.. I keep thinking targets include all the enemy units ambushed even if the unit decide to attack only one of them to have a better ratio to kill.
Anyway a Q&A may resolve this question.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
2,045
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If the unit remains concealed, it is not held in Melee.
A11.4 says : "The side with an Ambush advantage may also maintain any concealment it has in CC until it attacks without eliminating/capturing its target."
"Its target" doesn't seem to include the "everyone" that you are speaking about.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
1,671
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
If the unit remains concealed, it is not held in Melee.
A11.4 says : "The side with an Ambush advantage may also maintain any concealment it has in CC until it attacks without eliminating/capturing its target."
"Its target" doesn't seem to include the "everyone" that you are speaking about.
The other 467 can attack back vs. the concealed 447 at 1 : 2 and end up getting a CR result, that will strip the ? and then Melee will ensue. (If it "misses" then no Melee and "?" remains intact, or the 447 could withdraw and possibly retain ? (i.e. moves into non-OG.)
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
it’s absolutely gamey to decide attack only a unit to keep concealment receiving halved attack from the other units in the CC location.. I suppose you also add +1 to the halved attack..
the only difference between ambush and normal CC is that if enemies are eliminated the concealmemt is not lost. Other issues are identical to other CCs.. ie any attacker loses concealment and may be attacked at full FP in return.
As usual sending a Q&A is the best way to resolve this question. We have sent one to resolve a question about double attack with fire lanes.. reading exact words allows a second attack but it looks excesively gamey to be true.. I think exactly the same here. Target includes all enemy units even if only attacking one of them, because ambusher may decide to attack all of them. IMHO Ambush units are not invisible except if cleaning the location of all enemy units.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
571
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
The Concealment Table agrees with Juan as well:

[Concealment is lost if the unit] "attacks in CC [EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures its target; A11.4]"​
This seems reasonable to me. Presumably all 20 Germans aren't massed within 10 feet of each other. The ambushers waited for the right moment to escape one enemy squad's immediate notice. The remaining Germans will still get to attack back, albeit at a concealed 4-4-7.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
1,671
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
it’s absolutely gamey to decide attack only a unit to keep concealment receiving halved attack from the other units in the CC location.. I suppose you also add +1 to the halved attack..
the only difference between ambush and normal CC is that if enemies are eliminated the concealmemt is not lost. Other issues are identical to other CCs.. ie any attacker loses concealment and may be attacked at full FP in return.
As usual sending a Q&A is the best way to resolve this question. We have sent one to resolve a question about double attack with fire lanes.. reading exact words allows a second attack but it looks excesively gamey to be true.. I think exactly the same here. Target includes all enemy units even if only attacking one of them, because ambusher may decide to attack all of them. IMHO Ambush units are not invisible except if cleaning the location of all enemy units.
It is not gamey at all...it is a tactical decision. Juan needs 2 CVP to win, and this is his last advance phase, he will also loose the game if you score 2 CVP. He advances into CC, win the ambush elects to take on only 1 of your 467s...and kills it...he now must suffer the 1:2 by you...you inflict only a CR...game over he wins....you miss your attack he withdraws game over...he wins. (I could show you other tactical reason to do it...pretend no game winning situations as above, but he does the same thing and now withdraws past you ...say he entered from the 12 o'clock position...he withdraws past you out the six o'clock position...why? because he has another unit back up at the 12 o'clock position and he now is setting up to encircle you by fire...you are also likely to die for failure to rout too...) So the point is don't see this as a gamey tactic or foolish at all...

{Follow up....say he fails to kill the 1x 467...he now gets attacked back at 1: 1 +1...that is not very good odds for you as the attacker...you fail to kill him, he now withdraws and sets up the encirclement and FTR potential noted above...so again do not see his move as gamey it is tactical and depends on the situation on the ground, but do not dismiss it outright..}

Yes, you do add +1 on the halved attack...

He MAY decide to attack all of them...if he declared that as the target, then he would loose "?" because he failed to kill both 467s...but that is NOT the "target" he declared he declared just one "target". Words having meaning apply them as they are meant to be applied. A11.4 does not say when ambush occurs all units must be attacked...even the basic CC rules do not say that all units must be attacked.
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
The gamey thing is being attacked halved in CC if deciding to attack in CC.. the key here is the definition of the target of the CC for concealment purposes, just the attacked unit or the full stack of enemy units. That this target for concealment purposes is depending on attacker best option is what is clearly gamey because it’s supposing other enemies there are non-existent or absolutely blinded?
 
Last edited:

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
2,045
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Using the game's mechanics at their best is a show of skill.
I don't see it as being gamey in the present case, because the rules seem clear and that the manoeuvre is not exploiting a loophole or an ambiguity.
 

Juan SantaX

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
186
Reaction score
65
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
But if you kill your target....

Anyway, you know that isn´t easy for us to catch the proper meaning with english, even if we learned it reading wargames rules !! Maibe you are right, but I think my intend isnt gamey, Miguel.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Of course, not gamey intent..
Suppose a 426 CX and a 628 with leader.. your option is attack the 426 CX and receive a halved attack from 628 and leader with +1 for ambush before to move away after the CC resolution.. IMHO any attack remove concealment except if no enemy units survive the ambush.. just my opinion of course.
I’m sure it would be perfectly explained if written in a correct Spanish 😁
 

Juan SantaX

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
186
Reaction score
65
Location
Sevilla
Country
llSpain
Of course, not gamey intent..
Suppose a 426 CX and a 628 with leader.. your option is attack the 426 CX and receive a halved attack from 628 and leader with +1 for ambush before to move away after the CC resolution.. IMHO any attack remove concealment except if no enemy units survive the ambush.. just my opinion of course.
I’m sure it would be perfectly explained if written in a correct Spanish 😁
🤣:LOL:🤣

If I was a soldier at Stalingrad (or a Spaniard at Krasny Bor ) fighting for my life, I will throw the stick granade to the mass of conscripts first... then start praying to have luck and a fast end!!!
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
1,671
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
The gamey thing is being attacked halved in CC if deciding to attack in CC.. the key here is the definition of the target of the CC for concealment purposes, just the attacked unit or the full stack of enemy units. That this target for concealment purposes is depending on attacker best option is what is clearly gamey because it’s supposing other enemies there are non-existent or absolutely blinded?
It is not gamey at all. It is applying what the rules state and what words mean. You might not like it, but there it is. It is the application of the meaning of the word, a "target" is the specific aim point of a weapon system or attack. Juan was NOT required to attack all the units in the location. He selected one target not two.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
1,671
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Of course, not gamey intent..
Suppose a 426 CX and a 628 with leader.. your option is attack the 426 CX and receive a halved attack from 628 and leader with +1 for ambush before to move away after the CC resolution.. IMHO any attack remove concealment except if no enemy units survive the ambush.. just my opinion of course.
I’m sure it would be perfectly explained if written in a correct Spanish 😁
No pongas palabras en my boca! I said is was "tactical decision" which means it depends on the situation, you situation above is an entirely different decision. Basta ya.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,135
Reaction score
250
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Sorry a lot, not pretending to be “maleducado”.

Only looking for an example about a possible outcome using this reading of the rules where the “strange” effect is clearer. it’s really difficult for me to find exact words to explain my POV in your language.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,122
Reaction score
1,671
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I understand your position...you believe everyone in the location is the target, and thus the ambusher looses concealment b/c he failed to kill the other 467. What I, Robin and Binchois (and Juan) believe is that the target limited to ONLY the unit(s) declared by the attacker that will be attacked by that CC DR, and Juan declared only 1 of them and the other one has nothing to do with what the rule is about (you can set your reality argument aside) since it was not a target. I believe that our position is supported by exactly what the rules and the Chapter Divider point out.
 
Top