CC & Ambush

[klasmalmstrom]

The Concealment Table, Case A says:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures its target; A11.4]"

In the 1st Edtion version of this table it said:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures all defenders; A11.4]"

The 1st Edition rule - A11.4 - said "its target" - so my guess would be that a Q&A was submitted sometime and the wording on the Concealment Table was changed in the 2nd Edition to match the rule.

 

[Eagle4ty]

The Concealment Table, Case A says:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures its target; A11.4]"

In the 1st Edtion version of this table it said:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures all defenders; A11.4]"

The 1st Edition rule - A11.4 - said "its target" - so my guess would be that a Q&A was submitted sometime and the wording on the Concealment Table was changed in the 2nd Edition to match the rule.

Great catch, I'll have to ensure I make the change on my 1st Ed. charts which I still use occasionally.?

 

[bendizoid]

Just played a game at ASLOK where there was a dicey ambush roll coming up, I made sure to block the best withdrawal hexes with leaders and 1/2 squads. Thank my stars because after the ambush he had nowhere to go and was stuck in the hex.

 

[bendizoid]

Not many things are as deadly as a ambush with a crafty withdrawal, especially with the late war Germans. A snake eyes in CC is about the nastiest game turning event in ASL.

 

[mgmasl]

The Concealment Table, Case A says:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures its target; A11.4]"

In the 1st Edtion version of this table it said:
"[EXC: an Ambush that eliminates/captures all defenders; A11.4]"

The 1st Edition rule - A11.4 - said "its target" - so my guess would be that a Q&A was submitted sometime and the wording on the Concealment Table was changed in the 2nd Edition to match the rule.

It looks we have a quasi-official answer here.. A very good news for Japanese at the jungle. I believe an official Q&A may be the next step.. Curiously there is no mention to “target” anywhere in CC rule except in 11.4.. ATTACKS is the word used and -being and old player playing a lot less than time ago- I have the “All Defenders” written on my mind. I also remember LMG added to CC attacks..
I dislike this concept, but I dislike even more allowing Field Promotion to MMC rolling snakes in CC when attacking with leaders, or allowing friendly units to be added to the sequential first prisioners attack to get a first free attack vs all units in the location -and not only the prisioner vs its guards CC attack-.
I’m sure I will not include this one in my “rules to be changed” list..

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Ending up in CC with Concealed Japanese and/or with Prisoners is a dangerous proposition for sure.

 

[Stewart]

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.

Why would it lose ? it wasn't attacked on the IFT to cause a MC.
Something else?

 

[Stewart]

I dislike this concept, but I dislike even more allowing Field Promotion to MMC rolling snakes in CC when attacking with leaders, or allowing friendly units to be added to the sequential first prisioners attack to get a first free attack vs all units in the location -and not only the prisioner vs its guards CC attack-.
I’m sure I will not include this one in my “rules to be changed” list..

Yeah the Prisoners in CC specifically state the PRISONER eliminates enemies....and fellow MMC's that are armed are NOT prisoners and shouldn't get the FIRST strike....that's weak AF....
I haven't seen a conversation as to why.... Its just weak...

 

[mgmasl]

Why would it lose ? it wasn't attacked on the IFT to cause a MC.
Something else?

Because it attacks enemy units in the same location as other enemy unit.. it supposed the other enemies see nothing at all.. sometimes a hex is a very small space and sometimes an excesively big one...?

 

[Robin Reeve]

As the ambushing concealed unit may miss its attack and thus lose concealment, the game system takes in account the fact that it can be noticed by other units in the Location.
There is no automatic conservation of the concealment status.
Now, one may always want to squeeze in a reality argument to feed one's frustration about the abstractions of the game. But I do believe that it is much ado about nothing.

 

[Juan SantaX]

At least I will never forgot that rule, and will seek more often the C3

(Concealed Close Combat...)

 

[Stewart]

Its an AMBUSH...their target was slaughtered without notice..and they DO notice something...the ?ment stack.

As the ambushing concealed unit may miss its attack and thus lose concealment, the game system takes in account the fact that it can be noticed by other units in the Location.
There is no automatic conservation of the concealment status.

Ambush with infiltration.....

 

[Eagle4ty]

Its an AMBUSH...their target was slaughtered without notice..and they DO notice something...the ?ment stack.

Ambush with infiltration.....

Which is actually ex-filtration!