Concealed gun vs concealed target

[turlusiflu]

A concealed gun fires at a concealed target (no other units in LOS) and misses, rolling a 5 in the colored die.

In order to unconceal the gun, has the concealed target to momentarily or permanently reveal himself as a non dummy unit? Is it too late, he had to have been revealed before the resolution of the attack?

 

[ScottRomanowski]

A unit must momentarily reveal itself as a non-dummy unit to make the Gun lose concealment. A12.14:
"If the only Good Order enemy ground unit in LOS is itself concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), that enemy unit must completely forfeit its “?” momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his; the viewing unit’s momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained."

There's no race to see how fast you can roll dice in ASL *. Case G says the gun will lose concealment if in LOS of a Good Order unit, there is such a unit, so the gun loses concealment. Even if the gun hit and eliminated the target, the Gun still fired while there was a Good Order enemy unit in LOS, so the Gun would lose concealment. See the second EX in A12.14, "even if that fire had broken or eliminated the German squad".


* From this Q&A:
A8.3 Can a unit drop its concealment to void a possible Subsequent First Fire attack after the declaration to SFF has been announced by the Defending player?
A. No; ASL is not a race to see how fast one can roll the dice. [Jim McLeod to Perry Cocke, ASLML 26 Feb 2003]

 

[EagleIV]

A unit must momentarily reveal itself as a non-dummy unit to make the Gun lose concealment. A12.14:
"If the only Good Order enemy ground unit in LOS is itself concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), that enemy unit must completely forfeit its “?” momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his; the viewing unit’s momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained."

Note the unit isn't revealed just long enough to prove it is real, but long enough for your opponent to identify exactly what it is. I know someone who used to show you just the foot of someone to prove they were real without showing you the full unit.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

There's also this Q&A from Klas's v33 compilation:
A12.1 Say the two players have concealed stacks in LOS of each other, but out of LOS of all other stacks. Player A’s stack fires at player B’s stack. Now suppose there are real units in player B’s stack; the question is about the timing of player B’s decision. Is it:
(a) the decision must be made prior to the attack DR (as in: once the attack is resolved, the unit might no longer be in Good Order, so unable to strip concealment)
or
(b) the decision can be made after the DR for the attack is made, but before the attack is resolved (say, “if the attack results in No Effect, I’d rather keep the opponent in the dark about my unit; but if I’m going to be revealed, I’d prefer the opponent to lose his concealment”)
A. (b). [K33]

 

[sdennis]

Note the unit isn't revealed just long enough to prove it is real, but long enough for your opponent to identify exactly what it is. I know someone who used to show you just the foot of someone to prove they were real without showing you the full unit.

Klautky used to do that! "I will show you a boot!"

But honestly when we play "This guy is real" is usually sufficient... helps with fog of war and less counter shuffling IMHO.

 

[Paul John]

But honestly when we play "This guy is real" is usually sufficient... helps with fog of war and less counter shuffling IMHO.

The rule is clear that EagleIV is right, but I agree with you 100%. This might be my favorite house rule. If I ever run a tournament, by gum I will make this an SSR!

 

[sdennis]

The rule is clear that EagleIV is right, but I agree with you 100%. This might be my favorite house rule. If I ever run a tournament, by gum I will make this an SSR!

Yeah I never said he was wrong. The dictionary definition of "reveal" is unambiguous even for a lawyer I would hope!
Just pointing out a potentially friendlier approach that will slightly speed up the game too.
If I was playing someone new, I would likely say "this guy is real, would you like to see him?"

 

[von Marwitz]

But honestly when we play "This guy is real" is usually sufficient... helps with fog of war and less counter shuffling IMHO.

I prefer this way as well.

von Marwitz

 

[zgrose]

I prefer this way as well.

von Marwitz

I usually say, "it's a 4-4-7" or something like that since that's more like a 'complete forfeit' than "it's a real unit".

 

[ibncalb]

I usually say, "it's a 4-4-7" or something like that since that's more like a 'complete forfeit' than "it's a real unit".

I beleive that's how it should be played.

It's a slight benefit to the moving player who gets a bit of Intel out of losing his concealment. It can be leveraged too by putting a HS in a steeple with a few dummies. He strips concealement and everyone preumes he has the HMG.

 

[ibncalb]

I had an interesting situation recently.

I had a big stack, concealed, with possibly a tight LOS to a juicy enemy stack.

To check LOS I transferred a SW in my stack. This forced us to check the LOS from the enemy stack which functioned as a free LOS check for my Prep.

We searched to see if my opponent could choose not to check LOS for the concealment loss activity but we think it is mandatory.

 

[Paul John]

Yeah I never said he was wrong.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. I put that part in for emphasis only. You were clear enough.

 

[von Marwitz]

I had an interesting situation recently.

I had a big stack, concealed, with possibly a tight LOS to a juicy enemy stack.

To check LOS I transferred a SW in my stack. This forced us to check the LOS from the enemy stack which functioned as a free LOS check for my Prep.

We searched to see if my opponent could choose not to check LOS for the concealment loss activity but we think it is mandatory.

Nice idea.

von Marwitz

 

[zgrose]

AFAIK, stripping concealment is a voluntary action, not mandatory


A12.121 & A12.14
Assume a Friendly “?” unit performs a concealment-loss activity in Open Ground. A Good Order enemy MMC is in clear LOS to the Friendly “?”, which can be determined by the naked eye without aid of a thread. Is the enemy MMC required to challenge the move and force the Friendly unit to lose concealment?
A. No.

 

[sdennis]

AFAIK, stripping concealment is a voluntary action, not mandatory


A12.121 & A12.14
Assume a Friendly “?” unit performs a concealment-loss activity in Open Ground. A Good Order enemy MMC is in clear LOS to the Friendly “?”, which can be determined by the naked eye without aid of a thread. Is the enemy MMC required to challenge the move and force the Friendly unit to lose concealment?
A. No.

I agree, the more classic case is you have dummies but it's early in the game and that initial half squad starts running around, I don't need to give away who is real or not so easily...

 

[Philippe D.]

It's a slight benefit to the moving player who gets a bit of Intel out of losing his concealment. It can be leveraged too by putting a HS in a steeple with a few dummies. He strips concealement and everyone preumes he has the HMG.

If there's a steeple and a HMG, I'm going to smoke the hell out of it even if the setup shows no units (provided the opponent has some HIP, say). Mostly, I'm not taking any chances.

(Barring WP, the Smoke will only rise up to level 2 and won't reach the Steeple, but fire out of it to lower levels will still get the +3 smoke - just not +4. Which will turn -2 FFMO/FFNAM shots into +2 - good enough for me most of the time)

 

[ibncalb]

If there's a steeple and a HMG, I'm going to smoke the hell out of it even if the setup shows no units (provided the opponent has some HIP, say). Mostly, I'm not taking any chances.

(Barring WP, the Smoke will only rise up to level 2 and won't reach the Steeple, but fire out of it to lower levels will still get the +3 smoke - just not +4. Which will turn -2 FFMO/FFNAM shots into +2 - good enough for me most of the time)

I agree but most players have a hypnotic focus on smoking the most obvious position.

This, plus a +2 case K can often waste an opponent's SMOKE.

 

[Vinnie]

I agree but most players have a hypnotic focus on smoking the most obvious position.

This, plus a +2 case K can often waste an opponent's SMOKE.

Often it will but so many guns have a smoke number of 7 or less that if it uses up the smoke, it would not have hit anyway. I've seen many players use a mortar to gain acquisition for a smoke shot and pointed out to them that it was daft as the number needed to have smoke was less than the number needed to hit without acq. Effectively your giving your opponent an extra SAN chance or an opportunity to break your own weapon.