Concealed, Snap-Dash!

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
333
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Gentlemen:

I am using ASL 181 (Gavin Take) as a teaching scenario to help a fellow Forumite relearn the ASLRB. A complex situation arose, and I don't want to steer a guy the wrong way! Here's the situation:

Concealed U.S. Paratrooper in U2 wants to reach W3 while avoiding an obvious, concealed kill-stack in U8. In retrospect, he should have bypassed around T1, but I guess wanted to give this challenger something really complex to consider...

7393

The American Dashes into V2 en route to W3. The Germans decide to make a Snap Shot as the unit crosses the hedge and - surprisingly! - the shot is clear (even though the VASL string says otherwise - Trust But Verify, damn it!). He uses 8FP with a -1 leader (4-6-7 plus MMG)! But what happens? Here how I called the shot:

The Germans take the shot at 1/8th firepower (halved thrice) due to the combined effects of U.S. concealment, Snap Shot and Dash. These two rules guide my interpretation:
  • A12.141 "A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result."
  • A8.15 EXample demonstrates that a Snap Shot and Dash does result in quartered firepower.
The range is calculated to V2 since a Snap Shot target is assumed to be in the hex entered (and if effected by the shot, the U.S. remains would be left in V2). ...And so the shot was taken at 1FP with a -1 modifier from the leader (FFMO/FFNAM never applies to a Snap Shot and the hedge has no effect). Of course, he rolls snakes, so the squad received a K/1 blow, and the resulting 3-3-7 is left pinned in V2 (just passed his 1MC).

The MMG maintains ROF, but there can only be one shot from a firer for each Snap Shot opportunity. No further shots taken.

All good so far? I think so, but am curious if there are contrary opinions. More troubling to me is the following:

Regarding concealment, we have been trying to follow the ASLRB literally rather than to add some commonly-employed "house rules" just yet. But several problems arise that are relevant to this situation, IMO:
  1. The EXception to A6.11 implies that a free LOS check can be made even before declaring a shot (a rule which I typically prefer to modify: "No LOS check before declaring shot!"). But employing A6.11 comes against A12.141 which states that a Snap Shot opportunity cannot be used to strip concealment. Thus I allowed the German no free check, and his shot suffered the additional FP halving.
  2. Next, the Concealment Table confirms that a unit which takes a shot within enemy LOS itself loses concealment. But if a unit attempts a blocked shot, and it is otherwise out of LOS to all enemy units, it should not lose concealment. I've always played it that way, but does my opinion have consensus?
  3. Furthermore, my understanding is that when the non-assault moving target and the firer are the only opposing units with LOS to each other, the shot will strip concealment to both (obviously only considering similar situations - not cases using HIP Guns, Night, some PTO situations, etc...) - even when the target is eliminated (that brief, pre-DR "interaction" between two opponents representing the instant of concealment loss - A12.14: "When a unit loses concealment... its "?" is removed immediately"). Thoughts?
  4. And finally, however one interprets the above, a Snap Shot LOS remains a non-Concealment loss situation (unless the target suffers a PTC or worse)... In the end, my primary question: Will the German units that fired (including leader) end this attack still concealed? Will the remaining HS (now pinned in V2 and still out-of-LOS) remain concealed?
My conclusion was that the shot itself always reveals a firing unit to its target (barring exceptional cases as mentioned above), and that the K/1 result un-conceals the remaining HS. This certainly seems likeliest, but - as you can see from the above - the RB "as is" makes it a little hard to verify precisely (unless I am missing something...which is why we ask these questions here!)
 
Last edited:

A_T_Great

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
193
Reaction score
78
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
I always thought that if you moved within LOS of the enemy you lose concealment. The hex U2 is in the enemy LOS, and you are using non assault movement so you would lose concealment, the instant you started your move.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
4,158
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I always thought that if you moved within LOS of the enemy you lose concealment. The hex U2 is in the enemy LOS, and you are using non assault movement so you would lose concealment, the instant you started your move.
I'm afraid that's not the way it's played. You must expend MF using non-assault movement in LOS. The unit expends no MF in U2, and so is not "moving" in LOS.

JR
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,469
Reaction score
1,507
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Gentlemen:

I am using ASL 181 (Gavin Take) as a teaching scenario to help a fellow Forumite relearn the ASLRB. A complex situation arose, and I don't want to steer a guy the wrong way! Here's the situation:

Concealed U.S. Paratrooper in U2 wants to reach W3 while avoiding an obvious, concealed kill-stack in U8. In retrospect, he should have bypassed around T1, but I guess wanted to give this challenger something really complex to consider...

View attachment 7393

The American Dashes into V2 en route to W3. The Germans decide to make a Snap Shot as the unit crosses the hedge and - surprisingly! - the shot is clear (even though the VASL string says otherwise - Trust But Verify, damn it!). He uses 8FP with a -1 leader (4-6-7 plus MMG)! But what happens? Here how I called the shot:

The Germans take the shot at 1/8th firepower (halved thrice) due to the combined effects of U.S. concealment, Snap Shot and Dash. These two rules guide my interpretation:
  • A12.141 "A Snap Shot attack opportunity is not sufficient to cause the moving unit to lose its concealment unless the attack generates a "PTC" or better result."
  • A8.15 EXample demonstrates that a Snap Shot and Dash does result in quartered firepower.
The range is calculated to V2 since a Snap Shot target is assumed to be in the hex entered (and if effected by the shot, the U.S. remains would be left in V2). ...And so the shot was taken at 1FP with a -1 modifier from the leader (FFMO/FFNAM never applies to a Snap Shot and the hedge has no effect). Of course, he rolls snakes, so the squad received a K/1 blow, and the resulting 3-3-7 is left pinned in V2 (just passed his 1MC).

The MMG maintains ROF, but there can only be one shot from a firer for each Snap Shot opportunity. No further shots taken.

All good so far? I think so, but am curious if there are contrary opinions. More troubling to me is the following:

Regarding concealment, we have been trying to follow the ASLRB literally rather than to add some commonly-employed "house rules" just yet. But several problems arise that are relevant to this situation, IMO:
  1. The EXception to A6.11 implies that a free LOS check can be made even before declaring a shot (a rule which I typically prefer to modify: "No LOS check before declaring shot!"). But employing A6.11 comes against A12.141 which states that a Snap Shot opportunity cannot be used to strip concealment. Thus I allowed the German no free check, and his shot suffered the additional FP halving.
  2. Next, the Concealment Table confirms that a unit which takes a shot within enemy LOS itself loses concealment. But if a unit attempts a blocked shot, and it is otherwise out of LOS to all enemy units, it should not lose concealment. I've always played it that way, but does my opinion have consensus?
  3. Furthermore, my understanding is that when the non-assault moving target and the firer are the only opposing units with LOS to each other, the shot will strip concealment to both (obviously only considering similar situations - not cases using HIP Guns, Night, some PTO situations, etc...) - even when the target is eliminated (that brief, pre-DR "interaction" between two opponents representing the instant of concealment loss - A12.14: "When a unit loses concealment... its "?" is removed immediately"). Thoughts?
  4. And finally, however one interprets the above, a Snap Shot LOS remains a non-Concealment loss situation (unless the target suffers a PTC or worse)... In the end, my primary question: Will the German units that fired (including leader) end this attack still concealed? Will the remaining HS (now pinned in V2 and still out-of-LOS) remain concealed?
My conclusion was that the shot itself always reveals a firing unit to its target (barring exceptional cases as mentioned above), and that the K/1 result un-conceals the remaining HS. This certainly seems likeliest, but - as you can see from the above - the RB "as is" makes it a little hard to verify precisely (unless I am missing something...which is why we ask these questions here!)
  1. This would be how I would play it. The LOS to the hexside cannot strip concealment.
  2. That's how I would play, but even if it is blocked, you need to reveal units that are firingtemporarily.
  3. Correct. The shot takes place before the effect takes place.
  4. The German units lose concealment. The are taking a snapshot so do not benefit from the snapshot movemnt exception. At the moment of fire, theyb are within LOS of a good order unit. I'm not certain about the Half squad. My feeling is that the effects of Case A on the Concealment table apply as at the moment of the shot, it is in LOS of a good order enemy unit. The exception which allows the unit to keep concealment does not apply.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,402
Reaction score
1,133
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Agree with Vinnie here as Case "A" of A12.121 CONCEALMENT LOSS/GAIN TABLE clearly states concealment "...is lost if a unit becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured, ..." if within 16 hexes or less of a Good Order or Unbroken enemy unit at the moment the result occurs. Therefore the resultant HS from the reduced squad would lose any concealment it had immediately upon the result of the fire e.g.. the Squad would immediately lose concealment because it had suffered a result, therefore the remaining HS would remain unconcealed).
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
4,158
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Agree with Vinnie here as Case "A" of A12.121 CONCEALMENT LOSS/GAIN TABLE clearly states concealment "...is lost if a unit becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured, ..." if within 16 hexes or less of a Good Order or Unbroken enemy unit at the moment the result occurs. Therefore the resultant HS from the reduced squad would lose any concealment it had immediately upon the result of the fire e.g.. the Squad would immediately lose concealment because it had suffered a result, therefore the remaining HS would remain unconcealed).
For Case A the unit losing concealment has to have LOS Range ≤ 16 hexes from nearest good order enemy ground unit. While the snap shot can be taken due to the LOS to the hexside, it is not a LOS to the unit. Case F (none in LOS) is the one that applies on the Concealment Loss/Gain Table, not Case A.

edit: per A12.141, if the unit suffers a PTC or better result it loses concealment on the snap shot.

JR
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,402
Reaction score
1,133
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
For Case A the unit losing concealment has to have LOS Range ≤ 16 hexes from nearest good order enemy ground unit. While the snap shot can be taken due to the LOS to the hexside, it is not a LOS to the unit. Case F (none in LOS) is the one that applies on the Concealment Loss/Gain Table, not Case A.

JR
I wouldn't have figured that "none in LOS" column applies as I believe A6.12 ATYPICAL LOS does address this, but the result is the same.:unsure:
 
Top