Concealment counters and doubletime

[Jazz]

its like the law of thermodynamics - additional dummies may be neither created or destroyed

(well except by fire and bumping of course!)

I'm just waiting for some ASLRB snake oil salesman to claim that dummies can mimic deployment....like if they were behaving like real units.....

"What the hell did they do with the 'Roll Eyes" emoticon?"



Too many keystrokes.....

 

[jwb3]

I think I've been unclear in previous posts, and with jrv and 2 Bit Bill going against me, I appear to be in the minority in this interpretation. :OHNO:

I think you've been clear. I just think your interpretation is not correct.

I will grant that it is a reasonable interpretation, in the sense that if you take the language very literally, the conclusion you are arriving at does make sense. However, there are many, many places in the ASLRB where taking the language too literally and in isolation ends up just confusing you, and I'd say this is one of them.

The point of the penultimate sentence is simply that a single '?' stack can split into multiple stacks, and still have all those stacks maintain '?'... by adding additional '?' counters. That's all it's intended to say -- that one '?' counter can become more than one, rather than you having to decide which of the two new stacks gets to keep the '?' counter and which has to get exposed.

It is not intended to say that there's a difference between a '?' stack with one '?' counter on it, and a '?' stack with three '?' counters on it.
Yeah, you can read it that way -- but as you've seen, you'll be in a very small minority...


The rule about how dummy stacks can only be created at certain times is a more convincing argument, so I won't try to talk you out of it. However, I personally interpret that statement as simply saying that you can't create dummy stacks out of thin air.


The way jrv and hershmeister explain it is the way I think about it, and the way 2 Bit plays it is the way I play it.


John

 

[James Taylor]

Nice posts to everyone.

JR thanks much for clarifying it.

Alan I also see how you are interpreting it. Its not how I've seen it interpreted, but I'm with John and won't tell you couldn't be correct.

I will say that I think the game plays better with the interpretation that JR, John, and 2-bit Bill (and me) are using.

I think the ability to split a single stack of dummies into multiple stacks of dummies adds to the fog of war which makes the game more interesting.

And 2-bit Bill... I really like the "make it look like they are moving a heavy SW" tactic.

Who says an old fish can't teach new tricks?! :clown:

JT

 

[alanp]

Thanks, guys, for your thoughts. I'll simply add--to address jrv's post--that when you have a c,d stack both '?' counters are Dummies (and they must have come from your original OB) so to my sense you also have a d,d stack. The Law of Dummy Conservation has been broken. Say your OB has 8x '?' counters on the card. Do you grab 16 '?' counters out of the tray to form 8x c,d stacks? No. What rule allows you to do so during play?

Not sure how you can ignore that sentence about how Dummy stacks are formed.

 

[Rockford]

Say your OB has 8x '?' counters on the card. Do you grab 16 '?' counters out of the tray to form 8x c,d stacks? No. What rule allows you to do so during play?

You seem to be saying that all 8 '?' counters in the OB are by definintion "dummies". That's not true. They may be used either as dummies OR concealment counters. Thus you can place one on top of a real unit, in which case it is a concealment counter. You can also place a stack of 4 '?' counters, in which case three are dummies, and the one on top is a concealment counter.

that when you have a c,d stack both '?' counters are Dummies (and they must have come from your original OB) so to my sense you also have a d,d stack.

But that's just it. The '?' on the bottom is a dummy. The one on top is concealment.

 

[JayH]

alanp,

I completely agree with Rockford that the charaterization of all ? counters in a dummy stack as "dummies" is incorrect. This implies that a dummy can exist without a concealment counter, which is untrue. The necessary top counter is the concealment counter for the dummy counters which lie beneath it.

As an example for clarity, whenever you create an initial stack with mixed real and dummy units you must use a given ? counter to top the stack by virtue of the dummy presence though the real units, if unaccompanied by dummies, could grow their own free ? counter before the enemy saw the board.

However, I am at the office so NRBH, but your quote of the rule regarding creation of dummy stacks being limited to setup and the interpretation that splitting a ?,?,? is by nature "creating two dummy stacks where there was only one before" has me intrigued and/or disturbed. I may have to leave work early to go read up...

?,447 and ?,447 come together in a hex
I think all will agree the result is
?,447,447

If I understand your interpretation, when dummies are in the mix you say this changes, based on what I will call the Law of Absolute Dummy Integrity...

?d,?d and ?d,?d come together in a hex
the result, by the Law of ADI, is
?d,?d,?d,?d
the result, by the Law of Conservation of Dummies, would be
?d,?d,?d
a reflection of the two dummies counters coming under a common concealment counter, which also suggests that when they split out of the same hex they will each carry away their own lid.

We often discard the extra "?" counter from even real units during movement on VASL, as the underlying counter hides the real identity and holds an image of "?" for the foe if manipulated properly, so the "feel" of Conservation of Dummies just came naturally.

I am actualy eager to get home to see if I have played this incorrectly all these years!

If so, awesome catch!

JayH

 

[alanp]

alanp,

point1: I completely agree with Rockford that the charaterization of all ? counters in a dummy stack as "dummies" is incorrect. This implies that a dummy can exist without a concealment counter, which is untrue. The necessary top counter is the concealment counter for the dummy counters which lie beneath it.

point 2: ?d,?d and ?d,?d come together in a hex
the result, by the Law of ADI, is
?d,?d,?d,?d
the result, by the Law of Conservation of Dummies, would be
?d,?d,?d

Point 3: We often discard the extra "?" counter from even real units during movement on VASL, as the underlying counter hides the real identity and holds an image of "?" for the foe if manipulated properly, so the "feel" of Conservation of Dummies just came naturally.

Thanks Jay;
#1--a Dummy stack is made up of Dummy counters. It's a shame that the Index/rules doesn't define both, not that I could find at least.

#2--we play this the same (the 3x"?" stack result); I do it because of A12.11's "Multiple concealed units can combine into a concealed stack but must remove the top "?" counter from all but the original concealed (or Dummy) stack."

#3--This is a bad habit, IMO, and I've trained more than one newbie away from it when using VASL.

Don't leave work early because of this. (leave early because it's Friday, my man!) If my thoughts don't convince you on this, I suppose I can't and that's fine.

Thanks all for showing the rest of the forum how to debate something in the ASL section without anything but rules' citations and an open mind. It restores my faith in GameSquad!

 

[JayH]

Actually, this issue has been addressed before by a Q&A and the Law of Conservation of Dummies is correct.

As preface, the notion of creating Dummy stacks at scenario start is as to the origination of dummy units themselves, which appears by rule to fairly clearly be the ? counters below the topper and not the topper itself... in support I cite the definition of a Dummy:

Dummy (a "?" counter used to represent a fake, unknown unit)

The topper is fairly clearly not representing a unit, but rather represents the concealment counter topper hiding the units below.

As to the Q&A that wipes the discussion regarding splitting a larger dummy stack into many smaller dummy stacks is as follows:

A12.11 May a Dummy stack comprising three "?" be split into two stacks of two "?" each? If yes, what happens when they recombine into one stack?
A. Yes - one stack must lose one of its "?". ['93a Annual]

The Law of Absolute Dummy Integrity is not valid.

My parting observation is the term Dummy stack is where the confusion or disagreement began. It is poorly worded but the deep reading should resolve the issue.

Cool debate though.

JayH

 

[alanp]

Ha! it's amazing what we'll find in Q&A's.

I'm off to the "what should be changed in ASLRBv.3" thread . . . .

 

[Treadhead]

Really what is needed are Dummy counters proper. Such would eliminate all confusion.

Once setup has been completed (in actual practice, during setup), all "?" counters that end up being used as Dummies (i.e., that are placed beneath the top "?" counter), would then be exchanged for the Dummy counter, which I will call "D". (It could be an empty silhouette of a soldier, or something similar.)

After setup then, you would have a stack topped by a "?" counter, then with "D" counters, then with any units as applicable. (Remember, Dummy counters cannot be placed beneath real units.)

Once play begins, just treat "D" counters as units for Dummy purposes. This, when such "?/D" stacks split up, combine, or what have you, the integrity of Concealment is maintained (since only "?" counters are used as the top counter as a concealment marker per se), and you never lose track of which counters had been designated to play the role as Dummies, as opposed to its real use as a concealment counter.

The confusion really stems, IMO, from the fact that a Dummy counter looks exactly like a Concealment counter. It is easy then to lose track of which is which.

Technically Alan, only the top "?" counter is considered a concealment counter. All other "?" counter beneath that top counter are considered Dummy counters.

Anyway, thinking of it this way really helps me. I'm not sure if it would help others.

"Dummy counters now!"

Regards,
Bruce

 

[hershmeister]

clarifying question:

If at scenario start you place one dummy ? counter in a hex and your opponent sets up offboard, or your are otherwise allowed to automtically conceal all units, would that ? dummy gain the ? topper?

I have always placed that you didnt place a ? on top of dummies at start, thus you would alwasy use at least two dummy counters (one to represent the ? topper), but am i totally wrong on this?

 

[Rockford]

clarifying question:

If at scenario start you place one dummy ? counter in a hex and your opponent sets up offboard, or your are otherwise allowed to automtically conceal all units, would that ? dummy gain the ? topper?

I have always placed that you didnt place a ? on top of dummies at start, thus you would alwasy use at least two dummy counters (one to represent the ? topper), but am i totally wrong on this?

Sure. You're absolutely correct. Dummies can not "grow" concealment.

However, when you place 2 OB given '?' in a hex, one is a dummy, the other is concealment.

 

[JayH]

Or when you place ten dummy counters in a hex the top one is concealment and the other 9 dummy units.

JayH

 

[alanp]

. . . and you have one Dummy stack in either case. :devious:

Bruce, I like your idea and it helps visualize how everyone else has always played it. :OHNO: It also doesn't help that the owning player sees one thing and his opponent sees another. Would the game/other rules change if "Dummy stacks may only be created at set-up. . ." were deleted? How about the word "stacks" after "Dummy"? How about the evil word "single" that's caused people to use mental gymnastics, too? It seems to me while 'researching' this discussion, I followed rules and Index definitions until I came to a point where "personnel" was used--"?" counters are never Personnel, right?!? (Dummies are 'units', it's true.)

 

[Ole Boe]

Really what is needed are Dummy counters proper. Such would eliminate all confusion.

I have, and often use them when playing with dummies.

Seriously, when having dummies, I often exchange the dummy '?''s by a squad type of that nationality which is not in play. Those squad counters are dummies.

The main reason is that when I'm clumsy, it is harder for the opponent to see whether its a dummy or not beneath, but the added benefit is that it is much easier to keep the conservation of dummies correct.


P.s., I always inform my opponent before I do this, so that I know that he doesn't mind.

 

[Treadhead]

How about the evil word "single" that's caused people to use mental gymnastics, too?

After looking at it more seriously, I think you may definitely be on to something. It is totally contrary to how people seem to play it, certainly how I have played it, and yet the observation leaves me practically convinced that I am wrong all along.

Two points.

Per the Index, a question mark when placed in quotes ("?") has a definition of "concealment counter".

So, to rewrite the sentence with that replacement: "A concealed stack under a single concealment counter can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created concealment counter."

When read "in english" that way, it is clear and unmistakeable. The stack must contain a single concealment counter.

Secondly. By definition of rule, a stack of counters beneath a "?" is a "concealed stack". To describe a concealed stack, it is only necessary to identify the top counter, namely the "?" that can be seen. To allow a concealed stack to split into multiple concealed stacks, it is hardly necessary to mention the presence of any "?" at all: calling it a "concealed stack" immediately makes clear that a "?" is at the top of that stack.

So then, it appears very significant that "under a single concealment counter" was included. It certainly is not necessary to define what a concealed stack is. The only purpose I can presently conceive for such a distinction, is to disallow Dummies from splitting in this manner.

Is that conclusive? Probably not. But the concept does make a certain bit of sense, from a playability standpoint, if not a FoW standpoint.

At any rate, it is enough to give me serious pause. Thanks a lot, Alan.

Bruce

 

[DerBlitzer]

When read "in english" that way, it is clear and unmistakeable. The stack must contain a single concealment counter.

To me, this makes the most sense, and it's the way I've played it. That you treat dummies exactly as you treat real units when concealed, i.e. there is always a concealment counter on top that's not a unit. That's really the point of dummies after all --- to mimic real concealed units.

What I find a little surprising is that after all these years, there's suddenly a debate about this fairly crucial rule! Maybe it needs a Perry Sez?

 

[alanp]

So, to rewrite the sentence with that replacement: "A concealed stack under a single concealment counter can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created concealment counter."

So then, it appears very significant that "under a single concealment counter" was included. It certainly is not necessary to define what a concealed stack is. The only purpose I can presently conceive for such a distinction, is to disallow Dummies from splitting in this manner.

Is that conclusive? Probably not. But the concept does make a certain bit of sense, from a playability standpoint, if not a FoW standpoint.

Couple this with how/when the rule tells us a Dummy stack may be created, and that the number of such stacks may not change after set-up unless you're bringing in reinforcements, and you can see how my interpretation is more consistent. Of course, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but it's also the best way to approach the ASLRB.

 

[dgour]

After looking at it more seriously, I think you may definitely be on to something. It is totally contrary to how people seem to play it, certainly how I have played it, and yet the observation leaves me practically convinced that I am wrong all along.

Two points.

Per the Index, a question mark when placed in quotes ("?") has a definition of "concealment counter".

So, to rewrite the sentence with that replacement: "A concealed stack under a single concealment counter can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created concealment counter."

When read "in english" that way, it is clear and unmistakeable. The stack must contain a single concealment counter.

I don't see how this changes anything but does read nicely with the substituion. This has always been the case - i.e. if you are the defender with attacker coming from offboard you cannot setup a stack of 3 x ? counters (dummies) and then add a "concealment counter" - 1 of the OB given ? counters becomes the "concealment counter" and the other two become the dummies.

Couple this with the q/a and it just illustrates how the top ? counter is the "concealment counter" and the lower ? counter(s) is/are the dummie(s).

The 93a annual q/a seems to make it crystal clear that the typical way to play it is in fact the correct way as well. It would have been much simpler if there were supplied "dummy" counters that you could substitute for OB given ? counters at start.

Darren

 

[Earthpig]

No; see A12.11, lines 11-12, "Dummy stacks can be created only during initial setup and among OB-designated "?" reinforcements during their initial turn of entry." What you're doing is creating two Dummy stacks where once there was none or one(?)

Again, I point out the penultimate sentence: "A concealed stack under a single "?" can split into separate stacks; each new stack is topped with its own newly created "?". Your ?,?,?,447 isn't a concealed stack under a single '?'.

I think I've been unclear in previous posts, and with jrv and 2 Bit Bill going against me, I appear to be in the minority in this interpretation. :OHNO:

I'm in your boat on this.