DC placement and Smoke Q

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

I should know this but I think there might be a Q&A on this question. Anyway German Pioneer in N17 wants to place a DC on the 628 squad in O17, I dont think this is possible since the placing 838 need a LOS to the Squad. I could be wrong but correct me if I am.

thanks

Scott

 

[Vinnie]

Correct23.3 PLACEMENT: A DC is Placed on an ADJACENT target Location during the MPh by a carrying Infantry unit expending extra MF

The use of ADJACENT requires los.

 

[Justiciar]

The Index definition of ADJ, specifically says "...and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance [B.10] and NVR as factors."

 

[Vinnie]

Oooops!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Oooops!

But you are saved by the fact that placing a DC does indeed require a LOS.

A23.3:
"...A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21) [EXC: Cave; G11.8331]."

 

[Justiciar]

But you are saved by the fact that placing a DC does indeed require a LOS.

A23.3:
"...A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21) [EXC: Cave; G11.8331]."

How in Scott's EX is it out of LOS??, when the Index says whenever you calculate adjacency SMOKE does not matter for LOS. And then there is the whole Index override rule thingy too.

I get the cave one, as this is a cliffside cave where you are above the cave (cannot see its face), and have to climb to it to place it in.

 

[Gunner Scott]

That is interesting, index says one thing and A23.3 says another. I would think the index would take presidence in this case IE the DC can be placed and smoke has no effect on LOS for this case. Hopefully I'm reading this correctly.


scott

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Smoke matters for LOS purposes, though not for LOS purposes when it is regarding being ADJACENT or not.

 

[Justiciar]

I agree with you, Scott.

I believe A23.3 requires one to look up adjacent in the Index where it then tells us SMOKE is NA in considering adjacency, one would then go back to A23.3 and say well I can see you b/c SMOKE does not enter into matters of 'adjacency'.

Also there are other EX where there is NO LOS and you can still use DC...across black-bars are ground level is another such ex.

 

[Justiciar]

Smoke matters for LOS purposes, though not for LOS purposes when it is regarding being ADJACENT or not.

The implications of this for DC are troubling...the units runs into +3 smoke adj to a building hex also in +3 smoke...okay I get 'maybe' they cannot find the window to place the DC through [perhaps the reality argument used to design the rule]

...but by the same token it also means they cannot even place the DC to breach the building (let say the location was fortified).... That seems a little too much to believe... but I get it RL arguments are not allowed.... but it does seem like a rule disconnect... given you can place DC across black-bars which is an equally out of LOS type situation, yet here you can get a full placement effect to occur, but you cannot get even a breach in the other situation...very fishy.

 

[Vinnie]

But when placing across a black bar hexside you have to declare the vertex you are bypassing and are vulnerable to fire thereA23.3, B23.71 - Can a unit with a DC place it from ground level of a rowhouse to an ADJACENT ground level location across the rowhouse hexside?
A. Yes

Does the defender where the DC is placed have any shots at the placing unit (assuming the rowhouse bar blocks LOS between the two locations)?
A. Yes, unless the attacker is trying to breach the rowhouse wall.

If so, does the attacker have to declare which vertex he is placing the DC from?
A. Yes. {4}.

 

[Justiciar]

But when placing across a black bar hexside you have to declare the vertex you are bypassing and are vulnerable to fire thereA23.3, B23.71 - Can a unit with a DC place it from ground level of a rowhouse to an ADJACENT ground level location across the rowhouse hexside?
A. Yes

Does the defender where the DC is placed have any shots at the placing unit (assuming the rowhouse bar blocks LOS between the two locations)?
A. Yes, unless the attacker is trying to breach the rowhouse wall.

If so, does the attacker have to declare which vertex he is placing the DC from?
A. Yes. {4}.

Yes, agree. No problem.

But I am picking on a slightly different aspect of this situation. It is the wider point that an attack with DC is still being initiated from a non-LOS initial starting point in the case of the black bars, just as it is with the Smoke case at hand....but in the former it can proceed and not the latter.

Compounding matters is if you have the black bar situation and Smoke in each hex, you can still do the DC attack, b/c upon reaching the vertex you cannot be in both smoke locations at the same time so its +4 [in Smoke] and LOS and thus placement...crazy...

Also I accept the Smoke / DC rule as written, I just think it not well conceived from various aspects. Heck you cannot even go for breaching.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Wow, good stuff on DC placement from a black bar to the target Vinnie. Could also be very dangerous too. I wander, how smoke would play into this IE If the is a smoke round in the placer's hex, does he get cover?

If there is a smoke round on the target hex, I would think that the Pioneer placing the DC would again get cover.

Would there be cover if there was a smoke round in an adajacent hex?

Attached file


Scott

But when placing across a black bar hexside you have to declare the vertex you are bypassing and are vulnerable to fire thereA23.3, B23.71 - Can a unit with a DC place it from ground level of a rowhouse to an ADJACENT ground level location across the rowhouse hexside?
A. Yes

Does the defender where the DC is placed have any shots at the placing unit (assuming the rowhouse bar blocks LOS between the two locations)?
A. Yes, unless the attacker is trying to breach the rowhouse wall.

If so, does the attacker have to declare which vertex he is placing the DC from?
A. Yes. {4}.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

... given you can place DC across black-bars which is an equally out of LOS type situation...

Which is only (IMO) allowed due to the Q&A posted by Vinnie. Going only by B23.71 ("...The thick black bar blocks all LOS through it at all levels...") it shouldn't be allowed, but I suspect the rules writers might not have thought of this situation, hence the Q&A.

The Q&A at least seems to say that the Placing unit expends the 3 "placment" MF in a vertex (from which there is a LOS to the other side of the wall) and could be fired on at the vertex.

Compounding matters is if you have the black bar situation and Smoke in each hex, you can still do the DC attack, b/c upon reaching the vertex you cannot be in both smoke locations at the same time so its +4 [in Smoke] and LOS and thus placement...crazy...

I don't think to you can - the Hindrance would still be +7 (even when you are at the vertex) - hence no LOS.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Wow, good stuff on DC placement from a black bar to the target Vinnie. Could also be very dangerous too. I wander, how smoke would play into this IE If the is a smoke round in the placer's hex, does he get cover?

Yes, since he is in a smoke Location.

If there is a smoke round on the target hex, I would think that the Pioneer placing the DC would again get cover.

Any fire vs the vertex from the "target" Location would get the smoke Hindrance DRM (+1 firing out of).

Would there be cover if there was a smoke round in an adajacent hex?

I don't think so, since the fire from Q22 to the P21 vertex doesn't enter the smoke hex.

 

[Justiciar]

Which is only (IMO) allowed due to the Q&A posted by Vinnie. Going only by B23.71 ("...The thick black bar blocks all LOS through it at all levels...") it shouldn't be allowed, but I suspect the rules writers might not have thought of this situation, hence the Q&A.

How do you see a similar Q/A going then at which the heart of the matter is non-initial No LOS situations and placement?

The Q&A at least seems to say that the Placing unit expends the 3 "placment" MF in a vertex (from which there is a LOS to the other side of the wall) and could be fired on at the vertex.

Yes, I see that, and I follow that...and I am not trying to speak to the black bar situation. I have no problem with it. I was just by extension trying to argue that the same sort* (not exact) of situation is afoot...the smoked guy cannot see either

I don't think to you can - the Hindrance would still be +7 (even when you are at the vertex) - hence no LOS.

How can the placer be in both locations at the same time to get the cumulative effect? <scratch head> If he had no LOS to initiate the attack to begin with why would it matter if he had no LOS later...yes I know the rule says Smoke counts, but I do not follow the logic, why should the now blinding smoke matter to him, when it didn't matter to him only moments ago when he was equally blind to the enemy while he was on the other side of the black bar? It makes no sense...maybe it is not supposed to <scratch head>.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to answer here. There is no point in me going on, it won't get anywhere as the rule is what it is.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

Thanks Andy, Vinnie and Klas for the input, very valuable and appreciated.

So to keep my mind from going off the wall here and to surmise:

A Pioneer can place a DC from a +3 smoke on to a unit in a building with +3 smoke in accordance to the Index.

Just trying to be clearly clear here

Scott

 

[klasmalmstrom]

How can the placer be in both locations at the same time to get the cumulative effect?

He is only in one Location (with Smoke) +4 looking out into another Location with Smoke, +3 = +7.

If he had no LOS to initiate the attack to begin with why would it matter if he had no LOS later...yes I know the rule says Smoke counts, but I do not follow the logic, why should the now blinding smoke matter to him, when it didn't matter to him only moments ago when he was equally blind to the enemy while he was on the other side of the black bar? It makes no sense...maybe it is not supposed to <scratch head>.

I guess because in the case where there isn't smoke in both Locations, he seemingly (Q&A) moves to a position where he does have a LOS (vertex) - if there is Smoke in both Locations, he can't make that move. But then I don't know the intent of the Q&A.

 

[Justiciar]

Hi-

Thanks Andy, Vinnie and Klas for the input, very valuable and appreciated.

So to keep my mind from going off the wall here and to surmise:

A Pioneer can place a DC from a +3 smoke on to a unit in a building with +3 smoke in accordance to the Index.

Just trying to be clearly clear here

Scott

No, Klas has just shown us that he cannot do so.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

So to keep my mind from going off the wall here and to surmise:

A Pioneer can place a DC from a +3 smoke on to a unit in a building with +3 smoke in accordance to the Index.

I'm going to say no, because A23.3 requires it

a) to be ADJACENT ("...A DC is Placed on an ADJACENT target Location...) - which it is, since SMOKE doens't matter when determining LOS for ADJACENCY purposes (per the Index).

and

b) to have LOS to the adjacent Location ("..A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS...") - which it does not, since the Hindrance DRM is +7 (B.10).


But then again, a Q&A to MMP on the matter might not be a bad idea.