DC placement and Smoke Q

[Justiciar]

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

D'oh. yes of course.

 

[Dale m]

Reality arguments aside there is a very good game balance argument.

In the black bar scenario the ATTACKER unit must expose himself to fire at the vertex from the target, in the double smoke scenario he would be immune from such fire.

 

[von Marwitz]

I think what can be taken from this thread for broader use is that, as a defensive tactic, place or move a concealed HS with a DC in/to a location that is likely to be SMOKED big time and as long as the hindrances do not add up to +6 (i.e. no LOS), throw that DC on would-be attackers that feel absolutely safe being covered by up to +5 hindrances during their approach. DC resolution does not care - which is nice for Residual FP to boot...

"A23.1 A DC is a SW which explodes in the target Location with 30 FP factors on the IFT [EXC: Set DC; 23.7]. It is not subject to FP modification for PBF/TPBF, use in the AFPh, or for any form of Area Fire other than concealment at the time the DC is Thrown/operably-Placed (or detonated if Set). Concealment-caused Area Fire does not apply when determining the possibility of Rubble Creation (B24.11). A DC attack may not combine FP with any other unit. The defender’s (or thrower’s) TEM (not LOS Hindrances) applies to the resolution of the attack [EXC: hexside TEM is NA if DC Placed/Set] but leadership modifiers do not."

von Marwitz

 

[jrv]

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]."

The interesting thing about this rule is that the EX following has this line:

If the unconcealed 5-2-7 were merely not Known to the 4-6-7 (e.g., due to +3 Smoke DRM in both Locations [still ADJACENT] or if the Breach attempt were against a Rowhouse black bar hexside instead), the Area Fire attack vs the 5-2-7 would not be halved again.

This suggests that perhaps the LOS requirement is not a requirement after all. It would be nice if someone would provide an explanation for this; I have none.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

"INDEX: ADJACENT (Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance [B.10] and NVR [E1.101] as factors): A.8 [Building hexes: B23.25] [Caves: G11.6] [DM Cause: A10.62] [NA Examples: A6.8]"

I guess a LOS would exist excluding SMOKE hindrances in your quoted A23.3 example. If that assumption is correct, then I seem to realize, that it does not matter at all how many SMOKE hindrances there are (which would make my proposed defensive tactic even better).

von Marwitz

 

[jrv]

"INDEX: ADJACENT (Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations, excluding SMOKE Hindrance [B.10] and NVR [E1.101] as factors): A.8 [Building hexes: B23.25] [Caves: G11.6] [DM Cause: A10.62] [NA Examples: A6.8]"

I guess a LOS would exist excluding SMOKE hindrances in your quoted A23.3 example. If that assumption is correct, then I seem to realize, that it does not matter at all how many SMOKE hindrances there are (which would make my proposed defensive tactic even better).

I think you may have missed the issue. Per the last sentence of A23.3, "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21)." This is regardless of SMOKE. Since all ADJACENT Locations are adjacent, this last sentence takes away the ability to Place a DC in a Location that is ADJACENT but has no LOS due to SMOKE. So the last sentence of A23.3 says lack of LOS due to SMOKE prevents DC placement, yet the EX says lack of LOS due to SMOKE does not prevent DC placement.

Then too there is the unhinged reference to A7.21, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with LOS. But I am mostly concerned about whether a DC can be placed when LOS is blocked solely due to SMOKE.

JR

 

[Gunner Scott]

I am guessing that the example might be wrong.

Scott

 

[jrv]

I am guessing that the example might be wrong.

An obvious possibility. But the EX seems so confident and clear. I wonder it the last sentence of A23.3 was meant to say, "a unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent (but not ADJACENT) Location out of its LOS (7.21)"

Looking through A7.21, there is a mention of units that are adjacent but LOS is blocked because they are in parallel gullies. That might explain both the example and the A7.21 reference. At this point I don't know what the right answer is.

JR

 

[Paul S NJ]

Good thread Scott. I always play that +6 smoke prevents DC placement, but I do feel personally (as an ex-engineer) that it should be allowed. The fact that dc's ignore smoke in the IFT results does speak to the logic and hand-in-glove synergy of smoke for cover as units place DC's. My current interpretation is especially annoying when a smoke FFE makes dc placement NA. Hope someone sends in a Q&A to Perry.
Paul

 

[Gunner Scott]

Well, MMP hates my guts, so me sending in a Q&A is pretty much a moot point.

Scott

Good thread Scott. I always play that +6 smoke prevents DC placement, but I do feel personally (as an ex-engineer) that it should be allowed. The fact that dc's ignore smoke in the IFT results does speak to the logic and hand-in-glove synergy of smoke for cover as units place DC's. My current interpretation is especially annoying when a smoke FFE makes dc placement NA. Hope someone sends in a Q&A to Perry.
Paul

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think you may have missed the issue. Per the last sentence of A23.3, "A unit may not Place (or Throw; 23.6) a DC to an adjacent Location out of its LOS (7.21)." This is regardless of SMOKE. Since all ADJACENT Locations are adjacent, this last sentence takes away the ability to Place a DC in a Location that is ADJACENT but has no LOS due to SMOKE. So the last sentence of A23.3 says lack of LOS due to SMOKE prevents DC placement, yet the EX says lack of LOS due to SMOKE does not prevent DC placement.

Interesting find. Perhaps then the intent of the last sentence of A23.3 isn't what it appears to be saying?

Then too there is the unhinged reference to A7.21, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with LOS.

Yes, I too didn't quite figure out what the reference to A7.21 was doing there, since A7.21 only (as far as I could see) mentions situations where units were not ADJACENT - e.g., IN non-connected gully hexes.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hopefully someone sent a Q&A to Perry, trying to convince your opponent that the example and index might be wrong is a tough sell. So the way we played it was that the Pioneers can place a DC on a unit even though LOS is non existent but due to the index and example it is.


Scott

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Hopefully someone sent a Q&A to Perry, trying to convince your opponent that the example and index might be wrong is a tough sell. So the way we played it was that the Pioneers can place a DC on a unit even though LOS is non existent but due to the index and example it is.

In Index is not wrong. But that isn't the issue/question.

 

[volgaG68]

Is anyone aware of any (hopefully official) resolution to this question?

 

[bendizoid]

That used to be one of my favorite tactics; using 8-0 leaders w/ demos through total smoke. However, Gary Fortenberry told me of a Q&A that makes it illegal. You cannot place a demo through the smoke of +7. I don't like that decision but that's the rule.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

That used to be one of my favorite tactics; using 8-0 leaders w/ demos through total smoke. However, Gary Fortenberry told me of a Q&A that makes it illegal. You cannot place a demo through the smoke of +7. I don't like that decision but that's the rule.

You don't need a Q&A - it is in the rules, 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]."