DC Placement and SMOKE

[jyoung]

Q: Can a unit Place a DC in an ADJACENT (not just adjacent) hex, when both the Location the DC is Placed from, and the target Location, contain +3DRM Smoke such that there is no LOS between the two Locations?

A: Yes; A23.3. ....Perry, MMP

 

[bendizoid]

Q: Can a unit Place a DC in an ADJACENT (not just adjacent) hex, when both the Location the DC is Placed from, and the target Location, contain +3DRM Smoke such that there is no LOS between the two Locations?

A: Yes; A23.3. ....Perry, MMP

Hmm, this one got switched around. Glad they did though because it’s one of my favorite strategies in Red Barricades. Used to be they said you need a LOS.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Hmm, this one got switched around. Glad they did though because it’s one of my favorite strategies in Red Barricades. Used to be they said you need a LOS.

It still does - "LOS to an adjacent" - but the EX hints at Smoke->Smoke placement is ok:

"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."

 

[Michael R]

Geez; ADJACENT excludes SMOKE hindrances.

 

[apbills]

Geez; ADJACENT excludes SMOKE hindrances.

Agreed. This answer is consistent with the rules. [Edited for clarity]

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):
23.3 PLACEMENT: ... 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].

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I asked this exact question on 5 January 2022, and it was never answered. When did you ask this @jyoung ?

 

[jyoung]

I asked this exact question on 5 January 2022, and it was never answered. When did you ask this @jyoung ?

Just under a year ago - Perry did also apologize for the delay . I'm just glad to confirm that what I was doing to my opponent was legal, cause it seems slightly unethical. Wait, did you just see something? No? Boom.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Thanks @jyoung, that explains just how busy Perry is.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Perry answered my identical question the same way yesterday.

 

[bendizoid]

Let’s break this down so I can understand it, stupid proof:

There are two non attached building hexes each with +3 smoke, they are ADJACENT. In one of the hexes I have a leader with a demo charge. He spends 3 MP to place a demo on the other smoke hex which contains unconcealed units. He can’t be seen (+7 smoke) so no possible fire from that hex. The DC blows up first thing in the Advacing fire phase with full 30 FP.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Let’s break this down so I can understand it, stupid proof:

There are two non attached building hexes each with +3 smoke, they are ADJACENT. In one of the hexes I have a leader with a demo charge. He spends 3 MP to place a demo on the other smoke hex which contains unconcealed units. He can’t be seen (+7 smoke) so no possible fire from that hex. The DC blows up first thing in the Advacing fire phase with full 30 FP.

That sounds consistent with the last part of the A23.3 Example.

 

[bendizoid]

That sounds consistent with the last part of the A23.3 Example.

This is an advantage for the Germans in Red Barricades, evens up the odds for a campaign game a little. Combos of infantry smoke and artillery Smoke make it easy.

It happened once when I played Fort in ‘Hornet of Cloville’. I was Italian Defender and this Smoke FFE was going down. The extra MP cost slowed Fort down a little and he ended up with three squads in a Smoke hex with Smoke right next to it. I sent in the Italian 8-0 with a demo charge to seriously mess things up. Fort questioned the move but after some debate let the attack pass without more objection. I think the DC attack was mildly successful and it didn’t matter much cause Fort won anyway but months later when I saw him again he said it was an illegal move because he looked into it more, said they need a LOS. Now we come back full circle and thank goodness it’s legal !

The trouble comes from the whole ADJACENT/adjacent thing, good grief. Sometimes when I read the rules I get this strange dyslexia. It’s like I’m juggling too many thoughts and one gets bumped out by remembering the difference between use of the word(s) ‘ADJACENT/adjacent’ or something like that. Anyway...