Detection and Minefields - B28 and A12.5

[aslwynn]

Real unit is in a building, concealed enemy unit tries to enter in MPh. Both units are revealed per A12.15. Does the moving unit discover if there is an A-P minefield in the building hex it tried to enter?

Wynn

 

[Larry]

A12.15 ... A unit forced back to its previous Location is not subject to attack (even by a minefield or FFE) during its brief period in the previously-concealed unit's Location

 

[jrv]

I believe the unit would notice if the windows are bricked up, however.

JR

 

[aslwynn]

A12.15 ... A unit forced back to its previous Location is not subject to attack (even by a minefield or FFE) during its brief period in the previously-concealed unit's Location

Thanks, missed that even though I'd thought I'd read A12.15!

I believe the unit would notice if the windows are bricked up, however.

JR

Actually, per Q&A, that's not true! Fortified status not revealed via attempted movement into a Fort!

 

[jrv]

Actually, per Q&A, that's not true! Fortified status not revealed via attempted movement into a Fort!

I looked through the q&a, and I must have missed that.

JR

 

[aslwynn]

I looked through the q&a, and I must have missed that.

JR

Looks like my bad, - as usual! There is a Q&A on A12.15 and B23.9222 that says a concealed squad in a previously revealed Fort will not lose Concealment via an attempted Advance into there, though, which probably was what I was thinking of.

But then that makes me wonder - if the Advancing unit was Concealed would it lose concealment?

 

[Eagle4ty]

Looks like my bad, - as usual! There is a Q&A on A12.15 and B23.9222 that says a concealed squad in a previously revealed Fort will not lose Concealment via an attempted Advance into there, though, which probably was what I was thinking of.

But then that makes me wonder - if the Advancing unit was Concealed would it lose concealment?

I wouldn't think the fortified location would be revealed but both units would have to be as the enemy unit is bounced back because of the presence of an opponents unit in a location, fortified or not. It would possibly make some kind of sense that it may reveal that the location was fortified but I could envision "reality" situations that it would not necessarilly be so. I really don't believe revelation of the fortified location is actually addressed by the rules or a ruling but since minefields would not be revealed it is probable that a fortified location would not be as well.

 

[jrv]

Looks like my bad, - as usual! There is a Q&A on A12.15 and B23.9222 that says a concealed squad in a previously revealed Fort will not lose Concealment via an attempted Advance into there, though, which probably was what I was thinking of.

But then that makes me wonder - if the Advancing unit was Concealed would it lose concealment?

Ah, I did see that q&a, and as you say it does not apply. The q&a says the defending unit must momentarily lose concealment (to prove it can push the advancing unit back), but then gains it. I don't think the advancing unit would lose concealment either in general, but perhaps if it started in open ground it might (it might be considered advancing into open ground). I don't think I would play it that way, but I could see asking the question.

I wouldn't think the fortified location would be revealed but both units would have to be as the enemy unit is bounced back because of the presence of an opponents unit in a location, fortified or not. It would possibly make some kind of sense that it may reveal that the location was fortified but I could envision "reality" situations that it would not necessarilly be so. I really don't believe revelation of the fortified location is actually addressed by the rules or a ruling but since minefields would not be revealed it is probable that a fortified location would not be as well.

The reason I think the fortified building is revealed is the rule says, a "Fortified Building is not revealed until an enemy unit attempts to enter it" [B23.911, my emphasis]. Because it says, "attempts", I take it that the fortified building is revealed even if the unit is bumped back by A12.15. If the fortified building prevents Advance, then clearly it has to be revealed.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

Ah, I did see that q&a, and as you say it does not apply. The q&a says the defending unit must momentarily lose concealment (to prove it can push the advancing unit back), but then gains it. I don't think the advancing unit would lose concealment either in general, but perhaps if it started in open ground it might (it might be considered advancing into open ground). I don't think I would play it that way, but I could see asking the question.



The reason I think the fortified building is revealed is the rule says, a "Fortified Building is not revealed until an enemy unit attempts to enter it" [B23.911, my emphasis]. Because it says, "attempts", I take it that the fortified building is revealed even if the unit is bumped back by A12.15. If the fortified building prevents Advance, then clearly it has to be revealed.

JR

I guess my response did not take into account a berserk unit attempting to enter the fortified location during the MPh, but since that would be the only time (IIRC) that a unit may enter a known infantry enemy's location during it's MPh, I'm not sure if it would be revealed in other circumstances simply because the presence of the enemy unit therein would preclude entry anyway. Having said as much, you do have a good point however.

 

[jrv]

I guess my response did not take into account a berserk unit attempting to enter the fortified location during the MPh, but since that would be the only time (IIRC) that a unit may enter a known infantry enemy's location during it's MPh, I'm not sure if it would be revealed in other circumstances simply because the presence of the enemy unit therein would preclude entry anyway. Having said as much, you do have a good point however.

I think all units, both moving and in the building, were concealed in the original question. An unconcealed unit in the building would prevent discovery of the fortified-ness. If the unit in the building is concealed and there are mines and the building is fortified, the moving unit would bounce back [A12.15] and reveal the concealed unit and would discover the fortified building, but would not find the mines. The concealed unit in the building might opt to reveal itself before the moving unit attempts to enter to prevent discovery of the fortified building. Or not.

JR

 

[aslwynn]

Ah, I did see that q&a, and as you say it does not apply. The q&a says the defending unit must momentarily lose concealment (to prove it can push the advancing unit back), but then gains it. I don't think the advancing unit would lose concealment either in general, but perhaps if it started in open ground it might (it might be considered advancing into open ground). I don't think I would play it that way, but I could see asking the question.



The reason I think the fortified building is revealed is the rule says, a "Fortified Building is not revealed until an enemy unit attempts to enter it" [B23.911, my emphasis]. Because it says, "attempts", I take it that the fortified building is revealed even if the unit is bumped back by A12.15. If the fortified building prevents Advance, then clearly it has to be revealed.

JR

I understand all of that and take no issue with it until your last sentence. A moving unit isn't necessarily prevented from moving into a hypothetical Fort simply by virtue of its fortified status, but because there is a real unit in there. Even if the building was not foritifid it could not move in (EXC: unless Berserk) if there is a real unit there. So if movement is attempted does both Concealment loss AND loss of HIP fort occur? Not sure.

 

[jrv]

I understand all of that and take no issue with it until your last sentence. A moving unit isn't necessarily prevented from moving into a hypothetical Fort simply by virtue of its fortified status, but because there is a real unit in there. Even if the building was not foritifid it could not move in (EXC: unless Berserk) if there is a real unit there. So if movement is attempted does both Concealment loss AND loss of HIP fort occur? Not sure.

During the MPh a unit may attempt to enter a location with a concealed enemy unit in it. During the MPh a unit may not attempt to enter a location with a known enemy unit (disregarding various reasons like berserk, infantry ovr, etc). Per the fortified building rules A12.15 applies (unit or units chosen by random selection lose concealment) and the fortified building loses concealment due to an attempted entry.

JR

 

[Nearmiss]

What would happen if a rider/passenger unloaded while in bypass of a fortified building containing concealed enemy unit(s).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

What would happen if a rider/passenger unloaded while in bypass of a fortified building containing concealed enemy unit(s).

It would be "bounced" back to the hex it was in previously.

Q&A:
B23.9 & D6.5
What happens if PRC of a vehicle in Bypass of a Fortified Building Location (occupied by a Good Order unpinned armed enemy
squad) unload/bailout/survive destruction of their vehicle?
A. The answer is that the ex-PRC are “in the terrain of the vehicle’s CAFP for purposes of any Defensive First Fire vs them.
Immediately after all such First Fire is resolved” (D6.5), they are forced back per A12.15-.151 to the last Location previously
occupied by its vehicle that the Infantry unit could enter in a MPh; if no such Location exists, it is eliminated.

 

[jrv]

What would happen if a rider/passenger unloaded while in bypass of a fortified building containing concealed enemy unit(s).

Klas has correctly answered the case where the fortified buildings contains sufficient concealed enemy forces to prevent entry of the Location, which is probably what you intended to ask. He did not mention that if the concealed enemy forces are not sufficient (e.g. Dummy, SMC, halfsquad, or crew) then the unloading units enter the location normally.

JR

 

[Paul John]

It would be "bounced" back to the hex it was in previously.

Any difference to this answer if the MMC rider was forced to bail out and broke?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Any difference to this answer if the MMC rider was forced to bail out and broke?

I don't think so....