Dummies and their lies

[Pyth]

Situation 1. Friendly Stack from top to bottom is ? ? ? ? ? ? moving from level 0 woods to level 1 woods in LOS of enemy. Player announces expenditure of "4MF Assault Move" retaining concealment saying additionally:

A. Don't worry, it's a legal move.
B. I'm claiming one of those concealed units is a leader -- it's legal

Is player expected to make a specific legal claim for dummies movement -- is B mandatory? Or is A enough? In all cases?


TIA.

 

[Binchois]

Situation 1. Friendly Stack from top to bottom is ? ? ? ? ? ? moving from level 0 woods to level 1 woods in LOS of enemy. Player announces expenditure of "4MF Assault Move" retaining concealment saying additionally:

A. Don't worry, it's a legal move.
B. I'm claiming one of those concealed units is a leader -- it's legal

Is player expected to make a specific legal claim for dummies movement -- is B mandatory? Or is A enough? In all cases?


TIA.

This has been discussed before, I believe with consensus to the following:

Dummy stacks are allowed to act any way they wish in accordance to what is possible in ASL. You may even claim to have a leader when all of your OoB leaders are in view (you're just giving away the trick). Just so long as no dummy unit is doing something illegal to all possible units.

Conversely, you could declare a dummy stack to be CX after a 3MF advance, suggesting that they are carrying heavy equipment. And a concealed, dummy AFV, counter could move more MPs than allowed by any of your actual AFVs. Of course, such lies are not likely to be effective against your opponent. This is the gist of a thread from a few years ago, IIRC.

Also, if you were rallying a broken unit with a concealed leader out of enemy LOS, that leader would not need to be revealed in order to claim its DRM. And if you only needed a -1 leader but had a -2 leader, you'd only have to say that the squad rallied with leadership, with no requirement to ever show the hidden leader...

My preference is that your actual OoB is taken into account whenever you try to lie with dummies. If not a house rule, it seems like sensible practice!

In sum, go ahead and "cheat"!

 

[Pyth]

Thanks! You answered all my follow up questions before I even asked them!

and it's not cheating if you don't get caught win

 

[Binchois]

Thanks! You answered all my follow up questions before I even asked them!

You're welcome! Here is the Q&A (Perry Sez) that resulted from the above mentioned thread:

A4.72 & A12.11 Say you have two stacks of 3 concealment counters (from your opponent’s perspective). 1 is all dummies and 1 is a hs with a 5PP MTR. Both advance into different woods hexes, but you don’t want to give away which is the MTR. The hs/MTR must gain CX as advance versus difficult terrain. Could the dummies voluntarily gain CS status?​

A. The Dummies may place a CX counter as if making an advance vs. difficult terrain.​

I think this clarifies that out and out lying is "officially sanctioned."

P.S. I assume that in your OP situation, the dummy stack is in LOS to the enemy. That makes this question more significant as dummies have value for preventing enemy concealment gain. Even when you are obviously lying, moving a dummy stack (using Assault Movement) to higher ground can make them more of a nuisance .

 

[Pyth]

I believe that the "out and out lying" cannot include any fake DR/dr's. I also just realized that while you answered all my follow up questions, my actual OP remains unanswered. Are we, when moving concealed units, compelled to announce the details of the movement or just the MF expenditure. That is, in my original post, was "A" -- satisfactory, or must we come up with some plausible, (or implausible) way in which the move was accomplished. I would like the option of saying -- "it's a legal move... you work it out." Against a really good player they'll come up with terrifying possibilities I had't considered

 

[Binchois]

I believe that the "out and out lying" cannot include any fake DR/dr's. I also just realized that while you answered all my follow up questions, my actual OP remains unanswered. Are we, when moving concealed units, compelled to announce the details of the movement or just the MF expenditure. That is, in my original post, was "A" -- satisfactory, or must we come up with some plausible, (or implausible) way in which the move was accomplished. I would like the option of saying -- "it's a legal move... you work it out." Against a really good player they'll come up with terrifying possibilities I had't considered

Well yes, you cannot fake DRs/DRs...

As for you question, I think you have to declare what would make the move possible which is why I would prefer a house rule to limit lying to what is possible in this scenario/situation. For example, you can't claim to be using DT if you were just CX. Nor should you be allowed to pretend having a leader when all of your leaders are visible.

This last possibility seems to be allowed by rule (at least not prohibited), but I would prefer that folks be able to justify any fake moves they make.

...and so I refer back to my concealed leader example making a rally attempt out of LOS. If his DRM was required for success, I think you need to explain why your unit just rallied. For this, I think you have to offer a legal reason for your dummy moves (your Case B).

 

[jrv]

The concealment rules contain the following on Dummies:

A12.11 A stack of Dummies containing no real unit may be moved as if it contains a real unit (even to the extent of being able to move with leader/Double Time MF bonuses)

This is broadly interpreted as allowing all movement/advance capabilities as long as it does not involve a DR/dr (e.g. no ESB).

JR

 

[Pyth]

I wouldn't object to that House Rule at all. In my original example with 5 dummies assault moving 4MF, I don't think there's any way they can accomplish that move without a leader. If I'm correct about that, and if all leaders were accounted for elsewhere, your house rule would make that move NA, then?

As a practical matter I think your house rules (1. Justify -- 2. Plausibly) have a chance of preventing real rules oversights where "it's legal, you work it out" -- leaves room for undiscovered error, the kind that really suck to discover an unrecoverable move or two later. That said, I think A4.2 taken strictly literally says a player "states aloud the MF expended by that unit in entering each hex or in performing any other activity within it's current hex." Which supports "4mf, it's legal, you work out why" ... despite making one sound like an absolute prickweed.

By the way this part of the question isn't really about dummies but any concealed units.

 

[Binchois]

I wouldn't object to that House Rule at all. In my original example with 5 dummies assault moving 4MF, I don't think there's any way they can accomplish that move without a leader. If I'm correct about that, and if all leaders were accounted for elsewhere, your house rule would make that move NA, then?

As a practical matter I think your house rules (1. Justify -- 2. Plausibly) have a chance of preventing real rules oversights where "it's legal, you work it out" -- leaves room for undiscovered error, the kind that really suck to discover an unrecoverable move or two later. That said, I think A4.2 taken strictly literally says a player "states aloud the MF expended by that unit in entering each hex or in performing any other activity within it's current hex." Which supports "4mf, it's legal, you work out why" ... despite making one sound like an absolute prickweed.

By the way this part of the question isn't really about dummies but any concealed units.

I agree...the rules seem to allow for non-explained moves (your Case A), but requiring that a move be plausibly explained (Case B) just seems a better way to play.

My house rule really leads to a Case C, however. In your situation, I know all your leaders are on the board, so the move is disallowed. Your Case B, OTOH, would still allow you to claim having a leader - even though we both know there isn't one - just to preserve the dummy stack (as sniper bait, concealment repellent, etc...).

 

[jrv]

I believe that the "out and out lying" cannot include any fake DR/dr's. I also just realized that while you answered all my follow up questions, my actual OP remains unanswered. Are we, when moving concealed units, compelled to announce the details of the movement or just the MF expenditure. That is, in my original post, was "A" -- satisfactory, or must we come up with some plausible, (or implausible) way in which the move was accomplished. I would like the option of saying -- "it's a legal move... you work it out." Against a really good player they'll come up with terrifying possibilities I had't considered

There is a further rule regarding the protection of units:

A12.16 RIGHT OF INSPECTION: If a stack is not concealed after play begins (2.9), the opposing player may inspect its contents—unless the stack is out of the LOS of all of his Good Order ground units, in which case he may only demand verification of action(s) taken. The required response to this demand is limited to showing only only the information needed for verification. Since this would reveal Dummy stacks as soon as they move, players should not ask for verification of MF/MP expended by concealed moving units in exchange for not exceeding the MF capabilities of any concealed unit."

First these rule is incoherent in that the first sentence is talking about stacks that are not concealed after play begins, while the third sentence (that references the second that references the first) is talking about Dummy stacks, which are by their nature concealed and began the scenario concealed. But it seems to be suggesting that the rules default is that the opponent can demand verification for all actions, whether in LOS or not and whether concealed or not.

I don't think anyone plays that way. I have never met anyone that plays even in the way of the limited house rule suggested in A12.16. Everyone I have played has trusted his opponent to move concealed and out-of-LOS units correctly without verification (although fairly often out-of-LOS stacks are poked at until I point out that there is no right of inspection). When I notice someone moving a stack that might require double time or Advance vs Difficult Terrain I will point it out, but I let my opponent do his own verification.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

Let me expand the question a little bit:

1. Can a Dummy claim to be a unit which is not part of an OoB?
(Let us say, you have a couple of Dummies, switch two of them to 5/8", claim this to be a US Jeep being the US player, which is not part of your OoB and have that "Dummy Jeep" scoot out of LOS across the board along a road.)

2. Can you switch during the game what you claim your Dummy to be?
(Let us say, in turn 1, you pose as the "US Jeep" scooting along a road for 72 hexes. In turn 2, you claim to be an M18 Tankdestroyer now scooting along 18 hexes of OG - all out of LOS of the enemy of course.)

I am not asking for the sense this could make or not, merely, if such moves are legal by the rules.

von Marwitz

 

[Justiciar]

Let me expand the question a little bit:

1. Can a Dummy claim to be a unit which is not part of an OoB?
(Let us say, you have a couple of Dummies, switch two of them to 5/8", claim this to be a US Jeep being the US player, which is not part of your OoB and have that "Dummy Jeep" scoot out of LOS across the board along a road.)

2. Can you switch during the game what you claim your Dummy to be?
(Let us say, in turn 1, you pose as the "US Jeep" scooting along a road for 72 hexes. In turn 2, you claim to be an M18 Tankdestroyer now scooting along 18 hexes of OG - all out of LOS of the enemy of course.)

I am not asking for the sense this could make or not, merely, if such moves are legal by the rules.

von Marwitz

I believe they are. There is nothing in the rules that state / link dummies (and dummy actions) to your actual OoB.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Let me expand the question a little bit:

1. Can a Dummy claim to be a unit which is not part of an OoB?
(Let us say, you have a couple of Dummies, switch two of them to 5/8", claim this to be a US Jeep being the US player, which is not part of your OoB and have that "Dummy Jeep" scoot out of LOS across the board along a road.)

2. Can you switch during the game what you claim your Dummy to be?
(Let us say, in turn 1, you pose as the "US Jeep" scooting along a road for 72 hexes. In turn 2, you claim to be an M18 Tankdestroyer now scooting along 18 hexes of OG - all out of LOS of the enemy of course.)

I am not asking for the sense this could make or not, merely, if such moves are legal by the rules.

von Marwitz

Sure, it could be usefull in a variable OB scenario where you have the option to take a vehicle(s) or not but one has elected not to take a vehicle in their selection of an OB.

 

[Curtis Brooks]

Sure, it could be usefull in a variable OB scenario where you have the option to take a vehicle(s) or not but one has elected not to take a vehicle in their selection of an OB.

How about driving your "mythical jeep" across the board and end in a hex containing a real afv (out of los of course). Next turn, your opponent won't know whether you are moving your real or dummy afv.

 

[Curtis Brooks]

I believe they are. There is nothing in the rules that state / link dummies (and dummy actions) to your actual OoB.

Does your dummy afv have to conform to a real unit in chapter H? Meaning, can I claim my dummy afv has 75 MP available and drive all over creation? Or, in a scenario with snow, can I claim a dummy stack to have skis when my OB doesn't provide them?

 

[jrv]

Does your dummy afv have to conform to a real unit in chapter H? Meaning, can I claim my dummy afv has 75 MP available and drive all over creation? Or, in a scenario with snow, can I claim a dummy stack to have skis when my OB doesn't provide them?

The rules say a dummy may move like a real unit but aren't specific about the details of what that means. The fallback is that your opponent can demand confirmation for actions taken, but if you take an absurd action it isn't really necessary to look. He already knows it's a dummy. A dummy wouldn't be removed for performing an absurd action, I don't think.

JR

 

[Justiciar]

Does your dummy afv have to conform to a real unit in chapter H? Meaning, can I claim my dummy afv has 75 MP available and drive all over creation? Or, in a scenario with snow, can I claim a dummy stack to have skis when my OB doesn't provide them?

There is no rule against that either...mind you I am not sure which is the dummy around or on the table at that point.

 

[jrv]

If you had a dummy that was way out of position you might be able to get it back into a useful position then mix it in with other units. This would be easiest to pull off in a scenario with very limited LOS. It's probably not going to work in a desert scenario, for instance.

JR

 

[bendizoid]

The way I’ve played it is they can be any unit on your OB for that scenario.

 

[Pyth]

In the words of Adrian Cronauer I have never see a thread in more dire need of an application of COWTRA!

Dummy units not provided by the OB racing across the map!? Come on. Why not dummy units from dummy modules... My dummy Area 51 fliers from the Forbidden Technology module teleport into place? Show me in the rules where it says I cant.

I think asking that limiting dummies to something on the OB is reasonable commonsense and avoids the decadent balderdash of nonsensical dummy units abusing movement capabilities to get to places they shouldnt to deny concealment growth behind enemy lines... ugh.

The House Rule discussed earlier that dummies be truly plausible (eg. no moving a dummy stack as if it had a leader if all OB provided real leaders are already plainly visible on Board) is imo a completely workable house rule in a casual game but isn't directly supported by the rules and could be argued is too restrictive...

I think a decent default on this is:

Dummy stacks units can move as if representing any type of OB provided unit currently available. (ie. no dummy Jeeps in turn one if the first Jeeps arrive with turn three reinforcements.) YEAH, I know Im just making stuff up... but if the alternative is anarchy....