HIP squad deployment

[Michael R]

Rule A12.32 states "Hidden units may not move (even within their hex or to change a CA) or advance and remain hidden. If a hidden unit is to move/advance it must first be placed on the mapboard beneath a "?"; normal concealment rules then apply to its activity."

I have a HIP squad and leader stack. I wish to deploy the squad. No enemy as LOS to the stack. Can they stay HIP? I say yes because if they were concealed, they would stay concealed.

 

[A_T_Great]

If it is HIP and out of LOS, then only note F on the concealment table applies.

 

[bprobst]

A12.3: "Hidden Status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified." (My emphasis.) The Concealment Loss/Gain Table is not the HIP Loss/Gain Table -- HIP involves additional considerations that are not always reflected on that table.

What you have are two hidden units (leader and squad). Neither unit is moving or advancing, so you're OK there. However, what you want to do involves replacing one unit (squad) with two different units (half-squads). What rule gives the half-squads the same HIP status that the original squad possessed? If you're not entitled to be HIP, then you can't be HIP, regardless of enemy LOS.

There's no reason why the leader would lose HIP. Making the deployment attempt does not, in itself, cause loss of HIP for either leader or squad. However, if the deployment is successful, then the two new half-squads would be placed on map (concealed) because neither of them were granted HIP status -- only the original squad was. (It's no different to suggesting that a unit that starts play on board can become HIP later (ignoring cave complexes) -- even if an SSR allowed you to place him HIP, you can't retroactively claim it after play has begun.)

If you want your HS to be HIP, deploy them during setup (as per the usual free deployment allowance for your OB).

 

[jrv]

My read is that once the unit is setup HIP, it is concealment of a particular kind. It met the condition for setup, and now its concealment (HIP) is gained/lost as per the concealment gain/loss table plus any special rules for HIP. Being replaced by two subunits is not a cause for concealment loss, nor is it specifically mentioned as a cause for HIP loss, unlike moving to a new hex. The granting of HIP status is not an on-going state that is continually evaluated. Not any more than a unit gaining concealment using an OB-granted "?" (or by other means at setup) would lose that concealment for deploying.

JR

 

[bprobst]

The granting of HIP status is not an on-going state that is continually evaluated.

Exactly right. It's a one-and-done. The squad was granted HIP; when the squad no longer exists, the HIP status it was granted disappears with it. Silly to look at it in any other way, IMO.

COWTRA. The rules say HIP is allocated to a unit. They don't say that it's allocated to any "spawn" of that unit after play has begun. Why, therefore, would anyone assume that such "spawn" would get it?

 

[jrv]

Exactly right. It's a one-and-done. The squad was granted HIP; when the squad no longer exists, the HIP status it was granted disappears with it. Silly to look at it in any other way, IMO.

COWTRA. The rules say HIP is allocated to a unit. They don't say that it's allocated to any "spawn" of that unit after play has begun. Why, therefore, would anyone assume that such "spawn" would get it?

Per A12.31, "A revealed hidden unit is totally discovered; it is not placed on board beneath a "?"unless specifically stated by a rule covering that particular situation." If you insist that deploying causes HIP loss, the units have to be put on board unconcealed, unless you can produce a rule that says otherwise (I am not aware of one). I still say the unit's concealment status does not change at all.

Also if the SSR allowing HIP allows the MMC (and any SMC/SW stacked with it), when the MMC leaves without that SMC do you believe the SMC loses HIP (becomes unconcealed) as well? It was granted HIP as part of a stack that no longer exists.

JR

 

[Mister T]

I find jrv's arguments more convincing.

 

[Philippe D.]

If you insist that deploying causes HIP loss, the units have to be put on board unconcealed, unless you can produce a rule that says otherwise (I am not aware of one).

This could be a consequence of the rules, but it would have no practical effect. One could always voluntarily lose HIP to become "normally" concealed before attempting deployment.

My vision (not backed by any rules quotes, though) is that HIP should only be retained while the units do nothing. As soon as they do anything at all, they should lose HIP - become either concealed if the activity they engage in allows them to retain concealment, or revealed.

This, it seems to me, is the most coherent choice that respects the spirit: HIP is something that is kept on a side record, to be revealed at need. If the HIP player can amend the information on the side record, then this is no real side record. So, the only reasonable solution is that HIP is only retained while the HIP units' status does not change.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I woud stick to A12.32.
In addition to concealment loss activities, a HIP unit only loses its status if it moves or advances, or decides to become concealed.
Any other activity not covered by that rule won't make it lose hidden status.
No need to add speculative guesswork about the design intentions behind the rule.

 

[Michael R]

I am learning that this rule needs errata or clarification. On here and on FaceBook, people are split on how to play it. Chas Argent voiced that the deployed HS would come on board concealed because they are new units, but he didn’t say anything about the leader.

 

[bprobst]

If you insist that deploying causes HIP loss

I'm not insisting on it, the rules are insisting on it. Unless you have a rules quote that explicitly states that deployment does not cause loss of HIP? ... No? I didn't think so. Do you have a rule (that isn't about cave complexes) that says HIP is not allocated to a unit, but just kind of randomly exists in a Location and any passing unit can just take it whenever it wants? ... No? I didn't think so. So what does COWTRA tell us? It tells us that units may be granted HIP status, and therefore if that unit no longer exists (as a deployed squad no longer exists) then there is no more HIP status to worry about. Why is this even being debated?

Also if the SSR allowing HIP allows the MMC (and any SMC/SW stacked with it), when the MMC leaves without that SMC do you believe the SMC loses HIP (becomes unconcealed) as well? It was granted HIP as part of a stack that no longer exists.

Now you're just being silly. Stacks are not units [EXC: dummy stacks]. Stacks are not granted HIP status, the units (and portaged SW etc.) in the stack are granted HIP. Being stacked with the MMC was a pre-requisite to being granted that status but does not continue as an ongoing requirement (as you pointed out in your post above). The individual units (and any unportaged SW, if they're dropped) may (or must, in the case of a dropped weapon) forfeit their HIP at any time without impacting on the HIP status of other units present.

Less clear is what happens to a SW that is allowed to be HIP (because it's being portaged by a unit granted HIP status) that is transferred to another HIP unit in that Location. My reading of E1.2 suggests that it will remain HIP, but I'd like something more definitive. Also, if you had two HIP Emplaced Guns in a Location, and the crews decide to swap guns, does everything stay HIP? This sort of thing is out there on the bleeding edge of situations that the rules do and do not cover ....

he didn’t say anything about the leader.

I would suggest (as I've already suggested) that he didn't say anything because he didn't need to; the leader has done nothing to forfeit his HIP status. (This is all assuming that there is no enemy LOS to the HIP stack, of course.) The squad forfeits its HIP status by virtue of no longer existing, and HIP status is not something that one unit can just voluntarily pass on to another.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You are wrestling with your idea of what should make a unit lose HIP.
It is totally speculative.
Apply the rule as written. It works fine.
It is clear, much more than the additional notions that some people want to add to it.

 

[MajorDomo]

I am in the stay HIP camp. Out of LOS should be out of LOS.

Would point out that out of LOS units remain concealed after a sniper attack if not selected as the sniper target.

Rich

 

[Eagle4ty]

I am in the stay HIP camp. Out of LOS should be out of LOS.

Would point out that out of LOS units remain concealed after a sniper attack if not selected as the sniper target.

Rich

Must agree here as A12.3 specifically points out, "Hidden Status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified." and A12.31-.32 goes on to note the only real caveats to that status, Detection, Searching, Mopping-up, or suffering casualties and most prominently, "If a hidden unit is to move/advance it must first be placed on the mapboard beneath a "?"; normal concealment rules then apply to its activity." Checking the A12.121 CONCEALMENT LOSS/GAIN TABLE the only note for a unit not in LOS for losing concealment (e.g. HIP) is note F, or L for fortifications which do not apply in this situation, which basically restates the above mentioned rules. In as much as a concealed unit on board would not lose concealment in such a circumstance as noted by the OP, I do not see how one could infer that HIP (a form of concealment by definition) would be lost unless specifically noted. To insist otherwise is to ignore the rules as presented or just plain obstinacy to ones preferred views regardless of facts as presented to the contrary.

 

[Mister T]

Would point out that out of LOS units remain concealed after a sniper attack if not selected as the sniper target.
Rich

Furthermore even a sniper-selected OoLOS Unit would remain concealed if the attack only results in Pin.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I am playing RPT46, where three 667 US squads can deploy HIP.
I presume, following those who think that HS coming from a HIP squad cannot retain HIP - because they would not be the same unit - that I cannot deploy one of those squads upon setup and keep it HIP?
This could have an impact on many SSR which allow a squad or more to deploy HIP.

I will apply COWTRA : the rules allow HIP loss in the same manner as for a concealed unit, plus the A12.32 additional reason.

 

[Aavar]

A12.3: "Hidden Status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified." (My emphasis.) The Concealment Loss/Gain Table is not the HIP Loss/Gain Table -- HIP involves additional considerations that are not always reflected on that table.

What you have are two hidden units (leader and squad). Neither unit is moving or advancing, so you're OK there. However, what you want to do involves replacing one unit (squad) with two different units (half-squads). What rule gives the half-squads the same HIP status that the original squad possessed? If you're not entitled to be HIP, then you can't be HIP, regardless of enemy LOS.

There's no reason why the leader would lose HIP. Making the deployment attempt does not, in itself, cause loss of HIP for either leader or squad. However, if the deployment is successful, then the two new half-squads would be placed on map (concealed) because neither of them were granted HIP status -- only the original squad was. (It's no different to suggesting that a unit that starts play on board can become HIP later (ignoring cave complexes) -- even if an SSR allowed you to place him HIP, you can't retroactively claim it after play has begun.)

If you want your HS to be HIP, deploy them during setup (as per the usual free deployment allowance for your OB).

The Concealment Loss/Gain Table has "?"/HIP is Lost in red and "?" is Gained in black. So is does outline when HIP can be Lost.
as [U]Eagle4ty[/U] pointed out A12.3 specifically points out, "Hidden Status is considered the equal of concealment except as otherwise specified."
and A12.31 - A12.32 point out where otherwise specified is.

A squad deploying counts as other activity(note C on the A12.121 concealment loss Table) , so concealment/HIP is loss for this activity occurs IN LOS from a GOOD Order ground unit within 16 hexes only.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I am playing RPT46, where three 667 US squads can deploy HIP.
I presume, following those who think that HS coming from a HIP squad cannot retain HIP - because they would not be the same unit - that I cannot deploy one of those squads upon setup and keep it HIP?

IMO, that is a different situation - those squads (at least two of them) would deploy before that game starts. That setup instruction is granting HIP to the entire OB group.

 

[jrv]

I'm not insisting on it, the rules are insisting on it. Unless you have a rules quote that explicitly states that deployment does not cause loss of HIP? ... No?

Deploying does not, by itself, cause concealment loss. Once a unit is HIP, it retains HIP through the same mechanics as concealment loss with a few, explicitly listed exceptions. Movement is one. Deployment is not. Deployment does not itself cause concealment loss for OB-granted concealment, and it does not cause concealment loss for HIP. The rules do not insist on anything. You read the rules as assigning HIP to a particular size, strength and ID counter. I don't see any justification for that in the rules. They say that HIP is lost just like concealment. Further when I put down an OB-granted concealment counter I put it on a particular size, strength and ID counter. If HIP is particular to such a specification, why is an OB-granted concealment counter not?

JR

 

[Vinnie]

I want deployment to cause loss of Hip but I can't find anything to justify it.
The arguement that a unit is granted Hip and that cannot be transferred to subunits is a valid argument but I'd want to get this clarified.