So you're saying 'recon by fire' vs. HIP pillboxes in the PTO context will only work if I announce something like: "I fire into that hex attempting to reveal a possible pillbox there."?The pillbox is a separate location, so unless the attacking unit is firing at a hypothetical pillbox location or is a type of attack that naturally attacks multiple locations (e.g. Area Target Type), the target is not attacked and there is no need to reveal the pillbox. If the pillbox location is being targeted for whatever reason, then it would have to be revealed but its contents would retain concealment (in this case HIP) because the attack is no effect.
You're definitely not the only one here. At some point I was preparing for a Suicide Creek CG (never went through though), and the question of "recon by fire" vs pillboxes was a definite concern; but I never noticed that point.Thinking about it, your argumentation (separate locations) makes sense. Probably I have played that wrong in the past.
This is because in your head, when you picture someone spraying an area with fire, of course, the bullets could not 'magically omit' hypothetical locations where Pillboxes might be located. In the real world, this virtual separation is not possible. In ASL it is. Because this is counter-intuitive, people will be missing this point.You're definitely not the only one here. At some point I was preparing for a Suicide Creek CG (never went through though), and the question of "recon by fire" vs pillboxes was a definite concern; but I never noticed that point.
As far as I know. The idea that one might fire on a possible pillbox location was introduced to me in a q&aSo you're saying 'recon by fire' vs. HIP pillboxes in the PTO context will only work if I announce something like: "I fire into that hex attempting to reveal a possible pillbox there."?
But from here you are on your own for the mechanics. For instance based on this it looks as though IFT against the NCA will not reveal the pillbox, even if declared against a hypothetical pillbox. To me it would seem that the defender is using the pillbox TEM even though keeping the pillbox HIP makes "reality sense". And you and your opponent must come up with a default location (pillbox or not, when there are non-HIP units in the hex or not) if no location is declared, or must agree that there is no default and all attacks must be fully-specified.A7. & B30. Is it allowed to fire on the IFT versus a suspected but unknown pseudo location in order to reveal a potential unknown pillbox? With revelation only occurring should such fire be through a CA facing and achieving a PTC or better.
A. Yes to both.
This is surely the maximun "aberration" I´ve ever seen playing this game.. How is posible to fire at exactly the same effectivity vs a hidden pillbox -ie no idea where those f.. units are in the full concealment terrain hex- than vs an absolutely Known and identified one?..
Note that even vs. a HIP, hypothetical pillbox IFT FP is not halved.
I go with B. I think the notion of firing into hypothetical pillboxes is so absurd that it ought not to be allowed, unless the other bizarre combination occurs, where a HIP pillbox gets un-HIP contents.You fire into a hex at a possible HIP pillbox location containing a HIP (or concealed or not concealed squad) through the NCA.
You roll a result on the IFT if the pillbox were not present.
What should the pillbox owner say?
A. Your shot was disallowed because through NCA.
B. Your shot had no effect, you figure it out.
No it's a good concept as for instance it prevents pillbox freezing and FL cancellation.IMHO the separate location of a PB is one of the dumbest things propagated in the ASLRB.