HIP up to one squad equivalent

[jaburris]

If an SSR states that you may HIP up to one squad equivalent (and any SMC/SW stacked with him), can you:

1. HIP only a HS?

2. Define a squad equivalent as a HS and 4 SMC's and HIP them all in seperate locations?

3. HIP a full squad and a SMC in two separate locations since it takes 4 SMCs to make a HS.

I believe 1 and 2 above are legal, but 3 would not be because it exceeds a squad equivalent by an SMC.

 

[da priest]

Ahem, err, excuse me, where does it say so many SMCs(4) equal a HS? I seem to have missed that. I.E. it is 5 SMCS for a HS .

 

[UXB]

for PP costs

I think Original Poster is mis-applying the PP formula to the US#.

When transporting personel a Squad is 10 PP, HS is 5, and an
SMC is 1.

For example, a vehicle allowing 8 PP in Riders also has a "bonus" of
up to 4 SMC Riders for free. I seem to recall that that's the Rider
rule: Riders in the amount of X plus upto 4 SMC.

So OP I think is confusing the notion of "Squad Equivalence" and
the number of PP Squads and HS consume when being transported.

So I think that if the SSR says up to 1 Squad Equivalent HIP you can
HIP
1 Squad or
2 HS or
2 Crew

Usually there's an explicit statment like "and any SMC/SW stacked with them" which allows HIP'ing SMC.

So the answer is 1. YES; 2 NO you can't HIP 4 SMC as an "Equivalent" to a HS.

There's a notion of US# which is IIRC HS 1, Squad 2, ORDNANCE 3?, VECHICLES 4 or 5 depending on "Target Size".

And another thing..
Squad Equivalents for LG calculations in DYO is 4/3 Elite + number non-elite and non-conscrupt + 2/3 Conscript.

NRBH for the details of the US # and Squad Equivalents for LG

 

[ds]

I noticed that many scenarios stipulate 'x squad equivalents (and any SW/SMC stacked with them)', likely to avoid this type of confusion.

However, A5.5 clarifies equivalencies (which then opens a potential bag of worms stating 4 or less SMC count as zero squad-equivalents).

 

[jaburris]

I was mistaken, 5 not 4 SMC= on HS equivalent.

As ds says, 4 or less SMC count as zero squad-equivalents.

Therefore the following would all be a squad equivalent:

2 halfsquads
2 crews
1 full squad
10 single man counters
1 halfsquad and 5 single man counters
1 half squad and 1 crew
and
all the above plus up to 4 single man counters

Now put yourself in the shoes of a tournament director. An SSR states that you may HIP up to one squad equivalent (and any SMC/SW stacked with him), Would it be permissable to HIP 3 SMCs all in seperate locations with bazookas? I certainly beleive that 3 SMCs do not exceed a squad equivalent so I would allow this.

 

[SamB]

Now put yourself in the shoes of a tournament director. An SSR states that you may HIP up to one squad equivalent (and any SMC/SW stacked with him), Would it be permissable to HIP 3 SMCs all in seperate locations with bazookas? I certainly beleive that 3 SMCs do not exceed a squad equivalent so I would allow this.

OK, I -am- a tourney director - not that that means anything.

I would NOT allow this because the SSR says "any SMC stacked with him". It doesn't say you can HIP any SMC except for the ones stacked with the HIP Squad Equivalent.

JMO - Sam

 

[Pitman]

I think it is clear that if you can HIP a squad equivalent, you can use part or all of that to HIP a bunch of SMCs.

 

[Darkman]

SMC vs MMC

Unless somebody can site a direct rule that would allow SMC's to count as MMC's (for anything other than stacking) I would say no. If the SSR says MMC's get HIP status then SMC's can only get it by attaching to the MMC. If SMC's get their own HIP status the SSR should stipulate that expressly.

To decide otherwise runs the risk of working against the intent of HIP. Especially the kind designated by SSR. Otherwise it becomes a way to hide where the leaders are scattered about; at the expense of exposing troops.

 

[paul]

At first I was inclined to agree with Sam, but quickly reading A5.5
(found by looking up squad equivalent in the index V2) has lead
me to change my mind.

My guess is that Sam's interpretation is likely what the scenerio
designer meant, but the rules state clearly in 5.5 that
Five SMC = 1 HS and 2 HS = 1 FS and that these subs can be
made when ever a SSR is granted to a "equivelent".

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: SMC vs MMC

Unless somebody can site a direct rule that would allow SMC's to count as MMC's (for anything other than stacking) I would say no. If the SSR says MMC's get HIP status then SMC's can only get it by attaching to the MMC. If SMC's get their own HIP status the SSR should stipulate that expressly.

Well, A5.5 is the general definition of Squad-equivalent (the index points to it), and A5.5 is clear that <= 4 SMC is zero squad equivalents. So if I HIP one squad, and 4 SMC in different Locations, this is by definition still only one squad-equivalent.

I agree with Paul that the designer's intent with such an SSR is not to allow those lone SMC HIP though, so a Q&A/errata about this in A12.3 (HIP rules) would be nice.

 

[Pitman]

If you are given the ability to HIP one squad equivalent, you can do one of the following:

1. HIP one squad
2. HIP two half squads (assuming you can deploy)
3. HIP one half squad and up to five SMC
4. HIP up to 10 SMC

You cannot HIP one squad equivalent and up to four SMC, because that is more than one squad equivalent, even if it does not yet reach a half squad equivalent.

You can never HIP more than you are allowed.

 

[Ole Boe]

If you are given the ability to HIP one squad equivalent, you can do one of the following:

1. HIP one squad
2. HIP two half squads (assuming you can deploy)
3. HIP one half squad and up to five SMC
4. HIP up to 10 SMC

You cannot HIP one squad equivalent and up to four SMC, because that is more than one squad equivalent, even if it does not yet reach a half squad equivalent.

According to the rules, you're wrong:

but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents

So one squad + <= 4 SMC is not more than one squad-equivalent, according to the rules. If it was, 1 squad + 1 leader in a pillbox would be overstacked.[/quote]

I still think that the intent with such an SSR is to not allow up to four SMC to freely use HIP though.

You can never HIP more than you are allowed.

I think we all agree that its illegal to do something you're not allowed to
The question is whether you're allowed to do it. I've referred to the rule I belive allow it, so it would be nice if you had a rule reference and not only a general statement if you think I'm wrong...

 

[UXB]

What is the unit of HIP?

Is the unit of HIP a stacking limit, a size limit, or something else?

The US# A1.6 refers to ""bulk, number of men, and/or difficulty to conceal"
The squad equivalent refers to stacking.

One could argue that HIP is concealment so the US# rule must be
used not the stacking rule. So HIP'ing 1 Squad Equivalent of US# is
1 squad or
1 HS/crew and 1 SMC or
3 SMC

However the example in A5.5 specifically refers to "hidden" (HIP) and
further stipulates that the nationality must be allowed to Deploy.

This thread is implying that the stacking rule in 5.5 extends to SMC which
sounds reasonable to me by the rules. But I think we can agree that
not may players have interpreted the "HIP x sqaud equivalents" to extend
to SMC.

Furthermore, n + 0 is still n, so it seems reasonable to say that <= 4 SMC
could be HIP for free, when calculating HIP of 1 squad equivalent.

 

[Barber]

I think it is clear that if you can HIP a squad equivalent, you can use part or all of that to HIP a bunch of SMCs.

Whether this is technically legal or not, and I'm tending towards the side that it is, I hope my opponent decides to HIP all/a bunch of his leaders.

In a normal scenario (whatever normal is) on defense, you'll probably get 3-5 leaders. Go ahead, HIP 4 of them. I'd rather they do that than actually rally troops, direct fire, etc..

 

[Treadhead]

Re: SMC vs MMC

Well, A5.5 is the general definition of Squad-equivalent (the index points to it), and A5.5 is clear that <= 4 SMC is zero squad equivalents. So if I HIP one squad, and 4 SMC in different Locations, this is by definition still only one squad-equivalent.

I utterly disagree.

What you've done in your case is use HIP for "one squad equivalent", plus use HIP for additional SMC. That is contrary to A5.5. "A squad's equivalent may be substituted for a squad"; it does not say "a squad's equivalent plus <= 4 SMC may be substituted for a squad".

Look at it this way: Say you are granted the ability to use HIP for one squad equivalent. Do that first. You may use any combination you want as found in A5.5, but you must stop when you reach one squad equivalent. That's all you are allowed to set up using HIP; that's it.

An SSR would be required to allow you to use HIP for any SMC that are not a part of the "one squad equivalent".

This is usually -- as in the original example -- accomplished by the phrase "and any SMC stacked with them". I.e., once you have used HIP for your "one squad equivalent", you may then place additional SMC in those same Locations.

In that manner, you may end up with all of your SMC Hidden, but in no way are you allowed to use HIP in any hex that does not also contain one of your "one squad equivalent".

I don't believe there is any such loophole for the "zero squad equivalent" argument as you've described, and I believe that the applicable rule reference is in fact A5.5.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: SMC vs MMC

Well, A5.5 is the general definition of Squad-equivalent (the index points to it), and A5.5 is clear that <= 4 SMC is zero squad equivalents. So if I HIP one squad, and 4 SMC in different Locations, this is by definition still only one squad-equivalent.

I utterly disagree.

First, let me restate that I believe the intention of such an SSR is to not allow this, but the rules does unfortunately allow it, which is why I think an official Q&A/Errata in A12.3 is needed.

What you've done in your case is use HIP for "one squad equivalent", plus use HIP for additional SMC. That is contrary to A5.5. "A squad's equivalent may be substituted for a squad"; it does not say "a squad's equivalent plus <= 4 SMC may be substituted for a squad".

The problem with the rules is that "one squad equivalent plus additional SMC" is still only one squad equivalent. A5.5 doesn't need to say "a squad's equivalent plus <= 4 SMC may be substituted for a squad", because 2 HS + 4 SMC is "a squad's equivalent", nothing more. If it was, you wouldn't be able to stack a leader with a squad in a PB.

Look at it this way: Say you are granted the ability to use HIP for one squad equivalent. Do that first. You may use any combination you want as found in A5.5, but you must stop when you reach one squad equivalent. That's all you are allowed to set up using HIP; that's it.

Well, I could start by placing two SMC HIP (zero squad-equivalents), and then place one squad HIP. Now tell me the exact number of squad-equvalents I've HIP'ed: A5.5 tells me that I've still only HIP'ed 1 squad-equivalent. Not 1.2 although that would make sense. If you think I've HIP'ed more than one squad-equivalent, please show me a rule which tells that 2 SMC + 1 squad is more than one squad-equivalent.

An SSR would be required to allow you to use HIP for any SMC that are not a part of the "one squad equivalent".

This is usually -- as in the original example -- accomplished by the phrase "and any SMC stacked with them". I.e., once you have used HIP for your "one squad equivalent", you may then place additional SMC in those same Locations.

I agree that this is the intention, but as I have shown, it is not supported by the rules.

I don't believe there is any such loophole for the "zero squad equivalent" argument as you've described, and I believe that the applicable rule reference is in fact A5.5.

If this loophole doesn't exist, then I must have broken a rule or SSR by placing some HIP SMC in addition to the HIP squad. According to A5.5, I've only HIP'ed 1 squad-equivalent, so I've followed the SSR.

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: What is the unit of HIP?

Is the unit of HIP a stacking limit, a size limit, or something else?

It depends on the SSR. An SSR could easily allow a number of counters, a number of PP or a number of US# HIP, but the most-used SSR's allow a number of Squad Equivalents, which refers to stacking limit.

The US# A1.6 refers to ""bulk, number of men, and/or difficulty to conceal"
The squad equivalent refers to stacking.

One could argue that HIP is concealment so the US# rule must be
used not the stacking rule. So HIP'ing 1 Squad Equivalent of US# is
1 squad or
1 HS/crew and 1 SMC or
3 SMC

...except that "Squad Equivalent" is found in the index, and refers to A5.5.

However the example in A5.5 specifically refers to "hidden" (HIP) and
further stipulates that the nationality must be allowed to Deploy.

This thread is implying that the stacking rule in 5.5 extends to SMC which
sounds reasonable to me by the rules.

The stacking rule in 5.5 includes SMC. It says "...but ≤ 4 SMC count as zero squad-equivalents". I don't see how it can be much clearer than that.

But I think we can agree that not may players have interpreted the "HIP x sqaud equivalents" to extend to SMC.
Furthermore, n + 0 is still n, so it seems reasonable to say that <= 4 SMC
could be HIP for free, when calculating HIP of 1 squad equivalent.

I agree with you, and I would argue that the intention is clear enough due to the "+ any SMC stacked with them", and will therefore not HIP lone SMC. But the problem is that the rules allow it, and some players will use it to their advantage.[/quote]

 

[Darkman]

HIP in a real game

Lets ask this question.

The SSR says your opponent can set up 2 squad equivalents (and any SMC's stacked with them) HIP.

So you begin play and discover during play that your opponent has set up a full squad (with a smc) HIP, and 2 half squads (one with a SMC) in HIP locations. AND his hero and 1 other SMC at other locations are also set up HIP.

Are we saying we'd be ok with this if it happens to us during a tournament? Or that we'd be ok doing it to our opponent during a tournament?

Sections A5.xx clearly lists SMC for stacking purposes, but I think SSR's are talking about unit status, not stacking. As the SSR's as I've seen them list HIP are only about MMC's not any other unit. Except as the SSR specifically lists them. So the above SSR only allows SMC's to be HIP if stacked with a HIP MMC.

 

[Ole Boe]

Re: HIP in a real game

Lets ask this question.

The SSR says your opponent can set up 2 squad equivalents (and any SMC's stacked with them) HIP.

So you begin play and discover during play that your opponent has set up a full squad (with a smc) HIP, and 2 half squads (one with a SMC) in HIP locations. AND his hero and 1 other SMC at other locations are also set up HIP.

Are we saying we'd be ok with this if it happens to us during a tournament? Or that we'd be ok doing it to our opponent during a tournament?

I am saying that this would be incredibly sleazy and surely against the scneario creator's intention, and thus not ok, but its allowed per the rules. It depends on what you mean by "ok".

Sections A5.xx clearly lists SMC for stacking purposes, but I think SSR's are talking about unit status, not stacking. As the SSR's as I've seen them list HIP are only about MMC's not any other unit. Except as the SSR specifically lists them. So the above SSR only allows SMC's to be HIP if stacked with a HIP MMC.

This is wrong, because:
1) A5.5 is the only definition of Squad Equivalents. If an SSR uses the term, A5.5 is the place to look it up. There is no special "Squad Equivalent for HIP status" rule.
2) The Typical SSRs tells to HIP a number of "Squad Equivalents". They don't mention whether those are Squads, HS, crew or SMC. The combination is up to the player.

To simplify my argument:
Assume the setup and SSR you give in your example, and ask yourself:
1) How many Squad Equivalents are set up HIP (1 squad, 2 HS, 4 SMC)?
2) Is this <= the number allowed by the SSR (2 Squad Equivalents)?
3) Is the SSR thereby satisfied?
4) Is it incredibly sleazy?
5) Would I set up like this myself?
6) Would it be nice with an official Q&A/errata fixing this sleaze hole?

For reference, here are my answers:
1) 2
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) No
6) Yes

 

[apbills]

Re: HIP in a real game

To simplify my argument:
Assume the setup and SSR you give in your example, and ask yourself:
1) How many Squad Equivalents are set up HIP (1 squad, 2 HS, 4 SMC)?
2) Is this <= the number allowed by the SSR (2 Squad Equivalents)?
3) Is the SSR thereby satisfied?
4) Is it incredibly sleazy?
5) Would I set up like this myself?
6) Would it be nice with an official Q&A/errata fixing this sleaze hole?

For reference, here are my answers:
1) 2
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) No
6) Yes

Here are mine
1) 2.4 - assuming the SMC are not setup in the same Locations as the other HIP units.
2) No
3) No
4) No - it is illegal
5/6) do not matter

Reread the entire A5 rules section.

Where does it in anyplace state that <= 4 SMC = zero squad equivalents?
It never does this. It is a figment of peoples imagination.

A5.1 states the stacking limits of a location. What are they?
"three squads or their equivalents plus up to four SMC per Location"

This does not equate to <= 4 SMC = 0 squad equivalents.

A5.5 defines squad equivalents. Pretty clear math. I suspect anyone playing ASL can handle basic fractions.

If you set up an SMC HIP without stacking with a squad (per the SSR language) - it is legal, but it will cost you 0.1 squad equivalent, effectively using a HS unless you want to HIP some more SMC.

With the SSR (allowing 1 squad equivalent plus any SW/SMC that setup with them) you could setup 10 SMC HIP in separate Locations, and any number of additional SMC with any of those HIP units.

Alan