Is temporarily revealing a concealed unit the only allowed way to prove it is real?

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Situation:
An SSR grants MMC of one side to set up in Foxholes. The enemy fires in LOS of a friendly unit in a Foxhole which has not moved since game start. The target of the enemy fire turns out to be out of LOS, so the only unit capable of causing loss of Concealment to the enemy would be the one in the Foxhole.

The friendly player claims loss of Concealment on the enemy firer. The enemy player demands temporary revelation of the friendly unit to prove that it is a real unit. The friendly player argues, that he can prove that his unit is real without having to reveal it because only MMC may set up in Foxholes by SSR.

Question:
Is the only 'legal' way of proving to be a real unit to temporarily reveal it or would the proof of being in a Foxhole suffice in the given situation?

Thanks for your help,
von Marwitz
 

Jeff Sewall

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
535
Reaction score
152
Location
Pittsburgh
Country
llUnited States
IMO, it must be temp revealed. One of the important nuances of this rule is that the opposing player is entitled to know the exact Strength Factor of the unit doing the concealment stripping. The only way to do this is to temp-reveal it or tell your opponent exactly what it is.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Agreed. Quite often some "battlefield intelligence" can be gained this way. Is it a full squad, what class is it etc.
Often we will just say "I've a 4-6-7 there".
 

Nearmiss

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
237
Reaction score
61
Location
SE MD
Country
llUnited States
When the RB states that a unit must be temporarily "completely revealed," does this mean you show all strength factors and any SW/Gun the unit posesses? If not, what is the definition of "completely reveal?"
 

clubby

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
642
Location
CA
Country
llUnited States
No, you do not need to show them anything but the unit. The rule says "the enemy unit", not the enemy unit and all his possessed SWs.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
When the RB states that a unit must be temporarily "completely revealed," does this mean you show all strength factors and any SW/Gun the unit posesses? If not, what is the definition of "completely reveal?"
No, only the unit needs to be revealed [A12.14]. The "completely" means that you can't just show a boot.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Situation:
An SSR grants MMC of one side to set up in Foxholes. The enemy fires in LOS of a friendly unit in a Foxhole which has not moved since game start. The target of the enemy fire turns out to be out of LOS, so the only unit capable of causing loss of Concealment to the enemy would be the one in the Foxhole.

The friendly player claims loss of Concealment on the enemy firer. The enemy player demands temporary revelation of the friendly unit to prove that it is a real unit. The friendly player argues, that he can prove that his unit is real without having to reveal it because only MMC may set up in Foxholes by SSR.

Question:
Is the only 'legal' way of proving to be a real unit to temporarily reveal it or would the proof of being in a Foxhole suffice in the given situation?

Thanks for your help,
von Marwitz
Of course you could always apply the common sense rule to this, but if he maintained such an attitude, I'd hold him to the ASOP religiously as well. For me normally, it's what I wish to get out of the scenario. Being an old grunt, if I can induce more of a FOW aspect into the game, I'm usually all for it though sometimes quite frustrating as I really WANT to know what's there. However, as the Q was what is required, as stated in the other posts the unit in question must expose himself temporarily (flashing if you will).:eek:
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Is any other enemy in LOS of the concealed unit in the foxhole? It may not be a temporary reveal if so. (edit) I know I've been playing that incorrectly for years if my re-read of A12.14 is legit.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
A strict reading of the rules states that a unit needs to be completely revealed temporarily. Nothing about possessed SW being revealed. In tournament play, an opponent has every right to insist on that.

Different gaming groups read and play that rule differently for friendly games. Here in Wyoming, showing a boot suffices.....for friendly games that are not for kidneys. I know at least one player on the Colorado Front Range who insists on being able to see the complete unit momentarily.

<shrug> I'm fine playing it either way. Its a game with cardboard playing pieces.....
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
In the case of the OP both players know that the FH contains a MMC.
So there is no reason not to reveal the unit - excepted to see if it is a squad or a HS.
The owner of the MMC is free not to temporarily reveal the MMC, but the trade off is that he won't strip concealment of the unit of his opponent.
As we say in French : you cannot have the butter and the money for the butter.
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Of course you could always apply the common sense rule to this, but if he maintained such an attitude, I'd hold him to the ASOP religiously as well. For me normally, it's what I wish to get out of the scenario. Being an old grunt, if I can induce more of a FOW aspect into the game, I'm usually all for it though sometimes quite frustrating as I really WANT to know what's there. However, as the Q was what is required, as stated in the other posts the unit in question must expose himself temporarily (flashing if you will).:eek:
Actually, our case was not involving sharking of any sort. We were just contemplating out of interest. Usually, I even play with a house-rule that saying that there is "something" real suffices to strip Concealment to preserve a bit more fog of war.

But we can conclude that by the hard rules (A12.14) the complete revelation of one friendly unit is mandatory temporarily and that there is no other way to 'prove' that a unit is real and thus cause of Concealment loss:

"A12.14 Removal: ... If the only Good Order enemy ground unit in LOS is itself concealed when a concealed friendly unit makes a concealment-loss action (other than breaking or being Reduced/Wounded), that enemy unit must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily (to prove that it is not a Dummy) if it opts to force the friendly unit to lose his; the viewing unit's momentary forfeiture of concealment is instantly regained. ..."


Thanks for your thoughts and pointing this out.

von Marwitz
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
I am not sure I agree with the concept that if the revealed squad has a support weapon then the SW can stay concealed. A weapon cannot be concealed by itself. I tend to read completely forfeit as take the ? counter off and show the unit. If that unit possesses a SW then that is part of the reveal. I am ok with "There is a 4-6-7 there" instead of actually removing the counter, but if it is a 4-6-7 and an LMG then you should state that also.

I am certainly not claiming infallibility on this but I don't see how A12.14 can be interpreted as having the ability to keep the SW concealed. Any guidance on that would be greatly appreciated so I can adjust the way I am playing to be in line with the institutional knowledge of the hive.


Mike
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I am not sure I agree with the concept that if the revealed squad has a support weapon then the SW can stay concealed. A weapon cannot be concealed by itself. I tend to read completely forfeit as take the ? counter off and show the unit. If that unit possesses a SW then that is part of the reveal. I am ok with "There is a 4-6-7 there" instead of actually removing the counter, but if it is a 4-6-7 and an LMG then you should state that also.

I am certainly not claiming infallibility on this but I don't see how A12.14 can be interpreted as having the ability to keep the SW concealed. Any guidance on that would be greatly appreciated so I can adjust the way I am playing to be in line with the institutional knowledge of the hive.


Mike
As per the index:

"Unit: any game piece or counter with its own MF/MP allotment and normally capable of movement without being portaged, pushed, or towed. Infantry, Cavalry [but not horses], Dummy stacks, and vehicles (even if Immobilized) are all different types of units"

A SW is not a unit. A12.14 only demands " that enemy unit must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily"


von Marwitz
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
A12.14 doesn't indeed speak of SW, while it is obvious that they are revealed with the unit which possesses them.
I think that you have a good point.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Any guidance on that would be greatly appreciated so I can adjust the way I am playing to be in line with the institutional knowledge of the hive.
Old Q&A:

A12.14 If a unit forfeits its “?” momentarily to force Concealment loss on a moving enemy unit,
does it also need to show what SW, if any, that it possesses?
A. No; see A12.16. [Letter179]

179) Wayne Hadady to Perry Cocke and reply, forwarded to Scott Romanowski 15 July 2002
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Thanks von Marwitz. I see the connection you have made. I appreciate the education, sometimes the cross references in the rule book are interesting. I am not sure I like it but certainly that position is supportable by the rule book and I shall abide by it. Also thanks Klas for the Q&A, I was wondering if there had been some clarification out there from the powers that be.

Mike
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
There still remains the fact that A12.14 also speaks of units without mentioning SW.
The Q&A establishes a double standard reading.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Thanks von Marwitz. I see the connection you have made. I appreciate the education, sometimes the cross references in the rule book are interesting. I am not sure I like it but certainly that position is supportable by the rule book and I shall abide by it. Also thanks Klas for the Q&A, I was wondering if there had been some clarification out there from the powers that be.
One has to consider that the temporary forfeiture of "?" per A12.14 is not to be treated as if the unit actually loses Concealment and then automatically regains it. E.g., a broken enemy unit ADJACENT to such a unit does not become DM.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
In "must completely forfeit its "?" momentarily", there is the adverb "completely", which is rather emphatic.
Even if it is only a temporary loss of concealment, it still is complete.
It won't indeed cause effects outside of the unit itself such as DMing an ADJACENT broken enemy unit.
But one could argue that showing the SW of the temporarily revealed unit belongs to its "complete" removal of concealment.
The Q&A decided that it is not the case, but even though I will abide to that ruling, I don't find strong reasons in the wording of the rules to support that interpretation.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
I have always played that any SW are also revealed, obviously, incorrectly.

Rich
 
Top