von Marwitz
Forum Guru
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
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