Perry Sez Q&A on Game Squad in a PDF file

[Actionjick]

The answer to the A9.8 &A12.11 question, saying it's ok to take a 5/8" Dummy when your side has no vehicles and drive it across the board (while staying out of enemy LOS) in order to be Sniper Bait just convinces me that sometimes Perry DGAF.

How do you determine the MP of the Dummy stack?

 

[Tuomo]

How do you determine the MP of the Dummy stack?

Number of eligible PF that can be fired + total Smoke Hindrance DRM present on the board (FRD, CYA), +1 vs pre-1944 Italians, +range to target/ 5 (FRD) +1 if non- Crestline, halved, then the lower dr doubled [EXC: Wadis, Panjis, Gurkhas] (triangle)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Why do you have a picture of Dubrovnik?

I visited the city back i 2004 and I am too lazy to change the picture.

 

[Actionjick]

Number of eligible PF that can be fired + total Smoke Hindrance DRM present on the board (FRD, CYA), +1 vs pre-1944 Italians, +range to target/ 5 (FRD) +1 if non- Crestline, halved, then the lower dr doubled [EXC: Wadis, Panjis, Gurkhas] (triangle)

Seems simple enough.

 

[Tuomo]

Here's the text of that Q&A I'm talking about:

A9.8 & A12.11
I have a stack of 5/8" dummies. Can I dismantle them as if it is a MTR while out of LOS and switch from big CONCEALMENT counters to small CONCEALMENT counters? I have no AFV in my OB and it’s obvious by now that it’s a Dummy. Can I just call it an AFV and drive it towards the enemy sniper? (while staying out of LOS).
A. No. Yes.

Seriously, that second part just can't be allowed to stand. Wanna hold up your game for a good 15 minutes while teeth get gnashed? Just try that.

 

[Actionjick]

Here's the text of that Q&A I'm talking about:

A9.8 & A12.11
I have a stack of 5/8" dummies. Can I dismantle them as if it is a MTR while out of LOS and switch from big CONCEALMENT counters to small CONCEALMENT counters? I have no AFV in my OB and it’s obvious by now that it’s a Dummy. Can I just call it an AFV and drive it towards the enemy sniper? (while staying out of LOS).
A. No. Yes.

Seriously, that second part just can't be allowed to stand. Wanna hold up your game for a good 15 minutes while teeth get gnashed? Just try that.

Seriously doesn't make sense to me.

Looks like an interesting subject for a separate thread. I would start one but don't know how to link to the Q+A. OMOOT

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Seriously, that second part just can't be allowed to stand. Wanna hold up your game for a good 15 minutes while teeth get gnashed? Just try that.

Then you better start lobbying for errata to A12.11:
"...A ⅝" Dummy stack can claim to be an Emplaced Gun (without Emplacement TEM) or a vehicle..."

On the other hand, how often will one set up a ⅝" Dummy stack (probably as the defender) when one have no vehicles in the OB? Can't really see this being an issue.

 

[Bill Kohler]

Seriously, that second part just can't be allowed to stand. Wanna hold up your game for a good 15 minutes while teeth get gnashed? Just try that.

I suspect part of the problem is how to write a succinct answer to the Q&A or how to provide succinct errata to the rules to prohibit this maneuver while still allowing "more-honorable" actions.

This feels akin to the common challenge in many wargames of how to write a tight rule that prohibits retreats toward the enemy. Almost anything you devise can be abused, or is too complex to be workable.

 

[Actionjick]

Then you better start lobbying for errata to A12.11:
"...A ⅝" Dummy stack can claim to be an Emplaced Gun (without Emplacement TEM) or a vehicle..."

On the other hand, how often will one set up a ⅝" Dummy stack (probably as the defender) when one have no vehicles in the OB? Can't really see this being an issue.

The issue being that A 12.11 provides information on moving Dummy stacks but only refers to MF not MP.

Logically if the side with Dummy stacks had vehicles one assumes the Dummy stacks could be moved as if they had the MPs of one of the owner's vehicles. If that side doesn't have vehicles how is the allowable MP determined?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

If that side doesn't have vehicles how is the allowable MP determined?

The rules don't specify - so I'd play it like any vehicle that the nationality has.

I don't see this is a real problem at all - it won't come up very often....if you move around like it has more MP than any other vehicle in the OB, the opponent will know it's a dummy. Moving it to possibly counter a Sniper attack - also a non-issue (IMO) - how often will that happen?

 

[Gordon]

To paraphrase Bill Mauldin, "You blokes leave an awfully untidy rulebook."

 

[Tuomo]

Then you better start lobbying for errata to A12.11:
"...A ⅝" Dummy stack can claim to be an Emplaced Gun (without Emplacement TEM) or a vehicle..."

On the other hand, how often will one set up a ⅝" Dummy stack (probably as the defender) when one have no vehicles in the OB? Can't really see this being an issue.

Just seems like a weird stupid pointless Hanging Chad in the rulebook that would benefit from being cleaned up.

 

[Actionjick]

The rules don't specify - so I'd play it like any vehicle that the nationality has.

I don't see this is a real problem at all - it won't come up very often....if you move around like it has more MP than any other vehicle in the OB, the opponent will know it's a dummy. Moving it to possibly counter a Sniper attack - also a non-issue (IMO) - how often will that happen?

I agree it may not come up very often but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed and resolved. If for no other reason than to avoid the teeth gnashing Tuomo alluded to.

 

[Actionjick]

Just seems like a weird stupid pointless Hanging Chad in the rulebook that would benefit from being cleaned up.

Quite agree. If Q+A are going to be considered official the contradictions and dilemmas that arise from them need to be considered and addressed.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Just seems like a weird stupid pointless Hanging Chad in the rulebook that would benefit from being cleaned up.

See post #87. MMP is only an email away...

 

[Larry]

Concealment counters can pretend to be a SMC and move 9 hexes on a road or 8 hexes bypassing along the way and then advance ... long after all the real units are accounted for. Park that ?? between the sniper and the battle to absorb that SAN. 1/2 or 5/8, no difference in function.

 

[Actionjick]

Concealment counters can pretend to be a SMC and move 9 hexes on a road or 8 hexes bypassing along the way and then advance ... long after all the real units are accounted for. Park that ?? between the sniper and the battle to absorb that SAN. 1/2 or 5/8, no difference in function.

True but the question is what is it's MP allowance when acting as a vehicle?

That's not stated in the rules as far as I can tell.

 

[Tuomo]

See post #87. MMP is only an email away...

Ha HAH! I have the power to change things BUT I WON'T! I ALONE realize the silliness of this situation and THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF CHANGE DEPENDS ON ME AND ME ALONE! MWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Gordon]

Ha HAH! I have the power to change things BUT I WON'T! I ALONE realize the silliness of this situation and THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF CHANGE DEPENDS ON ME AND ME ALONE! MWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[von Marwitz]

Then you better start lobbying for errata to A12.11:
"...A ⅝" Dummy stack can claim to be an Emplaced Gun (without Emplacement TEM) or a vehicle..."

On the other hand, how often will one set up a ⅝" Dummy stack (probably as the defender) when one have no vehicles in the OB? Can't really see this being an issue.

Ah, there was this discussion on the following sleaze:

You don't have vehicles in your OoB. Yet you set up a 5/8" Dummy. This Dummy will first 'pose' as a Jeep with 37 Movement Points and blitzes across a board or two along a road. Next turn the same Dummy poses as a fully tracked tank, crossing some walls, hedges to finally lodge itself in a convenient piece of Brush. From there it will deny the gaining of Concealment to the enemy in an area that a 'real' friendly unit could never have reached.

In this situation, it is absolutely clear, the 5/8" stack is a Dummy. Yet, it can serve a good purpose.

Of course, a situation will rarely present itself in which you can pull this off. But it would be possible to do so.

This is a sleaze, no doubt. But I would not mind if someone pulled it on me because I think it unexpected out of the box thinking which should be encouraged. Mind me, I am not saying that I think absurd sleazes should be generally encouraged. I am saying that out of the box thinking should be encouraged.

von Marwitz