Placed DC vs Concealed

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
Color me dense but doesn't the unit(s) the DC is being placed on have to lose ? in order to fire on the placing unit? The placing unit would then need to survive all Dfire before the unit DC is "operable placed". At this point the defending unit is unconcealed and, therefore, not subject to Area Fire. If the fire came from other than the location the DC is being placed on, that's a different story.
The matter could be clearer-than-currently-stated in the rules. but maybe think of it this way instead:

You're Placing a DC (vs a Concealed unit).

When you announce "Place DC - x MFs" -- the "vs Concealed" is implied.

Opponent responds w/D1F, including w/the target unit, say -- and that shot costs that DC-targeted unit its Concealment.

Re that/all D1F vs the Placement MFs, your placing unit survives unbroken/unpinned -- thus, the DC is now "operably Placed," but "vs Concealed" is still implied, because that was the target state when you announced "Place DC - x MFs"

In summary,
o you Declare vs Concealed, inviting D1F;
o there is none of affect;
o [your DC is now deemed operably Placed vs Concealed;]
o in your AFPh, aside from possible malf, your DC auto-Detonates vs Concealed -- not matter the target's Concealment state at that time.

Hope that helps.
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
So, if practical, entice or compel the target to drop Concealment before you move to place the DC.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
1,399
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Yeah, I don't think I would ever play it that way. If you fire, losing concealment during the placement of a DC, concealment is lost.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I side with @TopT and @sdennis with this. I have not seen it played this way.
And I am still not sure what exactly in the rules would support it.

The new insight for me is this (and I have played it wrong in the past):
The Attacker Places the DC vs. a Concealed Defender which holds his fire during the MPh to retain Concealment, so the DC is operably placed. During the DFPh said Concealed Defender decides to fire vs. the unit which has placed the DC, thus - at that time - losing Concealment. So far, I have wrongly played that the DC would attack at full strength. It does not "as the guys who placed it didn't see the guys they were placing it on while they did so". This makes sense.

What I can't see is this:
Even if the Concealed defending units DFFs vs. the Placement MFs, the DC is still supposed to be resolved at half FP?
The decision if the DC is "operably Placed" has fallen after the resolution of all DFF vs. the attempt. If the Concealed unit, versus which the Placement attempt takes place, decides to DFF vs. this MF-expenditure, it will lose Concealment before the DC is operably Placed. As such, I think a successful Placement Attempt under these circumstances should be at full strength. In this case the attackers set out "to place the DC vs. some bushes, but as they are fired upon, they don't continue to place it vs. bushes but rather vs. enemy they can see".

von Marwitz
 

johnl

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
697
Reaction score
472
Location
SoCal/Oregon
Country
llUnited States
I argue that the DC is not "operably placed" at the announcement of placement but only after the placing unit has survived all "DFF, SFF, FPF" against it.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
I argue that the DC is not "operably placed" at the announcement of placement but only after the placing unit has survived all "DFF, SFF, FPF" against it.
Correct,
The unit ATTEMPTS to place the DC.
It's up to the defender to keep ? or not.
 
Top