Question about German (Cloaked) units in BFP15 Cobra's Venom

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Gents - in SS3 said German units will pop up after the DR .. and "at that time may claim any Wall Advantage if applicable."

So if it's the American MPh or APh .. by the ASOP it's the Americans who can claim Wall Advantage ...

Question : can the German units (freshly appearing from Cloak) deny Wall Advantage to the claiming American unit over the same hexside AS IF THE GERMANS ARE HIPPED? Or they can only claim Wall Advantage as per Mandatory Wall Advantage or according to the ASOP (RPh, MPh, APh..)?
 
Last edited:

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
1,435
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Gents - in SS3 said German units will pop up after the DR .. and "at that time may claim any Wall Advantage if applicable."

So if it's the American MPh or APh .. by the ASOP it's the Americans who can claim Wall Advantage ...

Question : can the German units (freshly appearing from Cloak) deny Wall Advantage to the claiming American unit over the same hexside AS IF THE GERMANS ARE HIPPED? Or they can only claim Wall Advantage as per Mandatory Wall Advantage or according to the ASOP (RPh, MPh, APh..)?
The presence of the Concealment counter in the hex is essentially a presence of a German unit (although currently unknown) in the hex. So a German unit could conceivably deny an American unit who during the MPh or AdvPh moves up to the wall in the German units hex. The tricky part would be the situation where the Concealment counter could conceivably claim in-hex TEM which would require the German unit to have already been marked with a wall advantage counter to deny the American unit from claiming it. In this case unless the cloaked counter was already marked with a wall advantage marker, then it would be assumed that the units represented by the cloaked counter are utilizing the in-hex TEM and the American unit could claim it.
 

Robert Hammond

Recruit
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Country
llUnited States
The presence of the Concealment counter in the hex is essentially a presence of a German unit (although currently unknown) in the hex. So a German unit could conceivably deny an American unit who during the MPh or AdvPh moves up to the wall in the German units hex. The tricky part would be the situation where the Concealment counter could conceivably claim in-hex TEM which would require the German unit to have already been marked with a wall advantage counter to deny the American unit from claiming it. In this case unless the cloaked counter was already marked with a wall advantage marker, then it would be assumed that the units represented by the cloaked counter are utilizing the in-hex TEM and the American unit could claim it.
Rick, hi! I thought that a Concealed unit, without a WA Counter, would be able to both deny WA to the American and claim WA **OR** not claim any WA as they are Concealed. I thought Mandatory WA is _not_ applicable to a Concealed unit??
 

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,791
Country
llUnited States
Robert,

I think you are confusing some rules. B9.324 discusses concealed units.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Rick, hi! I thought that a Concealed unit, without a WA Counter, would be able to both deny WA to the American and claim WA **OR** not claim any WA as they are Concealed. I thought Mandatory WA is _not_ applicable to a Concealed unit??
Perhaps you are thinking about HIP units.

JR
 

Robert Hammond

Recruit
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Country
llUnited States
Perhaps you are thinking about HIP units.

JR
HIP units, also. The errata from 2008 (Journal 8???) covers that a Concealed unit or a Dummy stack may voluntarily give up WA, even if under Mandatory WA, to an enemy unit that moves ADJACENT and claims WA.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
HIP units, also. The errata from 2008 (Journal 8???) covers that a Concealed unit or a Dummy stack may voluntarily give up WA, even if under Mandatory WA, to an enemy unit that moves ADJACENT and claims WA.

The J8 errata for B9.323 says a dummy unit cannot prevent an enemy unit from claiming WA. It says that a HIP unit may release its pre-recorded WA rather than losing HIP even in a situation where WA is mandatory. A HIP must be put on board concealed if it wishes to retain pre-recorded WA when an enemy unit tries to claim it. I don't see anything in B9.323 that says a non-HIP concealed, real stack may voluntarily give up WA, mandatory or not.

JR
 

Robert Hammond

Recruit
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Country
llUnited States
The J8 errata for B9.323 says a dummy unit cannot prevent an enemy unit from claiming WA. It says that a HIP unit may release its pre-recorded WA rather than losing HIP even in a situation where WA is mandatory. A HIP must be put on board concealed if it wishes to retain pre-recorded WA when an enemy unit tries to claim it. I don't see anything in B9.323 that says a non-HIP concealed, real stack may voluntarily give up WA, mandatory or not.

JR
JR, hi! I am going to be a bit pedantic here. I am really not trying to irritate. Okay. The J8 errata for B9.323 is concerning concealment / concealed units / dummy stacks and also refers you back to the "new" last sentences for B9.324 (from the J8 errata). The J8 errata for B9.324 just cleans up the WA for Hidden units, and was a great clean up. However, B9.324 was not changed in regards to a concealed unit or a dummy stack and WA. JR, you are absolutely correct that a dummy stack can not prevent an enemy unit from claiming WA. I agree with you.

You are also correct that rule B9.323 does not discuss a concealed unit or dummy stack voluntarily giving up WA. Please forgive me for my ambiguity. I was referring to rule B9.324, first sentence, fifth & sixth line which states in pertinent part, "...and the opposing side must then momentarily reveal one non-dummy unit or **forfeit WA.**

This rule (B9.324) seems to be stating that a concealed unit may voluntarily and a dummy stack is mandated to forfeit WA.

This is REALLY important in Bocage country. If I have a concealed unit and some dummy stacks, I will forfeit WA sometimes with a concealed unit to keep you guessing.

Back to the original question from Mr. Hong Hong Wargamer and the answer from Rick. FWIW, I agree with Rick and think his answer is spot on! I just think that when the LCC (Large Concealment Counter) becomes a MMC, the MMC is placed on board concealed and if it does have WA, may voluntarily forfeit it.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The J8 errata for B9.323 is concerning concealment / concealed units / dummy stacks and also refers you back to the "new" last sentences for B9.324 (from the J8 errata). The J8 errata for B9.324 just cleans up the WA for Hidden units, and was a great clean up. However, B9.324 was not changed in regards to a concealed unit or a dummy stack and WA. JR, you are absolutely correct that a dummy stack can not prevent an enemy unit from claiming WA. I agree with you.

You are also correct that rule B9.323 does not discuss a concealed unit or dummy stack voluntarily giving up WA. Please forgive me for my ambiguity. I was referring to rule B9.324, first sentence, fifth & sixth line which states in pertinent part, "...and the opposing side must then momentarily reveal one non-dummy unit or **forfeit WA.**

This rule (B9.324) seems to be stating that a concealed unit may voluntarily and a dummy stack is mandated to forfeit WA.
My error: I meant to say, B9.324. I think I agree with you. When an enemy stack moves adjacent and claims WA, a concealed friendly stack with real units that has WA may choose to relinquish WA without revealing a real unit.

JR
 
Top