Questions re. stacking dummy/concealment counters (A12.11)

[EJ1]

Hi all,

Looking to maximize the use of my OoB dummy counters. Thus, recognizing A12.11, and other rules(?), are the following cases legal setups?



A12.11 Known/Dummy Enemy Unit: “…If a scenario allocates a number of “?” available for setup at the start of a scenario, those “?” can be placed atop each other to act as Dummies…but a single such counter cannot be placed beneath unconcealed units.”

Helpful reminder: Grain is concealment terrain.

Stack 1: looks legal; may be used where I’m the scenario Defender or not, although as Defender I’d defer to Stack 2 so as to conceal the stack before my opponent sees the board; this stack uses two dummy counters
Stack 2: looks legal; yet, if I’m NOT the scenario Defender, it requires the use of three dummy counters to conceal the stack before my opponent sees the board; as Defender, uses two dummy counters
Stack 3: looks legal if I setup as Defender as the bottom dummy counter is under a concealed unit; this setup only uses one dummy counter – the fewest dummy counters used in these cases
Stack 3: does NOT look legal if I’m NOT the Defender as the dummy counter would not yet be under a concealed unit till after my opponent sees the board; maybe it's legal to claim that before the beginning of the first turn the dummy will be concealed and thus a legal setup, and if a LOS check reveals the stack is visible and not eligible for concealment, I’d lose the dummy counter and the top concealment counter?

Thoughts? Thanks

 

[klasmalmstrom]

If all those "?" counters are OB-given, then I don't see a problem with setting up like that. Hex R7 would get a "free" "?" during setup though, so that 4-6-7 would start the game unconcealed.

 

[jrv]

Hi all,

Looking to maximize the use of my OoB dummy counters. Thus, recognizing A12.11, and other rules(?), are the following cases legal setups?

View attachment 10427

A12.11 Known/Dummy Enemy Unit: “…If a scenario allocates a number of “?” available for setup at the start of a scenario, those “?” can be placed atop each other to act as Dummies…but a single such counter cannot be placed beneath unconcealed units.”

Helpful reminder: Grain is concealment terrain.

Stack 1: looks legal; may be used where I’m the scenario Defender or not, although as Defender I’d defer to Stack 2 so as to conceal the stack before my opponent sees the board; this stack uses two dummy counters
Stack 2: looks legal; yet, if I’m NOT the scenario Defender, it requires the use of three dummy counters to conceal the stack before my opponent sees the board; as Defender, uses two dummy counters
Stack 3: looks legal if I setup as Defender as the bottom dummy counter is under a concealed unit; this setup only uses one dummy counter – the fewest dummy counters used in these cases
Stack 3: does NOT look legal if I’m NOT the Defender as the dummy counter would not yet be under a concealed unit till after my opponent sees the board; maybe it's legal to claim that before the beginning of the first turn the dummy will be concealed and thus a legal setup, and if a LOS check reveals the stack is visible and not eligible for concealment, I’d lose the dummy counter and the top concealment counter?

Thoughts? Thanks

I am assuming all the "?" are OB-granted. All three stacks are legal setup, but you not may place a non-OB-granted "?" (a "free" "?") on any of those stacks.

When you set up OB-granted "?" you really set up two different "kinds" of counters. Any "?" that is the top-most "?" in the Location is a concealment counter. All OB-given "?" underneath an OB-given concealment counter are dummy counters. Once a "?" has been placed as a concealment counter (either from the OB-granted "?" or the "free" "?"), it may not be converted to a dummy by placing a "free" "?" on top of it.

The maximum number of dummy counters you can have given N OB-granted "?" is N-1, and you can only get that many by setting them all up in one stack, using the top-most as a concealment counter (the "minus one" counter).

JR

 

[EJ1]

If all those "?" counters are OB-given, then I don't see a problem with setting up like that. Hex R7 would get a "free" "?" during setup though, so that 4-6-7 would start the game unconcealed.

Hi Klas, thanks for your quick reply and patience. Still need some help.

Yes, all the "?" counters shown above that are at the bottom of the stacks are given to me via the scenario card setup instructions and show in my side's Order of Battle - I'm looking to maximize my use of them by placing them in as many stacks as possible. In the cases I present above, I try to be careful to call out instances where I'm the the Scenario Defender.

You wrote that the 4-6-7 in R7 would start the game unconcealed. Is this true if I'm the Scenario Defender? As Scenario Defender, don't I get to conceal units that are in concealment territory before my opponent sees the board?

A12.12: "...Therefore, if one side begins with no forces on board, the other side [my side - I'm the Defender] will be able to place "?" on all of its non-Dummy units after placing those units (before the opponent may look at the board)."

The 4-6-7 in R7 is unconcealed and in concealment terrain and I'm the Defender, thus, I place a concealment counter on it per A12.12 and it now resembles Stack #2 as my opponent would see it when he first looks at the board. I don't see where, and maybe the source of my error, the rules preclude me from concealing the 4-6-7 in Stack #1 (R7) to make it look like Stack #2 (T7) simply because there's one or more dummy counters beneath it. Is the fact that A12.12 comes after A12.11 in the rule book relevant?

So, in trying to maximize my use of my given "?" counters, I don't want to waste them when, as scenario Defender, I would get to place "free" non-OoB-given concealment counters where I may.

Cheers. Love the game.

 

[jrv]

You wrote that the 4-6-7 in R7 would start the game unconcealed. Is this true if I'm the Scenario Defender? As Scenario Defender, don't I get to conceal units that are in concealment territory before my opponent sees the board?

A12.12: "...Therefore, if one side begins with no forces on board, the other side [my side - I'm the Defender] will be able to place "?" on all of its non-Dummy units after placing those units (before the opponent may look at the board)."

If you placed a "free" concealment counter on stack A, you would be placing it on an OB-given "?" counter. That is not allowed. Per A12.12, “EXC: only one non-OB-designated "?" can be placed per stack of units and not on top of any previously placed "?"”.

Being scenario defender has no effect on "free" concealment placement regarding placement of "free" "?" on OB-granted "?". If one side enters entirely from off-board and the other sets up on board, the side setting up on board can place concealment before the attacker can view the board. But even so, the side setting up on board might not be a scenario defender, e.g. its VC may involve capturing terrain.

JR

 

[EJ1]

Hi JRV,

Ohhh, the rule, called out as an exception is right there in A12.12. Thanks.

 

[Pyth]

I think management of the ?'s is easier to keep straight if you never place or leave a single ? beneath a real unit. I think this may be a VASL thing, as the digital ?'s behave in ways flesh and blood cardboard ?s don't.

But that -?- beneath a real unit in stack 3, if I encountered that over the board my first thought would be "set-up error" -- because It looks exactly like someone placed a single OB granted ? beneath an unconcealed unit at set up (which is illegal obviously), and then granted the unconcealed unit a non-OB concealment when out of LOS at set up (A second rule infraction for placing non-OB ? on an OB ?).

My policy is to place all ?'s ON TOP of real units as a matter of course -- this helps avoid all sorts of unforced errors IMO.-- Is there ever an actual good reason to place ?'s beneath a real unit as opposed to on top... is there any actual difference? I can't think of any.

Am I the only person that thinks this matters... I may well be.

 

[jrv]

Is there ever an actual good reason to place ?'s beneath a real unit as opposed to on top... is there any actual difference?

From what I understand you would object to the second stack as well. Or if you don't, I don't see why two would be ok but one wouldn't.

I can't think of any reason to put dummy counters under real units, but I can't think of any reason to put them over either. Personally I don't pay any attention to the order of dummies & real units in a stack (other than avoiding the awkward moment when a dummy possesses a SW). They end up in the order they do without deep significance; I think I favor putting stuff in my right hand over stuff in my left hand when combining stacks. But I also know that I can't put free "?" over OB-given "?".

JR

 

[Pyth]

From what I understand you would object to the second stack as well. Or if you don't, I don't see why two would be ok but one wouldn't.

I can't think of any reason to put dummy counters under real units, but I can't think of any reason to put them over either. Personally I don't pay any attention to the order of dummies & real units in a stack (other than avoiding the awkward moment when a dummy possesses a SW). They end up in the order they do without deep significance; I think I favor putting stuff in my right hand over stuff in my left hand when combining stacks. But I also know that I can't put free "?" over OB-given "?".

JR

I didn't like stack 2 much either now that you mention it, but I've also just read a Q & A on this topic that has broken my mind with its seeming wrongness, so I'm going to quietly back away from the conversation and try to figure out where my wires have gotten crossed.

 

[EJ1]

Fun to see the conversation continue.

I’m looking at using Stack 3, albeit with a HS, and using two of my OoB given ?-counters as shown, because I’m wanting to use a delaying strategy. My OoB contains some PSKs, the terrain offers a few choke points without long LOSs, and my opponent has got AFVs with infantry that he has to move through/past the choke points.

Thus, in my mind, a couple Stack-3s, mixed in the line with a couple other nasty stacks, can look dangerous and require the AFVs to hold back while the infantry moves in. The stacks are far enough away and tucked out of lines of fire so my opponent will need more than one turn to approach and engage. Then, if he moves close so as to maybe bump the Stack, I’ll voluntarily reveal the HS to avoid random selection per Detection A12.15, and stop him in withering cross fire! (I think in revealing at least one real unit, I’ll prevent the disclosure of the dummy counter...which, of course, in my opponent’s mind is a PSK or squad with PFs - something else I’ll have to look up.) Finally, if he survives enough to advance in for CC, I can decide if I should stay or voluntarily break and rout.

Well, that’s my plan - at least till the game starts. Cheers

 

[Eagle4ty]

Fun to see the conversation continue.

I’m looking at using Stack 3, albeit with a HS, and using two of my OoB given ?-counters as shown, because I’m wanting to use a delaying strategy. My OoB contains some PSKs, the terrain offers a few choke points without long LOSs, and my opponent has got AFVs with infantry that he has to move through/past the choke points.

Thus, in my mind, a couple Stack-3s, mixed in the line with a couple other nasty stacks, can look dangerous and require the AFVs to hold back while the infantry moves in. The stacks are far enough away and tucked out of lines of fire so my opponent will need more than one turn to approach and engage. Then, if he moves close so as to maybe bump the Stack, I’ll voluntarily reveal the HS to avoid random selection per Detection A12.15, and stop him in withering cross fire! (I think in revealing at least one real unit, I’ll prevent the disclosure of the dummy counter...which, of course, in my opponent’s mind is a PSK or squad with PFs - something else I’ll have to look up.) Finally, if he survives enough to advance in for CC, I can decide if I should stay or voluntarily break and rout.

Well, that’s my plan - at least till the game starts. Cheers

Why not put the two "?" markers above the Sqd/HS? If he's bumped or otherwise the stack is revealed it doesn't really matter that a "?" marker is beneath or above the actual unit as it would be forfeit anyway (can't have a single "?" beneath an unconcealed unit). It would just help avoid a rule violation if both were placed above the actual personnel unit.

 

[EJ1]

Thanks Eagle4ty. Good one. Ok, I think I’ve got it now.

 

[Stewart]

The maximum number of dummy counters you can have given N OB-granted "?" is N-1, and you can only get that many by setting them all up in one stack, using the top-most as a concealment counter (the "minus one" counter).

JR

If you suggest the stacks are legal.
You say the Max dummy counters is N-1?
yet if you have ONLY 2 dummy counters and setup as in 1) each dummy can move off of the stack,(2 stacks of 1 dummy each) if you get to place a ?ment on the top unit. (which I don't think you can.)

 

[sebosebi]

If all those "?" counters are OB-given, then I don't see a problem with setting up like that. Hex R7 would get a "free" "?" during setup though, so that 4-6-7 would start the game unconcealed.

Hello Klas, here you meant "Hex R7 would not get a "free" "?" during setup though, so that 4-6-7 would start the game unconcealed", isn't it?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Correct.