Red Barricades HIP/concealment status of dug-in AFVs

[JimWhite]

My longtime opponent and I often times have lengthy rules debates and when our opinion differs we each attempt to find support for our respective position within the ASLRB.

Today's episode concerns a Red Barricades campaign game and the HIP/concealment status of purchased (and subsequently retained) dug-in Russian AFVs.

So let's looks at some pertinent rules...

First...let's say it is CG Day X and the Russian player has now reached O11.619 where he makes his purchase selections. In this case the Russian chooses a platoon of AFVs at 50% cost (FRU) per O11.6194c and sets them up on-map as dug-in.

Now per O11.6194c these purchased dug-in AFVs are subject to rule D9.54 along with the following. The AFVs may be set up using HIP per normal Gun HIP rules...BUT...said HIP must be purchased later on in the Refit Phase. In other words the dug-in AFVs may not "freely" HIP like a gun...rather they must purchase it if so desired.

So in this case the Russian player purchased HIP for his dug-in AFVs...which were then subsequently revealed during the ensuing CG Day battle.

Fast forward to CG Day X+1 Refit Phase and subsequent Russian setup.

The Russian player believes that his previously HIP (and since revealed) dug-in tanks may start the next CG Day concealed. The German player strenuously disagrees...with the stipulation that it is not a big deal either way...

The German player bases his belief on D9.54 (previously pointed to)...which states a dug-in AFV is treated as an armored cupola...which points up to D9.5...and thence to D9.52 where it states that an "Armored Cupola is never eligible for concealment".

So while it is clear that a newly "purchased" dug-in AFV is eligible for HIP (only if also purchased)...but in this case this is an existing retained dug-in AFV and to the German player at that point O11.6194c is no longer relevant...rather said dug-in AFV is only subject to D9.5.

Again...as mentioned before...in the big picture of things of the CG this will play a very minor role...we just need to have the forum validate one of our positions for rules bragging rights...

 

[Actionjick]

My longtime opponent and I often times have lengthy rules debates and when our opinion differs we each attempt to find support for out respective position within the ASLRB.

Today's episode concerns a Red Barricades campaign game and the HIP/concealment status of purchased (and subsequently retained) dug-in Russian AFVs.

So let's looks at some pertinent rules...

First...let's say it is CG Day X and the Russian player has now reached O11.619 where he makes his purchase selections. In this case the Russian chooses a platoon of AFVs at 50% cost (FRU) per O11.6194c and sets them up on-map as dug-in.

Now per O11.6194c these purchased dug-in AFVs are subject to rule D9.54 along with the following. The AFVs may be set up using HIP per normal Gun HIP rules...BUT...said HIP must be purchased later on in the Refit Phase. In other words the dug-in AFVs may not "freely" HIP like a gun...rather they must purchase it if so desired.

So in this case the Russian player purchased HIP for his dug-in AFVs...which were then subsequently revealed during the ensuing CG Day battle.

Fast forward to CG Day X+1 Refit Phase and subsequent Russian setup.

The Russian player believes that his previously HIP (and since revealed) dug-in tanks may start the next CG Day concealed. The German player strenuously disagrees...with the stipulation that it is not a big deal either way...

The German player bases his belief on D9.54 (previously pointed to)...which states a dug-in AFV is treated as an armored cupola...which points up to D9.5...and thence to D9.52 where it states that an "Armored Cupola is never eligible for concealment".

So while it is clear that a newly "purchased" dug-in AFV is eligible for HIP (only if also purchased)...but in this case this is an existing retained dug-in AFV and to the German player at that point O11.6194c is no longer relevant...rather said dug-in AFV is only subject to D9.5.

Again...as mentioned before...in the big picture of things of the CG this will play a very minor role...we just need to have the forum validate one of our positions for rules bragging rights...

Bragging rights have an incredibly long life!

 

[apbills]

What is the Russian player's rules reference to support his position?

As you have pointed out, an Armored Cupola is never eligible for concealment, and if we look in Chapter O, I don't see any rule that changes that.
I would think a very clear rule would be needed to "overrule" the D9.52 language, for instance, you could not just purchase "?" and place one on the tank, since D9.52 prevents it.

The purchase of HIP is another story. Note 6 of the Fortification Purchase table just refers back to O11.619c as far as AFV HIP. ["and must do so per 11.6194c; "] 11.619c is not the clearest in determining the answer to your question: "A Dug-In AFV may set up in Rubble and may set up using HIP in Concealment Terrain as per normal Gun HIP rules (A12.34), but firing any Weapon or changing TCA is a Concealment-loss activity (A12.141). Such HIP must be purchased separately (RePh step 11.621). " My interpretation would be that the 11.621 Note 6 reference to 11.619c is telling us you can only HIP an AFV if it is Dug-In and is not prohibiting the ability to HIP during later scenarios. So, with that in mind, if the Russian wants to spend 5 FPP on an AFV HIP, he could HIP the known Dug-In tank. I don't known how he would just conceal it.

In addition, the prohibition on setting up HIP is in CG5. CG5 states in part "A Gun/AFV set up in a Pillbox or Fortified Building Location may never be moved during the course of that CG [EXC: if Eliminated]. Such an Gun/AFV, once revealed, may never again set up hidden, but may be set up Concealed if able to." Since the Dug-In tank was most likely not in a Pillbox nor a Fortified Building Location, I don't see anything preventing you from purchasing the HIP for the next scenario and just HIP the tank again.

I can think of better uses for those 5 FPP, but he may differ in his analysis. I have never really thought about the possibility given the German already knows the tank is there, and it will not take much to clean the "?" status off it.