Rider Concealment

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Hey All,

It seems that I can't find a reference to a way that I have been playing. I have always played that a vehicle and it's PRC share the same concealment status. However, when I dove in to find the rule for this all I found was A12.2 which states in part: " If a Gun, vehicle, Cavalry, horse, or bicycle (or SW) counter loses its hidden/concealed status (regardless of range) so does its manning Infantry or PRC, and vice versa. " The operative word here is "loses" since the tank was not concealed to start with it did not lose it's concealment.

The situation we have is that a concealed infantry unit loads as a rider onto an unconcealed tank out of the LOS of any enemy. Does the rider become unconcealed or maintain his concealment?

Thanks,

Mike
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
" If a Gun, vehicle, Cavalry, horse, or bicycle (or SW) counter loses its hidden/concealed status (regardless of range) so does its manning Infantry or PRC, and vice versa. " The operative word here is "loses" since the tank was not concealed to start with it did not lose it's concealment.
Per the first sentence of A12.2 and the A12.121 concealment loss/gain table, the concealment for a vehicle includes its PRC. As soon as units mount a vehicle they become the same status as their vehicle. Depending on the current status of their vehicle, they may gain concealment they didn't have or lose concealment they did have.

JR
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Hey JR,

Perhaps I am just dense but I don't see justification of the "they must share the concealment status of the vehicle" in either location. I see where concealment loss/gain for PRC is handled on the Vehicle line of the concealment table. The first sentence of 12.2 goes like this:

"The rules of concealment apply equally to vehicles (and their PRC), Cavalry, horses, bicycles, and non-Emplaced Guns except that such concealment is lost immediately (regardless of range) whenever the unit is in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit and not in Concealment..."

I read this to mean that the rules of concealment apply equally to vehicles, cav, horses, and non-emplaced guns. The parenthetical "and their PRC" doesn't seem to say that the concealment status is shared between vehicles and their PRC only that the rules of concealment apply equally to PRC.

I have always played it that way and in about 99 and 44/100 percent of the time it has never made a difference. In our current scenario it might and I wanted to point to the rules to justify my position for my opponent. Unfortunately I am having a difficult time doing that.

Mike
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
"The rules of concealment apply equally to vehicles (and their PRC), Cavalry, horses, bicycles, and non-Emplaced Guns except that such concealment is lost immediately (regardless of range) whenever the unit is in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit and not in Concealment..."

I read this to mean that the rules of concealment apply equally to vehicles, cav, horses, and non-emplaced guns. The parenthetical "and their PRC" doesn't seem to say that the concealment status is shared between vehicles and their PRC only that the rules of concealment apply equally to PRC.
I take the parenthetical as meaning their status is the same. You can always submit for a q&a.

JR
 

turlusiflu

Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
201
Reaction score
46
Location
Catalonia
Country
llSweden
I understand this case as follows. The PRC was formerly a concealed infantry unit, so they only lose the concealment under Case F (same Case for PRC) of the Loss Concealment Table. Loading the infantry onto the unconcealed AFV (becoming PRC) out of LOS of enemy units is not included in Case F, so they shouldn't lose the concealment. When the AFV is in LOS of a Good Order enemy unit, then the PRC becomes unconcealed as per Case H.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I understand this case as follows. The PRC was formerly a concealed infantry unit, so they only lose the concealment under Case F (same Case for PRC) of the Loss Concealment Table. Loading the infantry onto the unconcealed AFV (becoming PRC) out of LOS of enemy units is not included in Case F, so they shouldn't lose the concealment. When the AFV is in LOS of a Good Order enemy unit, then the PRC becomes unconcealed as per Case H.
It really seems weird to think that this is correct gameplay or even plausible in reality. Regardless of LOS at the time that the PRC board, once the enemy CAN see the vehicle, the PRC are either CE (or riding) or BU. If BU, it doesn't matter - they can't be fired at separately other than by harming the vehicle directly. If CE, where are they hiding?!!!

There is a (very) slightly related Q&A which nonetheless commends JR's reading:

A4.44 & A12. Q: A good order crew that is concealed, begins its rally phase with a GUN, that is unpossessed, in its same location. The GUN, by default, is not concealed since it is not a “unit”. There is no LOS from any enemy units to the location with the GUN and crew. (The GUN is a 5/8” counter 75L) The crew then rolls to possess the GUN in the Rally Phase and succeeds with a dr of 1. Again, there is no enemy LOS to the location. Which of the three below is correct [2 and 3 not included below]:​

1) The Crew possesses the GUN. Retains its concealment and now because the possessor of the GUN is concealed, the GUN shares the concealment status of the crew, making it concealed.
A. Correct.​

Even during the Rally Phase, a big Gun goes poof! Like Vehicles "(and their PRC)," Guns "(and manning Infantry)" share a single row and category on the Concealment Table. They cannot be separated from one another. The Table doesn't read "GUNs, their manning Infantry, Vehicles, and/or their PRC." In one case, Guns are possessed by their manning Infantry, so the Infantry's status defines the combined "unit." PRC work the same way, though in this case, the vehicle, in a sense, is "possessing" them. They enter into the same concealment status as the vehicle. Magique!

This usually won't matter regarding an Abandoned vehicle. Since it is NOT a unit, it cannot be concealed. If a concealed Crew attempts to enter it in enemy LOS, it will lose concealment first - it cannot be using Assault Movement as it is required to expend ALL MFs to enter (D5.42), and is considered to be outside of the vehicle for ALL of those MFs (D5.43).

But if the crew is out of all enemy LOS and then enters the AFV, is the AFV now concealed - like the Gun in the Q&A (since the crew now "possesses" the AFV)? Or would everything be unconcealed since the AFV wasn't?

...pretty rare case!
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
....

But if the crew is out of all enemy LOS and then enters the AFV, is the AFV now concealed - like the Gun in the Q&A (since the crew now "possesses" the AFV)? Or would everything be unconcealed since the AFV wasn't?

...pretty rare case!
All things considered I really don't see when concealment gain would be much of a factor in most instances. Since occupation of abandoned vehicle would occur during player A's MPh there would be only a remote instance that player B would gain LOS to the vehicle prior to the end of A's CCPh. If the vehicle was in non-concealment terrain it would automatically lose its concealed status as soon as player B established LOS to it anyway and if it were in concealment terrain it would gain concealed status at the end of A's CCPh anyhow if it remained out of LOS. There are only a few instances I can think of where the timing of concealment gain would matter (enemy air attacks or enemy off-board/aerial-observer to mention a couple).

...A pretty rare case indeed!
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The answer back from mmp doesn't directly answer the question of whether Passengers and Riders can have different concealment status. But it does perhaps practically exclude that possibility, because I can't think of another way it might arise besides a concealed infantry unit mounting an unconcealed vehicle or an unconcealed infantry unit mounting a concealed vehicle.

The answer was a bit surprising to me in that I expected the passenger/rider to assume the status of the vehicle, but it is not an unreasonable answer and is certainly a playable one.

JR
 
Top