Street Fighting and CC Reaction Fire

[almogaver266]

Hello to all, a question about Street Fighting:

A concealed 666 US squad is in 3R5 when a German SPW 251/1 moves to 3S6, so the americans decide to use CC Reaction Fire and in this case, Street Fighting is applicable (D7.211), but what happens if the squad don´t passes his PAATC? is now pinned and losses concealment?

Thanks

 

[almogaver266]

ooops sorry, I´ve posted here by mistake...Now is posted in the Rules section

 

[bendizoid]

Yes, the 6-6-6 loses concealment and is pinned.

 

[Jazz]

Yes, the 6-6-6 loses concealment and is pinned.

That is what I thought as well. Problem is nothing in the rules *quite* deals with that? Correct me if I am wrong with Chapter and verse from the book.

The Concealment Gain/Loss table only talks about failing PAATC when an enemy AFV ends its MPH on your location.

I submitted a Perry Sez......

 

[Binchois]

Isn't this the same question (and post) as here?

PAATC is voluntary when the vehicle moves here, so according to Case A (almost at the end of the paragraph): Concealment loss wouldn't occur despite failure.

The EXCeption in Case C says that a voluntary PAATC is not a concealment-loss activity. Note, even a VBM of the squad's hex wouldn't force the PAATC, so there too the 6-6-7 would pin but keep concealment.

And though an attack-generated PTC will cause concealment loss, a pin in and of itself does not.

Imagine the situation like this: The concealed units consider attacking the vehicle, but wimp-out and decide to stay down (and hidden) instead.

P.S. there are a lot of concealment details that are not stated in the RB. That's why the table takes precedence.

 

[clubby]

Yes, it was originally posted in the wrong forum and then he posted it in the right forum and they moved his original post.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The Concealment Gain/Loss table only talks about failing PAATC when an enemy AFV ends its MPH on your location.

But is says that in the exception.

Case C:
C If it engages in any other action [EXC: using a radio/field phone; Spotting; taking a PAATC (and Leader DRM applied to such a PAATC) not caused by a vehicle entering its Location; SW/Gun repair attempts, dropping SW; taking a Set DC NTC]; e.g., attempts to entrench, kindle a Fire, Deploy, Recombine, make a Sniper/PF/MOL/ATMM Check, rally a broken unit, apply Leader DRM [EXC: PAATC; Armor Leader], use Clearance, place SMOKE grenades, etc.

 

[Jazz]

But is says that in the exception.

Case C:
C If it engages in any other action [EXC: using a radio/field phone; Spotting; taking a PAATC (and Leader DRM applied to such a PAATC) not caused by a vehicle entering its Location; SW/Gun repair attempts, dropping SW; taking a Set DC NTC]; e.g., attempts to entrench, kindle a Fire, Deploy, Recombine, make a Sniper/PF/MOL/ATMM Check, rally a broken unit, apply Leader DRM [EXC: PAATC; Armor Leader], use Clearance, place SMOKE grenades, etc.

So after pondering, isn't that an EXCEPTION to the "any other action" case of losing concealment? i.e. they would NOT lose concealment if they take a PAATC not caused by entry of an AFV to their location?

 

[Robin Reeve]

The case C exception (note the "EXC") is that a PAATC not caused by vehicle entry of the Location doesn't generate concealment loss.

The example of the OP clearly shows a ht not in the 666 Location but on the ADJ road.

 

[Binchois]

So after pondering, isn't that an EXCEPTION to the "any other action" case of losing concealment? i.e. they would NOT lose concealment if they take a PAATC not caused by entry of an AFV to their location?

Correct! No concealment loss.

 

[Jazz]

Amazing how you can read that damn chart multiple times and consistently miss the word "not"....

But is says that in the exception.

Case C:
C If it engages in any other action [EXC: using a radio/field phone; Spotting; taking a PAATC (and Leader DRM applied to such a PAATC) not caused by a vehicle entering its Location; SW/Gun repair attempts, dropping SW; taking a Set DC NTC]; e.g., attempts to entrench, kindle a Fire, Deploy, Recombine, make a Sniper/PF/MOL/ATMM Check, rally a broken unit, apply Leader DRM [EXC: PAATC; Armor Leader], use Clearance, place SMOKE grenades, etc.

Quoting Klas so the Forums will flag him with someone quoting him.....just to hear what he has to say.

Somehow it just seems wrong that a unit can be pinned and concealed at the same time....

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Quoting Klas so the Forums will flag him with someone quoting him.....just to hear what he has to say.

Yes, taking a PAATC is not a "?"-loss action, unless it is done to keep "?" when a vehicle enters the Location.

Somehow it just seems wrong that a unit can be pinned and concealed at the same time....

Can happen in other ways as well - a MMC being attack by a "2" sniper dr while out of LOS e.g.

 

[jrv]

Somehow it just seems wrong that a unit can be pinned and concealed at the same time....

SAN dr of 2 on MMC out of LOS. OBA attack when out of LOS. Hut collapse PTC caused by friendly AFV when otherwise out of LOS. Wound result after moving > 3 MF when only unit that has LOS is Berserk. Minefield attack when out of LOS. There are lots of relatively rare ways it can happen.

JR

 

[Jazz]

From Perry:

Q: Does a concealed unit that fails a PAATC attempting to
advance/street fight into an ADJACENT hex lose concealment?

No; taking such a PAATC is excluded from being a Case C "other action" on the "?"-loss chart.
....Perry

MMP

Arguably not really needed, but there were at least a couple of long time players that thought overwise.