HIP Loss on night freedom of movement ELR dr?

[Simon62]

Hi The following situation came up in our game today and we are unsure of what the answer is:

We are playing a night VOTG CG day - as per night rules all defending leaders can setup HIP. Rule E1,21 says "Once the Scenario Attacker has resolved any attack other than a successful Ambush, the Scenario Defender's single best leader (using Random Selection if necessary to determine the best) can gain Freedom of Movement thereafter, if currently in Good Order, if the player makes a dr < his ELR. "

Does the rolling of this ELR check cause loss of HIP to the leader - we have seen long posts about loss of HIP indicating that any action undertaken by a HIP unit means it is placedon board , however, in this case the rule refers to the playing making a dr not a dr amde by the unit. Player does not seem to be defined in the index.

Is this considered an action and thus HIP lost or not? what if the player fails its ELR check dr does the leader loose HIP?

Regards

SImon

 

[ibncalb]

I've never played it as a HIP or concealment loss activity. would be happy to know if I'm right or wrong.

 

[JimWhite]

I've never played it as a HIP or concealment loss activity. would be happy to know if I'm right or wrong.

Likewise.

 

[Bjoernar]

I've never played it as a HIP or concealment loss activity. would be happy to know if I'm right or wrong.

Likewise, on how to play.
It is at least not a concealment loss, dont think you have to put up your leader to do the dr either.

 

[The Purist]

Woof! Tough one. I checked v35 of Perry Sez but did not find this case.

Let's check the RB...

If in LOS...

The chart for A12.121 has us checking A, B, C and D if in LOS

Cases A, B and D do not seem to apply. Case C states that, within 16 hexes, "any other other action" would strip HIP/? and provides a fairly extensive list if exceptions and examples.

Freedom of Movement is called a dr in E1.21 and not an action such as a TC, however, it is not included as an 'EXC'. The Case C 'examples' that would cause loss of HIP also appear to be actions rather than dr/DR but 'action' is not defined in the index.

My head wants to say this is not an 'action' and thus not part of Case C. However, the rules lawyer view could claim that, under COWTRA, HIP/? would be lost and the SMC placed on map under '?' (if not in LOS or within NVR).

This may be a dr if you and your opponent cannot agree.

If not in LOS then Case F applies

 

[Bjoernar]

Woof! Tough one. I checked v35 of Perry Sez but did not find this case.

Let's check the RB...

If in LOS...

The chart for A12.121 has us checking A, B, C and D if in LOS

Cases A, B and D do not seem to apply. Case C states that, within 16 hexes, "any other other action" would strip HIP/? and provides a fairly extensive list if exceptions and examples.

Freedom of Movement is called a dr in E1.21 and not an action such as a TC, however, it is not included as an 'EXC'. The Case C 'examples' that would cause loss of HIP also appear to be actions rather than dr/DR but 'action' is not defined in the index.

My head wants to say this is not an 'action' and thus not part of Case C. However, the rules lawyer view could claim that, under COWTRA, HIP/? would be lost and the SMC placed on map under '?' (if not in LOS or within NVR).

This may be a dr if you and your opponent cannot agree.

If not in LOS then Case F applies

Agree, that it doesnt appears to be an action.

Some vague non-rule/reality based arguments though

I see this as the best leader is hiding in his dug-out, contemplating if he is going to get moving or not. The extent of this activity shouldnt be more than other activities that do not lead to concealment loss, as listed in the EXC in the «any other action» section. But…?

 

[Doug Leslie]

If a unit doesn't lose concealment when gaining freedom of movement normally, it shouldn't lose HIP either. I don't see why making a freedom of movement dr should make any difference.

 

[Honosbinda]

I'm the opponent and originated the question for discussion during our game, because I don't want to lose HIP of my best leader at night and promptly make him a sniper target as a result of this die roll! 10-3 are hard to come by So I am biased, I want it to stay HIP. I've stacked it with some other leaders who will gain freedom of movement who can then act as couriers and spread the word about the attack. The 10-3 itself can stay HIP if I want, immune to snipers.

@Doug -- reasonable but contrariwise, one could equally say there are conditions of verification and other situations where HIP is lost and concealment is not. So for this case, I don't see why it shouldn't make a difference. Not with any comfort. There are exceptions to Case F being applicable as well, and even though it's a convenient umbrella to throw this under, doubt remains.

What would be ideal is a list of situations when HIP is lost but concealment is not lost. I looked but didn't find this list! Would be handy!

Putting that aside for a moment, an official answer is necessary for this because similar questions were asked about night-HIP leaders in other situations -- people were unclear how to treat the revelation of HIP leaders in certain situations at night. Blame chapter E writing. The fact is, we don't know if this is to be considered "an action" requiring verification, which is the same for starshells, hence requiring loss of HIP, despite case F.

1. Freedom of moment dr. HIP lost/not lost, concealment remains? No certainty on this.
2. Starshell attempt dr. HIP lost/not lost, concealment remains? Q/A was asked to get this answered by Perry sez:

(from V35 rules questions compilation)
E1.2

A leader is set up with a DEFENDER’s concealed MMC in a Night scenario, and side recorded and its counter is offboard (E1.2). Is the leader counter put on board if:

a) the leader directs the MMC fire and the MMC remains concealed and in the same Location (i.e., the firer is out of the LOS of the target and/or the target is not in Good Order)?
b) the leader fires a starshell and the MMC remains concealed and in the same Location?
A SW is set up with the a concealed MMC and its counter is offboard (E1.2). Is the SW counter put on board if MMC fires it and
the MMC remains concealed (i.e. the firer is out of the LOS of the target and/or the target is not in Good Order)?

A. Yes to all.

EDIT -- There was a previous discussion about this, with most agreeing that this is not a ? loss activity. But is it a HIP loss activity?
One argument is that this falls under the "post-game HIP verification" requirement of verifying the location by writing it down and revealing it after game end.

E1.2 and Freedom of Movement (FoM) for best leader question

Hi, If my best leader is HIP is he revealed if he makes a FoM roll? Does it matter if he fails the roll? Does the hex where he is HIP have to be revealed if he makes the roll? What if he doesn't? Are any units in the hex with the best HIP leader revealed if he makes it? Of if he doesn't make the...

www.gamesquad.com

 

[Doug Leslie]

I think that the answer can be gleaned from this Q&A:


"E1.921 When making a starshell usage dr (E1.921) does the player announce what kind of unit (Leader, MMC, etc.) is making the attempt? A. No.

Does the player specify which hex contains the unit that is making a starshell attempt before making the usage dr? A. Yes, unless Hidden.

Do these answers depend on whether or not the firing unit is Cloaked/Concealed/HIP? A. See above for when it might.

A Cloaked/HIP unit loses that status when firing a starshell. Does “firing” mean a successful usage dr, or does it include an attempted use? A. Successful. "

If a leader doesn't lose HIP for an unsuccessful starshell usage attempt, it is difficult to see why it would lose it for an unsuccessful freedom of movement dr.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I checked v35 of Perry Sez but did not find this case.

There is this official Q&A saying that making a FoM dr is not a concealment-loss activity. I would take it to mean that it is not a HIP-loss activity either.

E1.21 Making a Freedom-of-Movement dr is not a concealment-loss activity. [p.E2690; An96] {Edited for v2.}

 

[Honosbinda]

@Doug, yeah, it might be difficult to see on the basis of extrapolation, but players can't extrapolate during play, even ones as knowledgeable as you. And even if Klass gives a "thumb of extrapolation approval"

The other thing: you missed half the question, what happens if the attempt is successful? Does it lose HIP? By conjecture along your lines of reasoning for starshell activities, you would seem to say "yes, it does," correct?

@Scott, yes, I think I already cited that established answer. It does not address HIP (and it could have, but didn't), and once again you are extrapolating what you take it to mean, but unfortunately it is not written so. Sure, we can play the game like that, and we probably will, but it's unsatisfactorily dangling, in spite of your well-recognized expertise.

In the absence of anything but sage opinions and approving thumbs, I hesitate to say it, but probably we need to submit it for an official Q/A.

 

[Doug Leslie]

@Doug, yeah, it might be difficult to see on the basis of extrapolation, but players can't extrapolate during play, even ones as knowledgeable as you. And even if Klass gives a "thumb of extrapolation approval"

The other thing: you missed half the question, what happens if the attempt is successful? Does it lose HIP? By conjecture along your lines of reasoning for starshell activities, you would seem to say "yes, it does," correct?

@Scott, yes, I think I already cited that established answer. It does not address HIP (and it could have, but didn't), and once again you are extrapolating what you take it to mean, but unfortunately it is not written so. Sure, we can play the game like that, and we probably will, but it's unsatisfactorily dangling, in spite of your well-recognized expertise.

In the absence of anything but sage opinions and approving thumbs, I hesitate to say it, but probably we need to submit it for an official Q/A.

I would play it that the leader is placed onboard under a concealment counter if the FOM attempt is successful. It will doubtless be on the move soon enough anyway! It is the same logic that causes loss of HIP (but not concealment) if a starshell attempt is successful.

 

[Honosbinda]

I would play it that the leader is placed onboard under a concealment counter if the FOM attempt is successful. It will doubtless be on the move soon enough anyway! It is the same logic that causes loss of HIP (but not concealment) if a starshell attempt is successful.

Okay, but if the leader does not go on the move (even though free to do so), why penalize the leader becoming exposed to sniper fire from Russian snipers that activate with a 7 at night?? Maybe i want to keep it where it is, in a nice place with a heavy machine gun stack. The leader doesn't have to go on the move.

See, this is the point of contention precisely that you have identified but are making a summary judgement of how you would play it, not how the rules read. I would contest that it's not up to the player to extrapolate rules, COWTRA. How could you refute this on the basis of rules? You can't.
The same logic for starshells does not apply for freedom of movement except as an extrapolation from one situation to another situation. Notwithstanding that it's a reasonable contention, it's not supported by the rules directly.

There is great likelihood your extrapolation will be supported, I know. It doesn't matter to me that it is, or isn't. Just that the rules are clear about it and not subject to the whims and biases of individual players.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I would play as if the leader remains hidden, regardless of the outcome of the FoM dr.

 

[Honosbinda]

I would play as if the leader remains hidden, regardless of the outcome of the FoM dr.

okay glad you chimed in! Well I am right about 20% of the time when it comes to debating with Doug, always a tough battle on and off the playing field. So can we take this as a ruling or do we need to submit a q/a? I'm not sure of the protocol anymore. I'd rather avoid submitting a q/a if my opponent agrees.

 

[Vinnie]

okay glad you chimed in! Well I am right about 20% of the time when it comes to debating with Doug, always a tough battle on and off the playing field. So can we take this as a ruling or do we need to submit a q/a? I'm not sure of the protocol anymore. I'd rather avoid submitting a q/a if my opponent agrees.

Even if you agree with your opponent please continue to submit a Q&A. That way the question gets resolved for everyone.

 

[Honosbinda]

Even if you agree with your opponent please continue to submit a Q&A. That way the question gets resolved for everyone.

Alright Vinnie, I will discuss it with Simon and one of us will send it off soon to get the official answer. When we get that, we'll post it back here and in the relevant section for Q/A responses -- as I recall, there is another thread for that.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I would play as if the leader remains hidden, regardless of the outcome of the FoM dr.

That's how I play it too.

 

[Honosbinda]

Perry answers above (and another question as well, that cropped up during play)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

first question

Does an HIP" best leader" rolling for Freedom of movement (E1.21) at the beginning of their MPh
a) lose HIP (but retain concealment if no LOS from a real enemy) if they fail gaining movement?
b) lose HIP (but retain concealment if no LOS from a real enemy) if they succeed gaining movement?
c) and d): same as a) and b) except in the case there is LOS (e.g. starshell, within NVR of real enemy).

answer

HIP retained in all four.

second question

Situation -- night scenario and the ATTACKER wants to op fire with an infantry stack, guns or mortars and places op fire markers. they will remain concealed out of LOS, but the issue is do they become unconcealed (or possibly in the case of an emplaced gun) if they are illuminated by a starshell later on?

The following Q/A may apply to this question but need to confirm that it does, please, since night and Chapter E are not referenced: This is important because if the defender lays illumination on the op firing Gun, the gun doesn't have to op fire and risk losing concealment.

A7.25 & A12.14 - If a concealed, unobserved unit marked with an Opportunity Fire marker later in the turn becomes visible to a good order enemy unit does it lose concealment?

A.
Not till it actually attacks.

answer

Not till it actually attacks.

 

[Simon62]

The answer to the second question above means that the gunflash on an Opp fire marked unit does not happen until it actrually opp fires in the adv fire phase, however, in VASL the Op fire counter illuminates the hex when placed - Given the above anser from Perry should the op fire marker NOT illuminate the hex (I.e, it is not a gunflash until the unit actual fires) and only becomes a gunflash when the adv fire is is placed thus a unit marked as op fire which does not fire should never be under a gunflash?

Does the process of this VASL counter need changing?

Also does rule E1.8 need to exclude op fire marker from causing a gunflash?