RE: Concealment question
>Well, I always do (b), because the AFV can usually lose
>concealment much more easily than the infantry can, and
>there's no reason to "expose" the infantry simply because the
>AFV becomes Known. I don't believe that the rules specify
>one method over the other. Method (b) merely anticipates
>that the vehicle will lose concealment before the infantry does.
The rules do not distinguish between 1/2" and 3/4" '?' counters. Since
guns are usually HIP, this probably would not be an issue if agreed to
before hand, but if guns set up non-HIP, adding an extra '?' counter
underneath a 3/4" concealment counter possibly gives away information
(i.e. the guns are the ones with only one 1/2" counter beneath them). I
think the simplest way is to have one concealment counter per stack, and
any '?' underneath that concealment counter is a dummy. In fact, I find
it hard to believe that the rules do not say exactly that, but they do
not. They do, however say that when two concealed stacks combine, only
the top '?' counter of one of the stacks is retained (i.e. (a) is
correct).
I have not seen it played (b), although I suppose it could confuse '?'
counters.
>No. A12.11 prohibits the placement of a *single* dummy
>counter beneath an unconcealed unit, but it says nothing
>about such placement of a stack of them.
Here is old Q&A. I believe this prevents a dummy from setting up beneath
a vehicle. A12.12 also states that '?' counters are placed after
'regular' units--i.e. they are placed on top of real units. Otherwise, a
player could place three ob granted '?' counters and on top a 237, which
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed