[ASLML] Concealment Counters and Dummy Counters

[Bruce Bakken]

Gentlemen of the ASLML.

I've thought and thought about it, and finally it has dawned on me.  I 
present my conclusions for your consideration.  I'm going to be linear and 
deliberate.  Grab a seat and a favorite beverage and take your time.  I'm 
building a case.

It seems to me the whole discussion has been overlooking and possibly 
confusing the difference between a  concealment counter and a Dummy counter. 
  And it's a crucial distinction for all of these arguments.  After all, the 
question mark printed on the counter means nothing by itself.  It's how the 
counter is *used* that is important.  So what is the difference, you ask?

Per A12.1, a *concealment* counter (as represented by a "?" counter) is 
placed *above* units to "simulate an opposing unit's inability to see" those 
units.  Consider the case of a single "?" counter in a stack.  We may all 
agree that during play a single "?" counter may find itself in the middle of 
a stack, such as the following:  (squad, leader, ?, lmg, squad).

What do we have here?  What we have is a Known squad and leader, and a 
concealed squad with a LMG.  I.e., everything *beneath* the "?" counter is 
concealed, and the "?" plays the role of a *concealment* counter.

So what is a Dummy, then?  Consider this stack: (?, ?, ?)

What do we have here?  What we have is one concealment counter, and two 
Dummy counters.  Note these very important requirements for a Dummy counter: 
in order for a "?" counter to even be considered a *Dummy*, it must have 
another "?" counter on top of it playing the role of concealment counter.  
Thus, a lone "?" counter in a stack *can never play the role of a Dummy*.  
Not only that, a Dummy counter *may only be created by an OB-designated "?" 
counter*.

I *firmly believe* that is what A12.11 is telling us.

A12.11 is defining what a Dummy is.  A12.11 is not telling us that a single 
*concealment* counter may not be placed beneath an unconcealed unit 
(something we know is patently absurd because all unconcealed units are 
*required* to be *above* a concealment counter); rather, what A12.11 is 
telling us is that a single *Dummy* counter may not be placed beneath an 
unconcealed unit (because then it wouldn't *be* a Dummy counter, it would be 
a concealment counter).

Certainly, a Dummy counter is decidedly *not* the same as a concealment 
counter.  A Dummy counter may behave like *any* unit of the appropriate 
size.  Indeed, according to the Index definition, a Dummy is a "?" counter 
representing a fake unit (as opposed to a "?" counter acting as a 
concealment counter.)  To put it another way, a Dummy counter *is* a unit 
(it can move).   A concealment counter, on the other hand, is merely a 
marker used "to hide their true nature and provide them with several 
pertinent advantages".

Not with me yet?  There's more.

Again using this example: (?, ?, ?)  This stack can move as Infantry, and 
your opponent would be none the wiser.  Even better, this stack can *split* 
into two additional concealed stacks.  When the top two counters (the 
concealment and the first Dummy) move away, the remaining Dummy can 
immediately have another concealment counter put on it.

Now look at this: (?, squad, squad).  Again, the top squad can move away 
concealed, and the bottom squad can immediately place a concealment.  It's 
called splitting.  We're all familiar with it.

Sorry to go through all this, but it's important to understand the behavior 
of a Dummy counter, and the significance of the "?" counter's position 
within a stack.  Now that you have this foundation, I can make my real 
point.  <g>

The phrase in A12.11: "but a single such counter cannot be placed beneath 
unconcealed units"... *is referring to a Dummy counter, and NOT a 
concealment counter*!  The reason I know this is a) the immediately 
preceding text, which defines Dummies; and b) because a Dummy counter is a 
unit, and is given certain movement capabilities as defined later in 
A12.11... while a concealment counter is only -- well, a marker.

Are we getting there?  Almost done...

Consider the following stacks:

(?, squad, squad) – two concealed squads.  Perfectly legal at any time.

(squad, ?, squad) – one Known squad, and one concealed squad.  Perfectly 
legal at any time.  (But not legal at setup?  Absurd!)

(squad, squad, ?) – two Known squads, and one ... illegally placed "?" 
counter.  Why?  Not because of the wording of A12.11 (which applies to 
Dummies) but because a "?" counter in this position is *neither a 
concealment counter* (because there are no units beneath it), *nor a Dummy 
counter* (because there is no "?" counter atop it).

I believe that the combination (squad, ?, squad) is legal at setup with 
OB-designated "?", for the following reasons:

1.  Dummies may only be created by OB-designated "?" counters.  (A12.11).

2.  A lone "?" counter in the middle of a stack is *not* a Dummy counter, it 
is a *concealment* counter by definition (A12.1 for concealment, and A12.11 
which says a Dummy requires another "?" atop it.)

3.  The phrase "a single such counter cannot be placed beneath unconcealed 
units" found in A12.11 means that a single "?" counter placed beneath an 
unconcealed unit cannot be a Dummy.  I.e., it cannot later behave as 
described in detail in the rest of A12.11.  This phrase is *not* a 
restriction against using such a single "?" counter at setup as 
*concealment* for units beneath it.

4.  The phrase "may place only scenario-OB-designated '?' at first", found 
in A12.12 is used only to distinguish between OB-designated "?" and 
non-OB-designated "?" gained due to no LOS with enemy units.  It is telling 
us that we must place OB-designated "?" before we place non-OB-designated 
"?".  And even if you believe that the real units must be set up first, 
there is no restriction here or anywhere else that prohibits an 
OB-designated "?" from being placed in the middle of a stack and used as a 
concealment counter; the only restriction is that it must be in Terrain 
"list in red", and cannot be considered a Dummy (per A12.11).

5.  The reason a non-OB-designated "?" may not be placed on top of any 
previously placed "?" is because it would then change this: (?, ?, squad) 
setup from a stack containing one concealed Dummy and one concealed squad, 
into this: (?, ?, ?, squad), which is two concealed Dummies and one 
concealed squad... i.e. creating another Dummy... *and Dummies may only be 
created with OB-designated "?"*.

6.  To end up with a stack such as (squad, ?, squad) at setup may *only* 
occur using OB-designated "?".  Otherwise, the non-OB-designated "?" counter 
would be on top of the stack.

Thus, to conclude that one could not voluntarily end up with such a stack 
using OB-designated "?" at setup is erroneous.

In essence, I believe that everyone's argument has been flawed, in some way. 
  You most certainly *may* place a "single" OB-designated "?" counter 
beneath an unconcealed unit at setup, you just can't use it as a Dummy.  And 
you certainly *may* place *any number* of OB-designated "?" counters beneath 
an unconcealed unit during setup.

But you may never, under any circumstance, place a non-OB-designated "?" in 
the middle of a stack, nor on top of a previously placed (i.e. 
OB-designated) "?" counter.

What's so hard about that?

I feel supremely confident about my conclusions.  Of course I better say 
here that this is "only my opinion".  I'm not Perry.  If you don't believe 
me, ask him.

Regards,
Bruce "not concealed, but certainly no Dummy" Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!  Learn more. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1