Can you assault move into shellholes and not lose concealment?

[klasmalmstrom]

Note that A10.531 now (after ASL Journal 11 errata [red text]) says:
"For purposes of rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction, an Open Ground hex is any hex in which the particular enemy unit(s) could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity (regardless of what attacks it actually made in previous phases), the -1 FFMO DRM. ..."

I.e., one considers if the units with a LOS could apply the -1 FFMO DRM in a hypothetical Defensive First Fire attack. Not if the -1 FFMO could apply in any hypothetical Defensive First Fire attack.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Also: Note that movement ... with height advantage is enough to cancel the -1 FFMO, so you can Assault Move ... with HA and retain concealed!

What if the Interdicting Unit/Unit trying to remove ? is capable of using Indirect Fire (i.e. a mortar)? Have fun with that one -- jim

 

[WuWei]

I'm not arguing that you aren't right in every detail of rule in your response WuWei -- you are -- I am arguing that claiming the concealment rules around shellholes is a simple matter of following the perfectly consistent OG rules -- that claim, no. Why do you have to claim a TEM in shellhole terrain, but not in grain? What difference between those two is actually defined in the rules?

The difference is spelled out pretty clearly in B1, I think. Shellholes are mentioned there, but not grain.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

THAT'S what I was looking for. The Gamesquad Q&A is not updated for this, btw.

True, if you are referring to the Q&A file I maintain/update, it does not list the current official errata.

 

[T34]

I apologize to WuWei. I know Tobias and he's a good guy.

 

[WuWei]

Apology accepted. I'm sorry, too, that my initial comments came across as unfriendly and dismissive. That wasn't my intend, but I'm responsible for the way I wrote them. I'll try to be a more helpful member of the great ASL community in the future.

 

[Pyth]

The difference is spelled out pretty clearly in B1, I think. Shellholes are mentioned there, but not grain.

Oy vey.... actually i think you are right. Another day. Another egg to the face.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Some ones around here are almost infalible I think....

By the way... I miss JVR.... Is he all right?

 

[peterd1973]

How about the term, "Conditional Open Ground"?

 

[peterd1973]

Some ones around here are almost infalible I think....

By the way... I miss JVR.... Is he all right?

He moved to Discord.

 

[FrankH.]

I am already in trouble for misinterpreting the originally posed question once. I am very sorry for that.

However here I think at least one key question remains: does a sufficient height advantage, in actually reducing the TEM of a shellholes hex to zero, cause FFMO to apply even if the moving unit uses 2 MF to enter said hex. B2.4 states, or at least implies, FFMO would not apply as long as 2 MF are used to enter. On this question, I do not see clarity. I think (I guess at this point) there would be no TEM however there would also be no FFMO in that case. Still, I think a Q & A will be needed. I think the answer to that question should be in B9.33, but I don't see it there.

Apologies in advance to all if I am wrong on this.

 

[Binchois]

I am already in trouble for misinterpreting the originally posed question once. I am very sorry for that.

However here I think at least one key question remains: does a sufficient height advantage, in actually reducing the TEM of a shellholes hex to zero, cause FFMO to apply even if the moving unit uses 2 MF to enter said hex. B2.4 states, or at least implies, FFMO would not apply as long as 2 MF are used to enter. On this question, I do not see clarity. I think (I guess at this point) there would be no TEM however there would also be no FFMO in that case. Still, I think a Q & A will be needed. I think the answer to that question should be in B9.33, but I don't see it there.

Apologies in advance to all if I am wrong on this.

No reason to apologize! The original question was unclear (the OP asked "Can you assault move into shellholes and not lose concealment?" without clarifying why he thought HA was relevant to the question), so folks did the best they could. I'm not sure why things got so heated!

As for your question, if the firer had height advantage over the shellholes - at a close enough range to reduce the TEM to zero - then interdiction and FFMO could apply. This is stated in B9.33 in regard to walls/hedges. A bit later in the paragraph, it says that shellhole TEM can also be reduced (and FFMO apply) in a similar manner:

B9.33 ...If a wall/hedge TEM is reduced to 0 in an otherwise Open Ground hex, Interdiction and FFMO are allowed and any HD status is negated. If the TEM of a wall is reduced to +1 by elevation effects, any HD target is subject to a -1 drm to the colored dr of the To Hit DR of any such Direct Fire shot against it for Location of Hit purposes only. The TEM of shellholes, bridges, and entrenchments can be reduced in a similar manner by a firer's elevation advantage.​

​

If the shellholes are providing no TEM, then Interdiction and FFMO can apply.

 

[stuh42asl]

Hello, there is what is called a Location Primer PDF , I think Mark at desperation Moral has it on his website. I use it everyonce in a while even though I have played this game since '85. It can help understanding Location, LOCATION, etc...... Hope this will hep you get back into the game.....

 

[von Marwitz]

Some ones around here are almost infalible I think....

By the way... I miss JVR.... Is he all right?

He moved to Discord.

An example of him not being infallible IMHO.

von Marwitz

 

[The Purist]

… <snip>As for your question, if the firer had height advantage over the shellholes - at a close enough range to reduce the TEM to zero - then interdiction and FFMO could apply. This is stated in B9.33 in regard to walls/hedges. A bit later in the paragraph, it says that shellhole TEM can also be reduced (and FFMO apply) in a similar manner:

B9.33 ...If a wall/hedge TEM is reduced to 0 in an otherwise Open Ground hex, Interdiction and FFMO are allowed and any HD status is negated. If the TEM of a wall is reduced to +1 by elevation effects, any HD target is subject to a -1 drm to the colored dr of the To Hit DR of any such Direct Fire shot against it for Location of Hit purposes only. The TEM of shellholes, bridges, and entrenchments can be reduced in a similar manner by a firer's elevation advantage.​

​

If the shellholes are providing no TEM, then Interdiction and FFMO can apply.

I was wondering the same thing as I watched the discussion. In the case of HA and shellholes, if I understand the Hedge/Wall example, one would need to be two levels above and only one hex away to reduce the TEM to 0/+1 respectively and thus create open ground for the hedge (or 3 levels above and two hexes away and so on).

My assumption here is that since Shellholes are not that deep (I can attest that even a 155mm shell hole isn't very deep) and any cover gained is usually only of value to fire coming in parallel to the ground.

 

[stuh42asl]

I was wondering the same thing as I watched the discussion. In the case of HA and shellholes, if I understand the Hedge/Wall example, one would need to be two levels above and only one hex away to reduce the TEM to 0/+1 respectively and thus create open ground for the hedge (or 3 levels above and two hexes away and so on).

My assumption here is that since Shellholes are not that deep (I can attest that even a 155mm shell hole isn't very deep) and any cover gained is usually only of value to fire coming in parallel to the ground.

Really depends on the conditions of the ground....in Gagetown they left a nice crater............hmmmm ......Gagetown the only training range with a swamp on top of a hill... seemed everytime we did recee patrols we always ended up in the middle of it