Advance out of foxholes

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
I have a conceled unit in a foxhole that is in otherwise open ground and in LOS (<16 hexes) of an enemy unit. During the advance phase, this unit wants to advance into an adjacent cover hex. Is this considered a concelement loss? If so, should the opposite also be considered true - advance out of cover into a foxhole hex that is in otherwise open ground?
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,201
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
austin-tx said:
I have a conceled unit in a foxhole that is in otherwise open ground and in LOS (<16 hexes) of an enemy unit. During the advance phase, this unit wants to advance into an adjacent cover hex. Is this considered a concelement loss? If so, should the opposite also be considered true - advance out of cover into a foxhole hex that is in otherwise open ground?
Yes, you lose concealment in both cases.
 

GVL

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
278
Reaction score
1
Location
Belgium
Country
llBelgium
Can someone explain why this is so?
The open ground hex and the foxhole are considered to be 1 Location ? Or not?
 

ds

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, CA
Country
llUnited States
This conflicts with Brian's assesment (and NRBH), but I thought it was:

B27.?? states that the foxhole is in the same Location as the hex, so advancing from beneath a foxhole to an adjacent hex is possible.

And, as long as you're not advancing into an Open Ground hex (Concealment chart or A12.??), you should not lose concealment.

So I would say no concealment loss when advancing into cover, but yes to loss when advancing into the foxhole since you are technically moving into an Open Ground 'hex'.
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,891
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
You pop your head out of the ground in Open Ground and they can see you. That's all that needs to be said.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
1,052
Country
llLithuania
ds said:
This conflicts with Brian's assesment (and NRBH), but I thought it was:

B27.?? states that the foxhole is in the same Location as the hex, so advancing from beneath a foxhole to an adjacent hex is possible.

And, as long as you're not advancing into an Open Ground hex (Concealment chart or A12.??), you should not lose concealment.

So I would say no concealment loss when advancing into cover, but yes to loss when advancing into the foxhole since you are technically moving into an Open Ground 'hex'.
If you look at A27.4 (V1) the implication (especially the last sentence) is that MP to enter and/or exit the FH are expended in the surrounding terrain and TEM.

A27.4 The cost of entering a hex containing a foxhole is equal to the COT of the hex entered. However, Infantry moving beneath an existing foxhole counter or from beneath a foxhole counter must pay one additional MF separately after payment of the COT to enter the hex and after suffering any Defensive First Fire that MF expenditure may have enticed. Note, however, that the cost to enter/exit a foxhole/pillbox during the RtPh may be combined with the entrance cost of the next hex - thereby escaping Interdiction in the foxhole/pillbox Location
 

paul

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle
Country
llUnited States
IMHO should be added to the list of "most often forgotten rules".

I don't think most folks play entrenchments, advance, movement and
assault moving correctly . . . (I know I didn't for a long time . .)

-Paul
 

ds

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, CA
Country
llUnited States
First off, I'm not arguing with the consensus here. I'm just not clear on one point - and how my interpretation of it is faltering (and not having the RB here is making my mind run circles - lesson learned, I guess):

I thought concealment loss was based on "the hex you were moving into", not the hex you were leaving.

Also, since the foxhole isn't legally creating a new "Location" in the first OG hex, the unit wouldn't be moving 'through' any Locations (ie, from under the foxhole counter to above it) to advance into the adjacent hex.

Finally, the MF expenditure point seems mute because movement in the APh is location-based, not MF-based.
 

sgtono

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland, OR
Country
llUnited States
ds said:
Finally, the MF expenditure point seems mute because movement in the APh is location-based, not MF-based.
NRBH but I do not think this statement is correct, especially when considering CX.

Keith
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,201
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
ds said:
I thought concealment loss was based on "the hex you were moving into", not the hex you were leaving.
I searched the ASLRB and could not find a difinitive statement about advancing out of an entrenchment within an open ground location. The only thing I could try is that leaving a foxhole seems to be a seperate action with the APh according to the foxhole rules. I have not seen it played differently. I could not find a Q&A. That means I am probably missing something in the rules. Send a question to perry to get an official answer if someone with a better nose for the rules doesn't give you a rules reference.
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,891
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Foxholes are not a location; they are one of several classes of "quasi-locations."

I think I have a cheat sheet on my website about locations.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,201
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
pitman said:
Foxholes are not a location; they are one of several classes of "quasi-locations."
Yes, that is the problem. A unit exiting a foxhole in the APh is not changing locations. The argument is that it is not advancing "into an Open Ground hex" so Case B of the ? Loss/Gain table does not apply.

I think you could argue against that interpretation by saying that advancing out of foxhole, while not changing locations, does constitute advaning into an Open Ground hex because the nature of the location has changed from non-OG to OG.

Or, somewhere in the ASLRB/Q&A the answer is looking right at me and I am too stupid to see it. I hope and expect it to be B.
 

Rindis

Wargamer
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
891
Reaction score
126
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
Country
llUnited States
Yes you do.

http://www.desperationmorale.com/location.pdf

Marked as a DRAFT.

You define your idea of a 'quasi-location' (works for me!) and have a thick paragraph on Foxholes at the end of the first page. I don't think you say anything that is pertinent that hasn't come up yet. (When and where MFs are spent and so on...)

Whatever the outcome of the discussion, you may want to put in a bit on concealment/advance and quasi-locations.

You definately pay attention to MFs in APh, which implies that you'd loose concealment while going through the OG. But it probably relies on the root definition of Advance and perhaps something gets mentioned in Concealment. NRBH
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
1,052
Country
llLithuania
Brian W said:
ds said:
I thought concealment loss was based on "the hex you were moving into", not the hex you were leaving.
I searched the ASLRB and could not find a difinitive statement about advancing out of an entrenchment within an open ground location. The only thing I could try is that leaving a foxhole seems to be a seperate action with the APh according to the foxhole rules. I have not seen it played differently. I could not find a Q&A. That means I am probably missing something in the rules. Send a question to perry to get an official answer if someone with a better nose for the rules doesn't give you a rules reference.
From Sam Belcher's compiled Perry Sez collection (in particular, note the last answer):

B27.1 Foxholes (March 2001)

During the APh, does a unit entering a Foxhole hex to go beneath the Foxhole counter ``pay one additional MF =separately= after payment of the COT to enter the hex,'' as in the MPh?

Yes.

Q: Does A10.531 mean that Concealed Infantry advancing, in the APh, into an OG hex to enter a Foxhole, could lose Concealment to an enemy unit with ``a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity'' vs that advance?

Yes.


Q: During the APh, does a unit advancing into an OG Foxhole hex (and under the Foxhole counter) in an FFE get the TEM of the Foxhole, or the OG TEM, vs the FFE attack?

Open Ground

Q: During the APh, does a unit in an OG Foxhole hex in an FFE, advancing to a non-FFE hex, get attacked by the FFE before leaving the Foxhole hex?

Yes.

If so, does it get Open Ground TEM, or Foxhole TEM, vs that attack?

Open Ground
 

Alan P.

Recruit
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Wa.
Country
llUnited States
Based on the v.1 concealment loss/gain table, line B says "moves/advances into an Open Ground hex(A10.531). . ."

if the rules mean "moves in/moves or advances into an OG hex. . ." has this been changed in v.2? I've always read this as "moves into/advances into".

Are there other rules to consider?

Alan
 

ds

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, CA
Country
llUnited States
Finally got home and checked out the RB (and the Concealment Table)v2

Both use the phrase "moves/advances/withdraws into an Open Ground hex" for concealment loss. No reference about where you're coming from or what you're going through. So it seems that it doesn't matter what hex (or terrain type) you're coming from, as long as you are not going into an OG hex, you're still concealed.

However, as Mark pointed early in this thread, it seems logical to me that if you pop your head out of a foxhole (in an OG hex) to move into a new area, you should lose concealment... though I still can't find anything which enforces that.

Is this, then, one of those Rules vs. Reality situations?
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,201
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
ds said:
However, as Mark pointed early in this thread, it seems logical to me that if you pop your head out of a foxhole (in an OG hex) to move into a new area, you should lose concealment... though I still can't find anything which enforces that.
I do not think there is much realism involved in any of the foxhole rules. The problem I see is symetry. If you advance into a hex with a foxhole and then into the foxhole, you lose concealment, but the reverse is not true--doesn't seem consistant.

Jazz quoted a lot of q&a which I had read before hand, but none of it was very definitive on concealment loss. Still hoping it's in the rules and I am missing it.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
1,052
Country
llLithuania
Brian W said:
Jazz quoted a lot of q&a which I had read before hand, but none of it was very definitive on concealment loss. Still hoping it's in the rules and I am missing it.
I guess the part of the Q&A that I thought was pertinent was that the advancing unit would be hit by the OBA in open ground.

Granted, it is a bit of an extrapolation from APh to Assault move, but the open ground part would seem to indicate that "enough" of the movement in the APh ("kinda" like Assault move?) was in open ground to get FFMO?

It was the only thing I could find and it only applies if one extrapolates.
 

Rindis

Wargamer
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
891
Reaction score
126
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
Country
llUnited States
ASLRBv1 said:
10.531 OPEN GROUND: For purposes of rout determination, Dash, *concealment gain/loss*, and Interdiction, an Open Ground hex is any hex in Normal Range in which any Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity....
The 'hypothetical DFF' is mostly meant for the RtPh, but it is not specified for it here, which means it could be applied to the APh. And if so, the unit looses concealment while exiting the Foxhole.
 

ds

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, CA
Country
llUnited States
10.531 doesn't solve the problem (if you consider the lack of reciprocity a problem) It only defines what Open Ground is.

A12.14 defines WHEN (and under what circumstances) Concealment removal can possibly occur. The "when a unit [advances] into an Open Ground hex." seems to miss the Location-loophole provided by the foxhole's special characteristics.
 
Top