Advance out of foxholes

[Chas]

Gents,

Has anyone sent this to PerrySez? I think this specific issue has come up several times, and I always seem to forget it. Read through the rules and honestly am not 100% sure. I dont think the arguments with reference to other rules have enough to say 100% either way.

Very interested at how this comes out.

Chas

 

[SamB]

Has anyone sent a Perry Sez?

OK, I checked my web page. Here's one that might help...

Sam
See Dicetower.com

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

 

[Brian W]

OK, I checked my web page. Here's one that might help...

I think that all these were quoted already last week. I do not think anyone doubts what the answer to the question will be (at least I do not); I am just surprised I cannot find the answer in the ASLRB.

 

[Jazz]

OK, I checked my web page. Here's one that might help...

I think that all these were quoted already last week. I do not think anyone doubts what the answer to the question will be (at least I do not); I am just surprised I cannot find the answer in the ASLRB.

Surely you're not surprised at this? A seasoned campaigner such as yourself would have learned to expect this I'm thinking.....

 

[GVL]

NRBH

I don't agree with Perry Sez on this discussion.
For me the rulebook is clear.

1) You loose your concealment when you move/advance in an open ground hex.

2) Do we have an open ground hex here?

To know this, we have to look at the definion of an open hex ground.

What says the rulebook ?

You have an open ground hex if interdiction could occur during Rout Phase.

3) Can Interdiction occur when you move from a woods hex to an open ground hex with a foxhole?
NO, No, no.
The rules say clearly that some one who routs into a foxhole cannot be interdicted !!!

Conclusion:

IMHO, there is no concealment loss when some one advances into a foxhole .

 

[Ole Boe]

NRBH

I don't agree with Perry Sez on this discussion.
For me the rulebook is clear.

I've learned the hard way not to say that anything is clear. You can bet someone comes and proves that you've overlooked something. This time I will

1) You loose your concealment when you move/advance in an open ground hex.

2) Do we have an open ground hex here?

To know this, we have to look at the definion of an open hex ground.

Agreed. The definition in this case is in A10.531

You have an open ground hex if interdiction could occur during Rout Phase.

3) Can Interdiction occur when you move from a woods hex to an open ground hex with a foxhole?
NO, No, no.

Here is where your analysis is wrong. The definition does not mention rout phase at all. It says: "For purposes of rout determination, Dash, concealment gain/loss, and Interdiction, an Open Ground hex is any hex in which any Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity (regardless of what attacks it actually made in previous phases), the -1 FFMO DRM."

So the definition actually says that it is Open Ground if during the MPh the unit could be attacked with FFMO. Since a unit not in the Foxhole can be attacked with FFMO in the MPh, it is Open Ground.

The rules say clearly that some one who routs into a foxhole cannot be interdicted !!!

During the RtPh yes, but that doesn't affect the definition of Open Ground.

Conclusion:

IMHO, there is no concealment loss when some one advances into a foxhole .

As you see by now, your conclusion is incorrect, and the ASLRB certainly supports the Perry sez.

 

[GVL]

I understand it , but I don't agree completely.
It is true that the definition does not mention the routing phase but the definition of A 10.531 says you need an Interdictor.
An Interdictor exists only when you have Interdiction during Routing phase. And interdiction is not possible in this case.
So : no Interdictor means also no interdictor that can apply the -1 FFMO, and this means no open ground hex ( if the unit advances into the foxhole ).
The use of the word "Interdiction" and "Interdictor" is in the index only used for actions during Routing phase.
Why should the rulebookmaker use the word Interdictor in the definition of open ground hex if there is no link with the routing phase at all?

 

[Ole Boe]

It is true that the definion does not mention the routing phase but the definiton of A 10.531 says you need an Interdictor.
An Interdictor exists only when you have Interdiction during Routing phase.

I agree that the use of "Interdictor" is misleading. However, the rest of the sentence can only make sense if you don't read Interdictor literally as per A10.532, but as any enemy unit.

Look at A10.531 again. It says: "...which any Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity (regardless of what attacks it actually made in previous phases), the -1 FFMO DRM."

Note what I have in bold: "Defensive First Fire" and "FFMO DRM".

"Defensive First Fire" is the fire conducted during the enemy MPh, and "FFMO" is also only applicable during the MPh, so this sentence would make absolutely no sense if you consider what would happen during a RtPh, since there is no DFF or FFMO then. If you read "Interdictor" as you do, then no hex would be Open Ground, because an Interdictor during the RtPh can never perform DFF or apply FFMO.

The use of the word "Interdiction" and "Interdictor" is in the index only used for actions during Routing phase.

Yes, but "DFF" and "FFMO" is only used for actions during the MPh, and it is those two which are the important point in the sentence.

Why should the rulebookmaker use the word Interdictor in the definiton of open ground hex if there is no link with the routing phase at all?

Because this sentence is ooold, and Don Greenwod wasn't very careful with the terms he used. It should be changed for "enemy unit" though.

 

[GVL]

If you change the word "Interdictor" in "enemy unit", it makes this important rule much clearer.
Do you know if MMP could still change this in their new print version?
I'm sure I am not the only one who has problems with the word Interdictor in this rule.

 

[Ole Boe]

If you change the word "Interdictor" in "enemy unit", it makes this important rule much clearer.
Do you know if MMP could still change this in their new print version?

I know that they do not change anything in their new print run, it will be indentical to the first ASLRB v.2 as far as I know.

I'm sure I am not the only one who has problems with the word Interdictor in this rule.

No, surely not, as it is very misleading to say Interdictor there. I guess it does because this is primarily a rule telling who can Interdict, but then the rule also defines OG for all other purposes as well.

It's IMHO a decent candidate for an errata in a future Journal...

 

[Treadhead]

During the MPh (and APh), the unit must expend one MF in its hex to be placed on top of the Foxhole.

Such an expenditure is considered movement.

Case B of the A12.121 Concealment Loss/Gain Table: "If it ...moves ... into an Open Ground hex (A10.531)..."

If this were a hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity, would the -1 FFMO apply? Answer: Yes, because it is the APh, and the expenditure for moving from beneath the foxhole is separate from any other expenditure.

We should not become unduly focused on the word "into". The applicable rule reference is to A10.531, which clearly (IMO) governs the applicability of concealment loss in this case. As a matter of fact, A10.531 is the only reference needed when determining Open Ground for concealment loss purposes.

If you expend any MF for any reason -- including during the APh, where MF costs still apply -- and the test of -1 FFMO is met, you lose concealment.

Thus my opinion.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken