Legion
Member
When shellholes are created as per B2.1 are 'hexside' terrain (ie walls etc) destroyed as well in-hex terrain?
B2.1 Shellhole Creation
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
Nothing in the rules speaks of destroying the terrain (unless the KIA creating the shellhole sets a fire in Grain/Brush).
That creates a problem of MF expense (as the rule fixes 1MF to enter a hex with a shellhole).
The question was abundantly debated some months ago...
The rule needs to be re-written somehow...
That creates a problem of MF expense (as the rule fixes 1MF to enter a hex with a shellhole).
The question was abundantly debated some months ago...
The rule needs to be re-written somehow...
Robert Fabbro
Member
Yeah, I started this one a while back, but there was never an "official" resolve. Still Hoping! :whist: Here’s the quick synopsis:
Original Question: If a shellhole is created during play, does the shellhole REPLACE the existing terrain or does it exist IN ADDITION TO the original terrain.
Example: A Brush hex that gets hit by a big OBA KIA has a Shellhole placed in the hex. Is this hex now a Shellhole hex only with 1MF/2MF costs or is it a combined Shellhole/Brush hex with associated 2MF/3MF costs as per A2.4 (Cumulative Terrain Costs)? Chapter B is not clear on this.
Chapter G Jungle (& Hut) rules SPECIFICALLY mention that a Jungle hex is REPLACED by the Shellhole. The Paddy rules also seem to support replacement of existing terrain by shellhole.
So all would seem to support that newly created Shellholes in fact replace existing terrain. But here's the kicker: Under Chapter C Bombardment rules it is possible to create both a flame and a shellhole in the same hex. So how would the flame spread if the previous terrain no longer exists?
So unfortunately, the Bombardment rules create a disconnect: If you buy into the shellhole and other terrain costs as being cumulative, this contradicts portions of Chapter G (especially the Rice Paddy example that specifically mentions shellholes replacing existing terrain).
If you think Chapter G has got it right, then the Bombardment rules don’t work as written.
Anyway check it out A2.4 Cumulative Effects, B2.1 Shellholes, Chapter C1.823 Fire/Shellholes, and the Chapter G Jungle, Huts, & Rice Paddies (sorry, no Chapter G rules reference handy).
Rob
Original Question: If a shellhole is created during play, does the shellhole REPLACE the existing terrain or does it exist IN ADDITION TO the original terrain.
Example: A Brush hex that gets hit by a big OBA KIA has a Shellhole placed in the hex. Is this hex now a Shellhole hex only with 1MF/2MF costs or is it a combined Shellhole/Brush hex with associated 2MF/3MF costs as per A2.4 (Cumulative Terrain Costs)? Chapter B is not clear on this.
Chapter G Jungle (& Hut) rules SPECIFICALLY mention that a Jungle hex is REPLACED by the Shellhole. The Paddy rules also seem to support replacement of existing terrain by shellhole.
So all would seem to support that newly created Shellholes in fact replace existing terrain. But here's the kicker: Under Chapter C Bombardment rules it is possible to create both a flame and a shellhole in the same hex. So how would the flame spread if the previous terrain no longer exists?
So unfortunately, the Bombardment rules create a disconnect: If you buy into the shellhole and other terrain costs as being cumulative, this contradicts portions of Chapter G (especially the Rice Paddy example that specifically mentions shellholes replacing existing terrain).
If you think Chapter G has got it right, then the Bombardment rules don’t work as written.
Anyway check it out A2.4 Cumulative Effects, B2.1 Shellholes, Chapter C1.823 Fire/Shellholes, and the Chapter G Jungle, Huts, & Rice Paddies (sorry, no Chapter G rules reference handy).
Rob
rglesing@indot.
Member
Looks like you just pick a preference and go with it! 
tommyl
Member
Interesting in HOB's Onslaught to Orsha they have specifically stated that when shellholes are placed during play in orchard hexes, they become Orchard-Shellholes combined movement costs and orchards go out of season (OtO 2.2).
SamB
Shut up and play!
When you dig a foxhole in the grain, does the grain disappear? Do you get to "pick a preference" and go with it?
If the rule doesn't say you "replace" the existing terrain then you don't.
JMO. YMMV.
Sam
If the rule doesn't say you "replace" the existing terrain then you don't.
JMO. YMMV.
Sam
jimfer
Member
In response to your question the walls and hedges are indestructable, nothing removes the hexside terrain or the in hex terrain as far as the rules allow.Legion said:
Jimfer
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
Brush = 2MFOle Boe said:
Brush + walking in the shellholes = 2 + 1 MF = 3MF.
That makes 2MF/3MF...
I don't see what 1MF you are adding here...
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
OK, I understand now...Ole Boe said:
The question is : is the "first" MF for entering a shellhole hex the "normal" Open Ground cost - which could be replaced by the Brush or Grain cost?
Note that Shellholes in OG don't cost 2MF/3MF - or am I clearly wrong here (and have been playing this wrong since 1982 : which could be quite possible
) ?The rule says : 1MF or 2MF, and nothing more (i.e. whatever the terrain).
Legalisticly reading, a shellhole changes the entry cost of the terrain only, but does not destroy the terrain on the hindrance, fire, etc. side of the rules...
It would make sense, but it doesn't look like ASL physics work that way.Robin said:
I.e. it costs 2 MF to enter an OG gully, but 2 MF + COT to enter a Gully containing Woods or Brush.
You're correct there.Note that Shellholes in OG don't cost 2MF/3MF - or am I clearly wrong here (and have been playing this wrong since 1982 : which could be quite possible
Yes, and A2.4 says: "Terrain effects and movement costs of hexes containing more than one terrain feature (such as 2I9) are cumulative unless specified otherwise by the rules governing the involved terrain types."
It applies here, telling us that the Brush 2 MF is cumulative with the Shellhole 1 MF or 2 MF.
I've just got an e-mail from a friend, pointing me to the B2 example, which says:
"EX: On the Red Barricades map, a squad IN CC3 may move INTO the BB3 gully-shellhole Location at a cost of two MF, or three MF if also using the shellhole TEM. It may continue movement into AA3 at a cost of two MF (Open Ground) or three MF (if using the shellhole TEM)."
What this example says, is that in the case of a Gully-Shellhole hex, A2.4 doesn't apply, but instead there is +1 MF added if the Shellhole is used.
That makes sense, but isn't written in the rules anywhere - and actually contradicts A2.4. I'll join Bruce Bakken in hating that examples says something you cannot find in any rule :blab:
I think it's time to consider an errata or two for B2...
"EX: On the Red Barricades map, a squad IN CC3 may move INTO the BB3 gully-shellhole Location at a cost of two MF, or three MF if also using the shellhole TEM. It may continue movement into AA3 at a cost of two MF (Open Ground) or three MF (if using the shellhole TEM)."
What this example says, is that in the case of a Gully-Shellhole hex, A2.4 doesn't apply, but instead there is +1 MF added if the Shellhole is used.
That makes sense, but isn't written in the rules anywhere - and actually contradicts A2.4. I'll join Bruce Bakken in hating that examples says something you cannot find in any rule :blab:
I think it's time to consider an errata or two for B2...