B9.34 ...when is a wall hex non-open ground

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
874
Reaction score
173
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Here's the full text of 9.34

9.34 INDIRECT FIRE: The TEM of a wall/hedge hexside is lowered by one for Indirect Fire, but this TEM applies (irrespective of WA) even if that hexside is not crossed by the incoming fire. Only one wall/hedge TEM can be applied to the resolution of such fire, regardless of the number of such features present in the target hex. A hedge TEM reduced thusly to zero would still negate FFMO/Interdiction for a mortar whose LOF enters the hex via the hedge hexside. A target is never HD (D4.2) to Indirect Fire. If in a woods hex, Air Bursts (13.3) applies even if the unit has WA (but is combined with wall TEM if applicable).

The bolded parts represent concepts that, for me at least, do not play well together. The second bolded part seems to contradict the first and suggest that LOF must cross the hexside to impact FFMO negation (despite TEM being independent of the LOF crossing the hexside) So let me see if I have this right:

The +0 hedge TEM -- which all agree affects the whole hex equally (ineffectively), independent of the hexside being crossed -- Negates FFMO when the hexside is crossed, but not when the ineffective hexside is not crossed!? So crossing an ineffective hexside negates FFMO.

BUT if it's a wall, the hexside is effective in all cases. A +1 TEM is applied in all cases. An effective TEM always negates FFMO, in all cases.

Comments. (This rule broke my mind.)
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
495
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
It is saying - however convoluted it sounds! - that a unit gets +2 TEM for a wall or a +1 TEM for a hedge against indirect fire, regardless of whether the line of fire actually crosses that wall/hedge. The TEM is, however, reduced by 1 for indirect fire (so +1 TEM wall / +0 TEM hedge).

Finally, it says that when the line of fire does cross the wall/hedge - even in case of a now-zero-TEM hedge - a unit would not be considered to be in OG and a moving unit would not receive FFMO.

...so "yes".
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
874
Reaction score
173
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Finally, it says that when the line of fire does cross the wall/hedge - even in case of a now-zero-TEM hedge - a unit would not be considered to be in OG and a moving unit would not receive FFMO.

...so "yes".
Yes... but the part that fries my mind is what you left out of your final paragraph... -- if the line of sight does not cross a hedge the hex has 0tem and now does NOT negate FFMO. ... IOWs it is treated as open ground. SO.... Crossing the ineffective hedge negates OG. Not crossing the ineffective hedge means OG is still in play. Thats a bit odd.

I've come to the conclusion that Open Ground is a truly idiosyncratic rule that must be learned almost case by case... there is no magic summary concept that unifies OG conceptually

The unified field theory of Open Ground is dead!
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
495
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Yes... but the part that fries my mind is what you left out of your final paragraph... -- if the line of sight does not cross a hedge the hex has 0tem and now does NOT negate FFMO. ... IOWs it is treated as open ground. SO.... Crossing the ineffective hedge negates OG. Not crossing the ineffective hedge means OG is still in play. Thats a bit odd.

I've come to the conclusion that Open Ground is a truly idiosyncratic rule that must be learned almost case by case... there is no magic summary concept that unifies OG conceptually

The unified field theory of Open Ground is dead!
I agree with your last sentence!

In general, OG is negated by the presence of a hindrance or TEM-providing Location/hexside. This is not dependent upon the existence of a final DRM/drm.

So, for example, a FL receives no hindrance modifier from crossed grain or brush, though that same grain or brush would cancel FFMO.

Your indirect fire example is a particularly weird case, but it makes some sense, I suppose. Since the wall/hedge is between the firer and the target, there is still some visual hindrance, at least, between a MTR and the target.

And even in case of OBA, there might be some slight cover provided by crouching close to the wall/hedge (imagining that the incoming shells do not uniformly cross into the center of the hex)...who knows...!
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,649
Reaction score
1,322
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
What you must consider is the definition of Indirect Fire (C.1...All ASL references to Indirect Fire apply to both OBA and mortars, although onboard mortars must secure hits using the To Hit Table in the same manner as Direct Fire weapons.) though I believe it's a little poorly worded or at least not entirely clear what Indirect Fire is, the TH procedure or the resolution of fire, but it seems to imply that it is the resolution of fire, and the Direct Fire TH procedure is a bit outside its definition. B9.34 further obfuscates the intention of the Indirect Fire definition by adding the two seemingly conflicting statements but if taken as a general rule to cover both OBA & Mortar fire is a bit less confusing if one the complete implementation of the higher numbered rule C.1 {see also the INTRODUCTION to the ASL rules whenever a seeming contradiction of rules appears} and takes into account an onboard Mortar never applies TEM to its TH attempt but traces a LOF as if a Direct Firing weapon. That is to say an on-board mortar firing at a enemy unit in an otherwise Open Ground Location where the Direct Fire LOS/LOF does not cross a Wall/Hedge could receive the FFMO on its TH attempt (C.1) but the Wall/Hedge TEM would still apply on the effects DR (+1 Wall, +0 Hedge), the fact that a hedge +0 TEM has no appreciable effect for an on-board Mortar effects DR is really immaterial. It is saying the +1 TEM for the Wall and +0 TEM for a hedge is enough to cancel FFMO for OBA where only an effects DR is made.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,919
Reaction score
2,440
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
That is to say an on-board mortar firing at a enemy unit in an otherwise Open Ground Location where the Direct Fire LOS/LOF does not cross a Wall/Hedge could receive the FFMO on its TH attempt (C.1)...
I think that is only the case if there isn't a wall in the hex.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,649
Reaction score
1,322
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I think that is only the case if there isn't a wall in the hex.
Still believe that C.1 clearly lays out that an on-board mortar must secure a HIT in the same manner as a Direct Fire Weapon and that would include FFMO if applicable. That FFMO & FFNAM do not effect the "resolution" of the mortar fire on the IFT is really immaterial as the rule addresses both mortar and OBA Indirect Fire and where in the case of OBA it is simply the resolution on the IFT where FFMO may have been a DRM factor but is negated by the +0/+1 TEM of the Hedge/Wall respectively. Now the questionable part would be what modifiers if any are applied to a CH (especially in the instance of a hedge hexside) ?:unsure:
 
Top