Bocage LOS

pryoung

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Location
Yakima, WA
Country
llUnited States
> B9.521: A Location with a Bocage hexside has no units with WA present within
> it. Can that Location be seen (ie, "seen into") from a non-adjacent
> same-level unit across that Bocage hexside? Could an entrenchment within
> that Location be seen from a non-adjacent same-level unit across that Bocage
> hexside?

Yes to both.

....Perry
MMP
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
Bocage

The ASL Journal #3 has an article by Ian Daglish where he says on page 69: "A unit may prep fire through a bocage hexside and then in the DFPh claim in-hex TEM, voiding LOS from their previous target's return fire." Later he says "The only constraint is...voluntary relinquishment of Wall Advantage must now be declared before the enemy declares his defensive fire."

Also B9.521 supports Ian's statement. It says in sentence two - "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to/from a Location formed by that hexside, but only to/from the adjacent hex formed by that hexside, or to/from units that currently claim WA over that hexside."

While that is poorly written it clearly allows not-adjacent units LOS to a bocage hexside only if the unit(s) behind it have WA.

The answer by Perry just doesn't make any sense to me, the bocage rules are unatural and hard enough without this complication.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I asked Perry an analoguous question, that has been placed in Sam Belcher's list of "Perry Sez".
Here it is :

Rule: B9.521
Using illustration after rule 9.54
If a unit in 11K7 has no WA (e.g. entered the hex when a unit in 11L6 claimed it), a unit in 11I6 has no LOS to it. Am I right?
Or, to rewrite the sentence under the illustration :"A unit in 11I6 can see into (but not through) J7 and K7, but only units that have WA"?

Correct
 

pryoung

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Location
Yakima, WA
Country
llUnited States
There's one other Q&A on the topic as well:

B9.54 EX: Bocage: 2nd sentence: Replace "into (but not through)" with "units with Wall Advantage in", because only units with Wall Advantage can be seen through a Bocage hexside from far away, correct?

A. That is certainly a good way to think of this situation.

I have to admit that Perry's answer to my Q&A is the opposite of how I interpreted the rule. The best way I can justify it is to say that units in a Location and the Location itself are treated differently with respect to LOS, similar to how an entrenchment can be seen behind a wall/hedge, but units in that entrenchment may be out of LOS. I would summarize the Bocage LOS rules thusly:

1. A unit behind a Bocage hexside can only be seen from a non-adjacent hex if the unit has WA

2. A Location behind a Bocage hexside can be seen (e.g., an entrenchment within that Location) even from a non-adjacent hex, even though a unit without WA in that Location may be out of LOS.

Part 1 is clearcut to me, and means that Ian's example of dropping WA after Prep Firing to disappear from LOS is valid and a great strategy to use. Part 2 is not how I have interpreted B9.521 before, but again perhaps the entrenchment behind a wall concept makes this somewhat understandable, and based on Perry's answer is how I'll play it from now on.

Again, I'm not sure that this will make a big difference in how you play, since most of the time you'll mainly be worried about whether a unit is in LOS or not and Part 1 above covers that pretty clearly.

Pete
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
Gents,

I think the issue here is that you are misinterpreting the answer, and yes it can be a little confusing.

HOWEVER, there is a big difference between being able to see into a hex and to have LOS to a unit with respect to Bocage. Per the Perry Sez and the way the question was worded, yes someone has LOS to the hex, ie seeing entrenchments, etc. But they would not have LOS to the unit, providing it had some in hex TEM to claim.

This is conceptually not as tough as you may think, but very difficult to explain.

Hope this helps,
Chas
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
Bocage

Thanks, I understand that a "Location/Fortification" behind bocage can be seen by a non-adjacent unit although a Non-WA unit behind the bocage (perhaps in the fortification) cannot be seen. Certainly the effort to clean up the bocge rules has progressed from the first edition rules and we can learn/apply the current V2 rules.
The bocage rules are some of the most counter intuitive in ASL and result in other questions:
1. If my gun/mortar can see a location/fortification behind bocage (with non-seen units present), can it fire ATT to acquire the location? Can it hit the units? What is the modifier?
2. Same question as #1 but the unit behind bocage is concealed or HIP.
3. Concealed unit behind bocage in foxhole, can't be seen. It advances backwards to an unseen hex further behind the bocage. Does it lose concealmant because it must claim WA the instant it leaves the foxhole as thus is seen through the bocage?

I am playing the CH All-American trilogy, there is bocage everywhere. It seems to me that the bocage rules could be more realistic (I know this is a game) in the following way:

A. Bocage as we know it is played exactly as a wall except it is a one level obstacle and allows concealment gain just like the current bocage
B. Introduce "Fortified Bocage" which allows a +3 defensive modifier and is otherwise exactly like A above. Fortified Bocage would be by SSR on a scenario or CG basis.

The above would be much simpler to learn and play. It would also differentiate from bocage occupied by a unit in a realtime game turn and bocage "prepared" beforehand with exit tunnels, gun pits...
It would also make it primarily defensive terrain, not the offensive Prep fire and hide tactic that is currrently encouraged.

Rich
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
Rich,

Tried to answer a couple of times, but didnt get through.

1 and 2) The best way to think about this is like firing ATT into a multilevel building where you cannot see every location. You only hit the units you can see. I know, not exactly the same. You can fire to gain Acquisition, but would not effect the units out of LOS due to the bocage.

3) Units expending MF and capable of claiming Bocage to all enemy units with LOS do not lose ?.

You may want to send questions to Perry if you still have some.

Chas
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
pryoung said:
Again, I'm not sure that this will make a big difference in how you play, since most of the time you'll mainly be worried about whether a unit is in LOS or not and Part 1 above covers that pretty clearly.

Pete
Methinks the one big impact will be the abilty to see the ground level location for purposes of OBA SR and corrections.

When one considers the fact that Bocage is mainly in US vs German (with a few Commonwealth thrown in) scenarios, and how much US artillery was a factor historically, this could be a biggie...

Of course, most historical actions where the US player had as much artillery support as was often present would make for very one-sided and boring ASL.

Jazz
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
Jazz,

Good point. However, I think the situation of LOS to hex, but not to unit would be covered by the extra card draw (if applicable). However, one could get clarification by Perry.

One thing I realized and dug through the ASLRB on has me a bit confused. Myself and others (and the ASLRB seems to agree) think that a defender can claim WA during the attackers' Mph if an attacking unit moves adjacent. However, the J3 example doesnt include this in the list of situations where you can claim. Was there some Q and A or errata for this.

Thanks,
chas
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
One thing I realized and dug through the ASLRB on has me a bit confused. Myself and others (and the ASLRB seems to agree) think that a defender can claim WA during the attackers' Mph if an attacking unit moves adjacent. However, the J3 example doesnt include this in the list of situations where you can claim. Was there some Q and A or errata for this.
The only time this can happen is a HIP unit. See 9.324. A HIP unit can be placed on board concealed and claim WA when an enemy moves adjacent and tries to claim WA. It sounds to me as if this has to be done when the unit moves in and announces WA. If you wait till the end of the MPh its too late.

I don't think any other defending unit can claim WA during the enemy MPh. This is a significant change from v1 rules. (but heck the whole section is different.)

Sam
 

pryoung

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Location
Yakima, WA
Country
llUnited States
I think Sam is right. In the 2nd ed. ASLRB, it's very specific as to when WA can be claimed (the five cases spelled out in B9.322). The opponent's MPh is not one of the times listed. The rule on Mandatory WA partly helps with this, so a unit in otherwise open ground doesn't suffer just because you forgot to claim WA. However, if there is positive TEM within that hex and you don't have WA when an opponent moves adjacent, you have no recourse. As per Sam's post, dropping HIP appears to be the exception.

This is indeed different from 1st ed. which (in B9.32) seemed to give the advantage in claiming WA to the defender when an attacker moves adjacent.

Pete
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
Chas said:
Jazz,

Good point. However, I think the situation of LOS to hex, but not to unit would be covered by the extra card draw (if applicable). However, one could get clarification by Perry.


Thanks,
chas
True, but if there is no LOS to a location in the hex at all, an AR, SR, etc.... cannot be placed/corrected to that hex.

With an LOS to the ground location of that hex, there is at least the possiblity of placing OBA there. Otherwise, you could not call in OBA on that hex even if there was an un-? unit in LOS in that hex, no? I mean sure, you could place an FFE right in front so the blast area includes the bocage hex, but that is a different pin head with a different number of angels dancing on it....

Brings up another question....is it possible to call in an AR/SR or correct to a taget hex completely surrounded by woods if the observer is not in one of the adjacent woods hexes? As I recall, you need LOS at least a location in the target hex (possibly a ground level location?). Who could have the requisite LOS to such a target hex (again, if they are not adjacent)? Even an airborne observer has blind hexes behind a woods.
 
Top