sgtono
Member
If a unit has WA on a bocage hexside , does it then have LOS over any intervening hedge hexsides between it and the KEU?
Keith
Keith
Bocage WA
- Thread starter sgtono
- Start date
If you mean to ask whether having WA over Bocage means that it can see over half-level obstacles it could normally not see over, then the answer is no.
Having WA over bocage can be imagined as peering through the bocage, not over it.
Having WA over bocage can be imagined as peering through the bocage, not over it.
pryoung
Member
Right. Bocage is confusing because of the one-level obstacle treatment it receives, but even a unit with WA is still treated as being at ground level.
Pete
Pete
BrooklynLou
Recruit
The way I think of Bocage that helps me remember how it works is picture Bocage as a very thin ground level building. If you have wall advantage you are "in" the building; able to see out as well as be seen. If you do not have wall advantage, you are "behind" the building; unable to be seen as well as see out.
Here's an interesting Bocage question. If you have two units ADJACENT to each other, but neither is claiming WA, but instead claiming the in hex TEM, can they see each other?
Here's an interesting Bocage question. If you have two units ADJACENT to each other, but neither is claiming WA, but instead claiming the in hex TEM, can they see each other?
pryoung
Member
From B9.521: 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.
Based on the first part of that sentence, I'd say that adjacent units separated by a Bocage hexside can always see each other, regardless of WA status.
Pete
Based on the first part of that sentence, I'd say that adjacent units separated by a Bocage hexside can always see each other, regardless of WA status.
Pete
pryoung
Member
Deleted duplicate post
da priest
Member
Hmmm..not quite see example ASLRBv2 page B10.BrooklynLou said:
"EX: All hedges are bocage. A unit in 11I6 can see into (but not through) J7 and K7. "
Only with in hex TEM is your answer correct.
BrooklynLou
Recruit
Looks that way. If they are adjacent, WA or not, they can see each other.pryoung said:
The anser is correct without TEM in the hex as well, but in that case, the unit will always have WA (unless denied for some reason), and can therefore not go "behind the building", but if the unit lacked WA (broken, enemy has WA etc.) it will be out of LOS even in an otherwise OG hex, like J7 or K7.da priest said:
Note that the example say that a unit in 11I6 can see into J7 and K7, but what it doesn't say (but maybe should), is that it only can see units in J7 and K7 if those have WA.
So Bocage is one of the examples of where a firer can have LOS to a Location, but not to (all) units in that Location.
Treadhead
Senior Member
I've noticed that the EX (which applies to LOS) contradicts B9.521.
The EX: "A unit in [I6] can see into ... J7 and K7."
Now B9.521: "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to ... a Location formed by that hexside, but only ... [adjacent] ... or, to ... units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
According to B9.521, a unit in I6 does not have LOS into the Locations found in J7 and K7 unless there are units with WA along those bocage hexsides.
If no units are in them, the Locations in J7 and K7 out not in LOS of I6.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
The EX: "A unit in [I6] can see into ... J7 and K7."
Now B9.521: "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to ... a Location formed by that hexside, but only ... [adjacent] ... or, to ... units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
According to B9.521, a unit in I6 does not have LOS into the Locations found in J7 and K7 unless there are units with WA along those bocage hexsides.
If no units are in them, the Locations in J7 and K7 out not in LOS of I6.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Treadhead
Senior Member
I like that analogy. It borrows from B9.52: "Treating that bocage hexside as instead being a 'Single-Story House' ... "BrooklynLou said:
Your conclusions are also perfectly correct. If you do not have WA, then the Location is not even in LOS to a non-adjacent unit across a bocage hexside.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
pryoung
Member
Not quite. The Location can always be seen "into" from a non-adjacent unit. Thus an entrenchment could be seen, for example. However, units within that Location could only be seen if they had WA. A "Perry Sez" clarified this several months ago:bebakken said:
B 9.521 Bocage LOS (Feb 2004)
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.
Pete
No, it doesn't, although the example could be more specific in the divition between seeing the Location and units therein.bebakken said:
That's not what B9.521 says. It says that LOS can be traced to the Location (regardless of units and their WA status), but only to units that have WA.
So the unit in I6 can always see the Location J7, but only a unit therein if that unit has WA.
No. Reread the rule, and you'll find that having LOS to the Location and having LOS to a unit therein is not the same.
As I wrote in a former post, this is similar to a unit between an entrenchment, behind a normal Wall.
pryoung
Member
Also, there was an extensive discussion on this back in February on the ASLML. Check out the list archives for February and look for "Bocage LOS" under subject.
Pete
Pete
Treadhead
Senior Member
I remember well the discussion on the ASLML.
I've even seen the Perry Sez (unofficial, I will add).
Evidently, a crucial sentence is being interpreted differently by different players, including Perry.
Omitting the "/from": "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to a Location formed by that hexside, but only to units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
I believe this to mean that a LOS may not be traced through a bocage hexside to a Location formed by that hexside, if there are no units currently claiming WA.
Perry evidently believes otherwise.
If what Perry says is true, then reciprocity makes this statement false (now omitting the "to/"): "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside from a Location formed by that hexside, but only from units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
In other words, units should be able to trace LOS through a bocage hexside from that Location, even if they don't have WA. That is the result of Perry's response, and it is a contradiction with B9.521.
If I had never heard these opinions from you, I would not have played it the way you describe. The rule seems very clear to me. LOS to a bocage Location is only drawn to WA units. If no WA units exist, no LOS. It's very simple.
And as far as Entrenchments... I believe the answer is way wrong. A non-adjacent unit would never have LOS to an entrenchment or units therein across a bocage hexside. That would run contrary to what B9.55 has to say about HIP units, which do not lose HIP status when LOS is affected by bocage TEM.
Pointless to discuss now, I suppose. Perry has spoken. If I had Perry's ear, I would try to convince him to change his answer. You people have been playing bocage all wrong.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Wow. Now I wish I had participated back in February...
I've even seen the Perry Sez (unofficial, I will add).
Evidently, a crucial sentence is being interpreted differently by different players, including Perry.
Omitting the "/from": "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to a Location formed by that hexside, but only to units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
I believe this to mean that a LOS may not be traced through a bocage hexside to a Location formed by that hexside, if there are no units currently claiming WA.
Perry evidently believes otherwise.
If what Perry says is true, then reciprocity makes this statement false (now omitting the "to/"): "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside from a Location formed by that hexside, but only from units that currently claim WA over that hexside."
In other words, units should be able to trace LOS through a bocage hexside from that Location, even if they don't have WA. That is the result of Perry's response, and it is a contradiction with B9.521.
If I had never heard these opinions from you, I would not have played it the way you describe. The rule seems very clear to me. LOS to a bocage Location is only drawn to WA units. If no WA units exist, no LOS. It's very simple.
And as far as Entrenchments... I believe the answer is way wrong. A non-adjacent unit would never have LOS to an entrenchment or units therein across a bocage hexside. That would run contrary to what B9.55 has to say about HIP units, which do not lose HIP status when LOS is affected by bocage TEM.
Pointless to discuss now, I suppose. Perry has spoken. If I had Perry's ear, I would try to convince him to change his answer. You people have been playing bocage all wrong.
Regards,
Bruce Bakken
Wow. Now I wish I had participated back in February...
Without the "/from" it says:bebakken said:
1) LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to a Location formed by that hexside
2)LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside ... to units that currently claim WA over that hexside.
The first part deals with LOS to Locations, where WA is not an issue, the second part with LOS to units, where WA is an issue.
I agree that the rule should be clearer, but when reading it slowly, it says the above. This is further made pretty clear by the example which states that LOS exists to those Location that have no unit with WA.
Good, because that's what the rule says as well.
No, this is not correct. Reciprocity is accomplished within the rule. Units that don't have WA should not be able to trace LOS through a bocage hexside - since they cannot be seen. You could say that Resiprocity would require LOS from the Location, but that doesn't matter since LOS is always drawn from a unit.
To make my point clear: B9.521 and Perry's answer both say the following:
1) A unit in I6 can see J7 even if no unit has WA in J7. But it cannot see those units in J7.
2) Reciprocity and the rule agree that the unit w/o WA cannot see I6.
3) A unit in I6 can see the unit in J7 if it has WA.
4) Reciprocity and the rule agree that the unit with WA can see I6.
That's not what it says though. It says about Location LOS: "LOS may be traced through a bocage hexside to/from a Location formed by that hexside", but add further restriction on unit LOS.
This is flat out wrong regarding the entrenchment. It can always see the entrenchment, but not the unit inside it. This is exactly how entrenchments behind normal walls work as well. B9.21 says: "If a viewer would have LOS to any non-entrenched units in such a Location, it also has LOS to any entrenchments in that Location even though it may not have LOS to units beneath that entrenchment."
No, its not contrary to B9.55. The entrenchment will lose HIP status, but not the unit therein, and B9.55 deals with the unit, not the entrenchment.
But if Perry changed his answer, then he would have to change B9.21 and the example as well. Its better that he answered the same as what the rule says (although the rule should have been clearer).
pryoung
Member
For what it's worth, Bruce, remember that I was the one who started the original ASLML discussion and initially I was arguing from the same point of view that you are (although probably not as well). I now fully agree with the points that Ole has made (and Bruce Probst made at the time - in fact, Bruce expressed great puzzlement in his usual and unique fashion over my intention to obtain a "Perry Sez" regarding this issue 
).
Pete
).Pete
I just wanted to add a little analysis of why it matters that the Location can be seen regardless of whether the units therein have WA or not:
I can think of four cases where this matters:
1) OBA: The spotter can place an AR etc. in any Location in LOS. So the spotter is not dependant on any unit having WA to be able to place an AR in the Location. Note that if there is such a unit w/o WA (and none with), an additional chit must be drawn as per C1.21
2) Entrenchments: As discussed above, the entrenchments will be in LOS regardless of the WA status of units therein, and therefore be placed onboard.
3) Acquisiton: Any ordnance firing on the Area Target Type may target the hex to gain a 5/8" Acquistion counter. A 1/2" acq. counter can not be placed though.
4) The unit without WA (and thus out of LOS) is generally immune to attacks. However, if there is at least one unit in the firer's LOS (one unit with WA), the units out of LOS can also be hit, but only if the firer is a Mortar, see the exception in C3.33.
I can think of four cases where this matters:
1) OBA: The spotter can place an AR etc. in any Location in LOS. So the spotter is not dependant on any unit having WA to be able to place an AR in the Location. Note that if there is such a unit w/o WA (and none with), an additional chit must be drawn as per C1.21
2) Entrenchments: As discussed above, the entrenchments will be in LOS regardless of the WA status of units therein, and therefore be placed onboard.
3) Acquisiton: Any ordnance firing on the Area Target Type may target the hex to gain a 5/8" Acquistion counter. A 1/2" acq. counter can not be placed though.
4) The unit without WA (and thus out of LOS) is generally immune to attacks. However, if there is at least one unit in the firer's LOS (one unit with WA), the units out of LOS can also be hit, but only if the firer is a Mortar, see the exception in C3.33.
BrooklynLou
Recruit
Ok Ole,
Let me see if I got this straight ....
2 adjacent units are seperated by a Bocage hexside but neither is claiming WA (either due to being broken, using in hex TEM, etc.). Since the units are ADJACENT they can see the LOCATION i.e. The hex, but since there's no WA by either one over the Bocage hexside, they cannot fire on each other.
Do I got it or do I go back to the drawing board?
Let me see if I got this straight ....
2 adjacent units are seperated by a Bocage hexside but neither is claiming WA (either due to being broken, using in hex TEM, etc.). Since the units are ADJACENT they can see the LOCATION i.e. The hex, but since there's no WA by either one over the Bocage hexside, they cannot fire on each other.
Do I got it or do I go back to the drawing board?
You got it - I think. I want to slap myself for not rewriting the Bocage rules more than I did for the second ed. I see now that it could (and should) be much clearer. I think we succeeded with the WA rules, but was a little burnt out and rewrote too little in the Bocage rules.BrooklynLou said:
A quote from the WA/Bocage article of Ian Daglish from Journal 3 is in order. I reviewed this article before print, so everything in it should be according to the intention of the rules. Particularily, this article says:
Note that the only enemy units to see it are those adjacent units that now have WA - not any adjacent unit.