Concealed units entering Crest

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
situation
Enemy in adjacent hex to a concealed unit in a depression that the enemy has LOS to.

The concealed unit enters crest status.
Does the ?ed unit lose concealment?
The location is the same no TEM are modified either unlike leaving an entrenchment in OG in the same hex.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
A10.531 open ground définition would apply, so there would be concealment loss, I believe.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,427
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
If the crest status grants a tem to the unit then if it assault moves or advances it retains concealment, otherwise it loses it in both instances.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
I had a quick look through the Q&A and found nothing covering this situation, which usually indicates that I am missing something in my reading of the rules, but here goes...

The sticking point is whether change of status from IN the gully to crest status in the advance phase constitutes "advance into an Open Ground Hex" or "any other action" in the context of the concealment loss/gain table. One might argue that the unit is neither entering a new hex nor a new Location within a hex, and thus the first should not apply. However, it might be harder to argue that this is not an "action", per se, worthy of losing concealment, and it is certainly not covered in any exceptions.

On the other hand, if the rules indicate that such a change of status would strip concealment, we would be faced with a somewhat nonsensical situation whereby an advance from the bottom of the gully to its crest would lose concealment, whereas an advance from the bottom of the gully, past the crest, and across a few meters of open ground into a building or woods perhaps containing enemy troops, would not!

In the interests of common sense, I would advocate that in the above situation concealment is lost in the MPh, but retained in the APh, regardless of any enemy LOS INTO the gully. What the rules actually say, though...
 

FourDeuceMF

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
392
Reaction score
290
Location
Geneva, IL (Chicago)
Country
llUnited States
If the Enemy unit has LOS to the unit in the gully, he would ostensibly have LOS to them in the crest as well...and as both would be considered OG to him (save if it were a woods-gully hex and the move in was an assault move, with the aid of a leader), then he would lose concealment with any movement and/or Advance in that hex (as long as it wasn't Ground/Deep Snow and he had Winter Camouflage).
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I don't think it falls under "any other action" - because then Concealment would lost automatically if "that unit is currently in the LOS and within 16 hexes of a Good Order enemy ground unit." - i.e., even if the gully has woods and or there is a+5 Hindrance.

I see it as akin to exiting an entrenchment - that is not really "advance into an Open Ground Hex" either - it is also advancing "within the same hex". So I am thinking that Concealment is lost if the -1 FFMO could be applied in a hypothetical DFF attack.

Could be worth a Q&A though.
 

FourDeuceMF

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
392
Reaction score
290
Location
Geneva, IL (Chicago)
Country
llUnited States
I don't think it falls under "any other action" - because then Concealment would lost automatically if "that unit is currently in the LOS and within 16 hexes of a Good Order enemy ground unit." - i.e., even if the gully has woods and or there is a+5 Hindrance.

I see it as akin to exiting an entrenchment - that is not really "advance into an Open Ground Hex" either - it is also advancing "within the same hex". So I am thinking that Concealment is lost if the -1 FFMO could be applied in a hypothetical DFF attack.

Could be worth a Q&A though.
If you have LOS INTO a Gully, you also negate the effects of any Crest Status on any units IN that Gully in Crest status...therefore it reverts to OG for them. If no enemy unit did NOT have LOS into the Gully, then certainly, moving into Crest status provides that TEM, and can retain concealment when doing so.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
Huh. I was all ready to defend no loss of concealment, and my reading was leading me to conclude that the Crest rules were written in such a way as to indicate that Crest status does not constitute a separate Location in a hex. And then I encountered this:

A2.8 LOCATION: A hex may contain separate subdivisions within itself... The most common application of this is when additional vertical levels exist within the horizontal dimensions of a hex... A leader on one level cannot affect the performance of units on another level (i.e., a Crest leader cannot affect units IN a Depression)..."

Clearly, being in Crest Status is a separate Location from the gully (with a few special rules about how the 2 Locations interact), and thus concealment would be lost in the situation above, provided an enemy unit could apply the -1 FFMO modifier to movement IN the gully.

Y'know, like everyone has been saying...

Despite it not making much sense through a real-world lens.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A2.8 LOCATION: A hex may contain separate subdivisions within itself... The most common application of this is when additional vertical levels exist within the horizontal dimensions of a hex... A leader on one level cannot affect the performance of units on another level (i.e., a Crest leader cannot affect units IN a Depression)..."
Although a leader cannot affect the performance at another level, crest and IN Depressions are not different Locations. A2.8 says, each "Location contains one Location, unless a sewer, tunnel, cave, bridge, pillbox, or upper building level crease one or more additional Locations within that hex." The detail about leaders not being able affect units at different levels in independent of Locations, despite being in A2.8.

JR
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
Hell's Bells! So really (and it pretty much spells it out in B20.91) units in crest status are assumed to be in an entrenchment within the gully hex, one that has some special rules. So since a unit advancing into the open ground part of say, a hex containing a foxhole counter, it stands to reason that, like everyone has been saying above, loss of concealment would depend on whether any unit with LOS could treat the Crest as open ground, i.e. have LOS INTO the gully, or have LOS through one of the non-covered hex-sides.

Sheesh I'm thick sometimes.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It's really not that much different from moving/advancing up to a wall/hedge, and to make the analogy complete you can say from an in-hex entrenchment. If an enemy unit has WA, the move/advance is open ground and the unit loses concealment. If there is a LOS that does not cross the wall/hedge, then the unit loses concealment. Otherwise it keeps concealment.

JR
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
If you have LOS INTO a Gully, you also negate the effects of any Crest Status on any units IN that Gully in Crest status...therefore it reverts to OG for them. If no enemy unit did NOT have LOS into the Gully, then certainly, moving into Crest status provides that TEM, and can retain concealment when doing so.
what about moving into crest status when the TEM doesn't apply?

Units in an entrenchment are losing the +2 and are obviously in OG.
Units in OG Advancing beneath an entrenchment do not lose ?ment as its' not deemed OG.

But if the Unit already has LOS to the depression and the Crest is still considered in the same location. The unit neither loses nor gains TEM...

It has to be hidden somewhere under the "any other action" but its is far from clear.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
It's really not that much different from moving/advancing up to a wall/hedge, and to make the analogy complete you can say from an in-hex entrenchment. If an enemy unit has WA, the move/advance is open ground and the unit loses concealment. If there is a LOS that does not cross the wall/hedge, then the unit loses concealment. Otherwise it keeps concealment.

JR
Correct, but the unit doesn't change location at all. just Status.

Consider a ?ed unit with WA over an adjacent unit and also a unit that has LOS to the ?ed unit from a non wall/hedge hexside...
The ?ed unit chooses to lose WA as it can normally do in APh. It's location did not change yet it's status did change...
It's almost the exact same application if not the same application.

If the unit Loses ?ment from the enemy that can see him without WA then I'd apply that ruling to the Crest status units.

Another note.
Units in Crest status that move out of the hex to an ADJACENT hex can get fired upon with FFMO.
?ed units advancing out of Crest status into an ADJACENT (non-OG terrain) do not lose ?ment.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
A10.531 open ground définition would apply, so there would be concealment loss, I believe.
Then that would mean a ?ed unit advancing from CREST status to an Accessible non-OG hex would lose ?ment. Would you agree?
 
Top