Crest, ADJACENT and FG (B20.91)

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,169
Reaction score
2,581
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Is a unit in Crest status ADJACENT to a unit adjacent to the Depression in a non Depression hex which is not part of the front hexes of the in Crest unit?

B20.91 says that "Infantry in Crest status are considered entrenched one level higher than the Depression against all Direct fire attacks across any of the front three hexsides of that Depression hex (as identified by placement of the Crest counter) which are not crossed by a Depression hexside ".

Does the fact that an entrenched unit is not in a different Location in its hex (B27.13) allow the idea that a unit in an adjacent hex, having LOS to it, not able to advance directly to its Crest position, but otherwise able to Advance IN the Depression hex, is still ADJACENT to it?

I am referring to the definition of ADJACENT of the Index: "(Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations)."

To illustrate my question here is a picture from a current playing of SP267 Death's Head Debut :

11552

Is the 548 in 59L7 ADJACENT to the 548 in 59L8 (and thus allowed to form a FG with it) ?
I am sure that the 548 in 59M7 is ADJACENT to 59L7, though.

Thanks in advance for the answers.
 
Last edited:

buser333

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
797
Reaction score
269
Location
central WI
Is a unit in Crest status ADJACENT to a unit adjacent to the Depression in a non Depression hex which is not part of the front hexes of the in Crest unit?

B20.91 says that "Infantry in Crest status are considered entrenched one level higher than the Depression against all Direct fire attacks across any of the front three hexsides of that Depression hex (as identified by placement of the Crest counter) which are not crossed by a Depression hexside ".

Does the fact that an entrenched unit is not in a different Location in its hex (B27.13) allow the idea that a unit in an adjacent hex, having LOS to it, not able to advance directly to its Crest position, but otherwise able to Advance IN the Depression hex, is still ADJACENT to it?

I am referring to the definition of ADJACENT of the Index: "(Locations [and units in them] are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one Location could conceivably—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into the other during the APh and a LOS exists between the two Locations)."

To illustrate my question here is a picture from a current playing of SP267 Death's Head Debut :

View attachment 11552

Is the 548 in 59L7 ADJACENT to the 548 in 59L8 (and thus allowed to form a FG with it) ?
I am sure that the 548 in 59M7 is ADJACENT to 59L7, though.

Thanks in advance for the answers.
I would think, since it's not a separate Location as you mentioned, that the units would indeed be Adjacent.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,147
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I agree. The rule for ADJACENT is primarily on Locations, and the units in them secondarily share that state. The status of particular units (pinned, in crest, etc.) ought not to affect whether the Locations are considered ADJACENT.

JR
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
272
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
In support of JRV and Buser333... Consider M8. What if a unit were in M8 at Crest and on the same side of the gully as M7. The M8 definitely cannot advance into M7 Crest or vice versa, but they sure look like they should be able to FG... and by JRV and Buser333s reasoning they can. The units can advance into each other's locations... fulfilling FG requirement.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,169
Reaction score
2,581
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Thanks for the answers.
It confirms my idea of how the rule applies.
So the three 548 can gang up a 20 FP attack against the 447...
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
272
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
The PITMAN describes crest status as a separate location.

http://www.desperationmorale.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/location.pdf
I dont see him doing that there, maybe I missed it. All he says is gullies/stream-depression have an IN and not-IN aka crest status. The vast majority of that play aid seems non-interpretive... just a (helpful) collection of various location rules. Theres a similar play aid gathering enemies-in same-hex-as-friendlies rules.

My opinion... (not PITMAN or anyone elses) is that one location with multilevels (gully+crest) is problematic as heck and has led to some dicey interpretations which are nevertheless canonical -- causing my opinion not to matter...🙂

Edit* hmmm thats makes it sound like I think my opinion would otherwise matter.... no no I dont think that either.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,147
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A2.8 does not list crest as a separate location even though it mentions crest for other reasons. B20.9 makes no mention of it being a separate location either. In the absence of a specific exception I think A2.8 applies, "Each hex contains one Location, except {those in a list that does not include crest}".

JR
 

Larry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
214
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
The example to B29.3 resolves this:

EX: In the previous diagram, it will cost two MF (shown in red) for the 4-6-7 to move out of Crest status plus another two MF to enter T4 (or another one MF to enter S4 or U4), whereas it would cost only two MF to move directly from Crest status to S3, T2, or U3. In all cases, it could be fired on in T3 without benefit of entrenchment before entering the adjacent hex. It would have to become CX (A4.72) to advance into T4, but could advance into the other adjacent hexes without such a penalty.

11557

So L8 could advance to L7 and enter crest status facing L6.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,169
Reaction score
2,581
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
L8 cannot advance IN L7 and enter Crest status facing L6 during one APh..
 

Larry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
214
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Can the unit in T3 advance out of crest status, into the sunken road, and into T4 for 4 MP? The RB says he can. Tell us why that does not operate in reverse.
 
Top