Dummies and Entrenchments

[BraveDave]

If the setup requirements for an OB say that "units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched" may dummies (which the index defines as "units") included in the OB setup by themselves under a foxhole counter?

 

[Binchois]

Interesting question! If the scenario gives your side ?s that can be placed as Dummies plus Entrenchment counters, then certainly: dummies can setup in an Entrenchment.

But if the Entrenchment counters are not given in the OB, only the scenario says that units "may set up entrenched" (presumably in a Foxhole), then I wouldn't think that dummies could set up entrenched - simply because they don't independently have the power to entrench themselves! But this is just a gut feeling. I don't think the RB actually forbids it.

 

[BraveDave]

Interesting question! If the scenario gives your side ?s that can be placed as Dummies plus Entrenchment counters, then certainly: dummies can setup in an Entrenchment.

But if the Entrenchment counters are not given in the OB, only the scenario says that units "may set up entrenched" (presumably in a Foxhole), then I wouldn't think that dummies could set up entrenched - simply because they don't independently have the power to entrench themselves! But this is just a gut feeling. I don't think the RB actually forbids it.

Totally agree with your logic, which is why I asked the question. Nothing definitive in the RB.

 

[BattleSchool]

I think there is a Q&A that restricts the capacity of a foxhole to the size/number of units that set up in it. For example, a lone SMC would be eligible only for a 1S foxhole. Presumably this would preclude the "creation" of a foxhole for one or more Dummy units.

 

[BraveDave]

I think there is a Q&A that restricts the capacity of a foxhole to the size/number of units that set up in it. For example, a lone SMC would be eligible only for a 1S foxhole. Presumably this would preclude the "creation" of a foxhole for one or more Dummy units.

I have not been able to find a Q&A on this specific question or anything like it.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Interesting question! If the scenario gives your side ?s that can be placed as Dummies plus Entrenchment counters, then certainly: dummies can setup in an Entrenchment.

But if the Entrenchment counters are not given in the OB, only the scenario says that units "may set up entrenched" (presumably in a Foxhole), then I wouldn't think that dummies could set up entrenched - simply because they don't independently have the power to entrench themselves! But this is just a gut feeling. I don't think the RB actually forbids it.

When digging in we always tried to dig supplemental positions and dummy positions given enough time (about 72hrs). Now was this a thing for WW-II? I'm not sure as I gave my dad's Soldier's Handbook to a local museum that may have answered at least a part of that but I'm fairly confident that given enough time and leader emphasis this approach was used. As for the ASLRB part of it I would think it would be allowed but like Battleschool I seem to recall a Q&A that limited it to only MMCs or some such (like you I couldn't find it though).

 

[Vinnie]

I think it might be determined by the exact wording. MMC that set up...would not include dummies.
BUT I am sure this question has been asked before and the answer was dummy stacks do not get to start entrenched.

 

[Robin Reeve]

So any entrenched concealed stack is not only dummies.
Better remember that fact.

 

[von Marwitz]

The issue here lies with the wording of the setup instructions.

Per the index Dummies are units as has been pointed out.

In the given case, I would treat the setup instructions the same way as I treat SSR. I.e. what the setup instructions specifically allow or require is 'legal'.

A Dummy can pose either as a SMC, Crew, HS, Squad, (possessed) SW, possessed Gun, or a vehicle.

So, for example, with the given setup instructions, I would say that a stack consisting of three Dummy counters could pose as a stack of two concealed squads and thus set up in a 2-size Foxhole.

von Marwitz

 

[BattleSchool]

I have not been able to find a Q&A on this specific question or anything like it.

Working on it.

Here is a related discussion (see second question):

B27.1 and B27.5 Trenches and Foxholes (Jan 2004)
This reply came from Perry in response to a thread on the ASL mailing list that discussed placement of Trenches instead of Foxholes when a scenario said that a side could setup "Entrenched" or in "Entrenchments" in suitable terrain. Another suggestion was that a single squad could setup in a 3 squad foxhole in such a scenario.

A. Off the top of my head I don't know of any scenario where the phrase "may set up entrenched" is intended to include Trenches.
Since at least 1997 we have been trying to consistently include with that phrase a rules citation to B27.1, making it clear that foxholes are intended, not trenches. I don't think I have seen anyone seriously suggest that a lone squad can use this rule to create a 3-squad foxhole, but I have blacked out some of my ... memories.

This should put to rest the notion (hinted at it post 2 above) that "may set up Entrenched" includes setting up in trenches. It doesn't. More on the bolded point in a moment.

Back to the original question...

IMO, the question regarding foxhole capacity is relevant here. Namely what is the minimum required to "create" a foxhole when a side is permitted to set up entrenched? For example, AP130 Mageret Morning states that "Infantry in suitable terrain may set up entrenched." According to Klas, and I'm almost certain that Perry backed this up somewhere (still looking), that each unit(s) that sets up entrenched is entitled to a foxhole with the minimum capacity required to hold that unit(s). IOW, an SMC set up alone would be eligible for a IS foxhole. Similarly, J152 Messenger Boys specifies that only "MMC (and any SMC/SW stacked with them) in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1)." In this case, the same minimum-capacity injunction would apply. For example, a HS is entitled to a 1S foxhole.

My thinking is that a SMC stacked with one or more OB-given ? counters in J152 would still not qualify for Entrenchment, even if the stack was intended to simulate one or more MMC. By extension, I don't think that a Dummy stack on its own would qualify for Entrenchment in AP130 because it is not Infantry.

Granted one could make the argument that because a Dummy stack is a unit, it would be permitted to set up entrenched in a scenario that permits "units" in suitable terrain to do so. In that case, I would counter with the capacity argument. The minimum capacity required to hold one or more Dummy units is what?

At best this loosely-written entrenchment clause would allow the creation of a 1S foxhole. But what if I want to simulate multiple MMC in a foxhole? Can I create a 2S foxhole? Maybe that's the intent of the scenario designer. Maybe not.

In J116 Brigade Hill, "Japanese units in suitable terrain may set up in Foxholes (B27.1), which may be only of the minimum capacity for their setup." The Japanese OB includes six ? counters. May two or more of these set up in Foxholes on their own? If so, what is the minimum capacity Foxhole should all six Dummies set up in the same hex?

May I ask what specific scenario you are looking at?

 

[BraveDave]

Working on it.

Here is a related discussion (see second question):



This should put to rest the notion (hinted at it post 2 above) that "may set up Entrenched" includes setting up in trenches. It doesn't. More on the bolded point in a moment.

Back to the original question...

IMO, the question regarding foxhole capacity is relevant here. Namely what is the minimum required to "create" a foxhole when a side is permitted to set up entrenched? For example, AP130 Mageret Morning states that "Infantry in suitable terrain may set up entrenched." According to Klas, and I'm almost certain that Perry backed this up somewhere (still looking), that each unit(s) that sets up entrenched is entitled to a foxhole with the minimum capacity required to hold that unit(s). IOW, an SMC set up alone would be eligible for a IS foxhole. Similarly, J152 Messenger Boys specifies that only "MMC (and any SMC/SW stacked with them) in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1)." In this case, the same minimum-capacity injunction would apply. For example, a HS is entitled to a 1S foxhole.

My thinking is that a SMC stacked with one or more OB-given ? counters in J152 would still not qualify for Entrenchment, even if the stack was intended to simulate one or more MMC. By extension, I don't think that a Dummy stack on its own would qualify for Entrenchment in AP130 because it is not Infantry.

Granted one could make the argument that because a Dummy stack is a unit, it would be permitted to set up entrenched in a scenario that permits "units" in suitable terrain to do so. In that case, I would counter with the capacity argument. The minimum capacity required to hold one or more Dummy units is what?

At best this loosely-written entrenchment clause would allow the creation of a 1S foxhole. But what if I want to simulate multiple MMC in a foxhole? Can I create a 2S foxhole? Maybe that's the intent of the scenario designer. Maybe not.

In J116 Brigade Hill, "Japanese units in suitable terrain may set up in Foxholes (B27.1), which may be only of the minimum capacity for their setup." The Japanese OB includes six ? counters. May two or more of these set up in Foxholes on their own? If so, what is the minimum capacity Foxhole should all six Dummies set up in the same hex?

May I ask what specific scenario you are looking at?

Good observations. The scenario is DN4 - Chateau De Meez. Setup instructions for the French are as follows:

"Elements of 2eme Bataillon, 66eme Regiment d'Infanterie, 18eme Division d'Infanterie [ELR: 2] set up at >= Level 3 on/west-of hexrow GG, concealed if in Concealment Terrain; units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1)(see SSR2):"

SSR2 allows for HIP units and a roadblock to be set up out of the general French set up area. Also it states "Foxholes in Concealment Terrain are revealed as per E1.16."

So as you note, trenches were definitely not intended. Maybe the author of this scenario, Dan Dolan, is the only one who can tell us what he intended regarding dummies setting up in entrenchements.

 

[BattleSchool]

Good observations. The scenario is DN4 - Chateau De Meez. Setup instructions for the French are as follows:

"Elements of 2eme Bataillon, 66eme Regiment d'Infanterie, 18eme Division d'Infanterie [ELR: 2] set up at >= Level 3 on/west-of hexrow GG, concealed if in Concealment Terrain; units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched (B27.1)(see SSR2):"

SSR2 allows for HIP units and a roadblock to be set up out of the general French set up area. Also it states "Foxholes in Concealment Terrain are revealed as per E1.16."

So as you note, trenches were definitely not intended. Maybe the author of this scenario, Dan Dolan, is the only one who can tell us what he intended regarding dummies setting up in entrenchements.

Thanks for the details. I'm surprised to see this wording in a recent MMP publication. (I would have expected "Infantry" or "MMC" to have appeared in place of "units." Maybe it's a legacy thing, a vestige of early development.)

Dan's input would certainly help shed some light on how to interpret the scenario instructions. But I suspect that Perry's take on the wider issue of Dummy units and the creation of entrenchments would having more lasting utility. I'd recommend submitting the question(s) to Perry.

Obviously, there isn't anything wrong with dummies per se setting up in entrenchments. At issue is a) whether or not they qualify for entrenchment on their own (i.e., in absence of real units), and if so, b) what capacity foxhole they are entitled to set up in.

Glad you raised this question. I thought it had been addressed elsewhere, but can find nothing to support my failing memory.

 

[aneil1234]

The only requirement in General is that Dummies HAVE to setup in concealmet terrain
assuming they are doing so ????

The argument is can Fakes setup foxholes......... Rather than can they be in foxholes. And to that end I'm erring on a No answer - with no rules, Q&A or any other justification than the obvious Dummies CAN"T dig Foxholes during play.
So can they before hand ?
Honestly Not sure

 

[BraveDave]

The only requirement in General is that Dummies HAVE to setup in concealmet terrain
assuming they are doing so ????

The argument is can Fakes setup foxholes......... Rather than can they be in foxholes. And to that end I'm erring on a No answer - with no rules, Q&A or any other justification than the obvious Dummies CAN"T dig Foxholes during play.
So can they before hand ?
Honestly Not sure

Again, totally agree with your logic, but no definitive answer in the RB.

 

[aneil1234]

If it was me playing this one
I would be saying that the dummies cannot set up in foxholes pre-created
due to the fact they can't create them during the course of the game. Obviously you could set them up in a hex with other units. But the stacking capacity of the foxhole would be based on the real units in there not the dummies. And a smart player might go ""Mmmmmmmmmmm seems to be a lot of units in that foxhole ?""

I agree with you there is no definitive answer in the rulebook
I'm assuming that someone has sent a Q&A off but short of that, that would be my way of playing it in my own games

 

[BraveDave]

If it was me playing this one
I would be saying that the dummies cannot set up in foxholes pre-created
due to the fact they can't create them during the course of the game. Obviously you could set them up in a hex with other units. But the stacking capacity of the foxhole would be based on the real units in there not the dummies. And a smart player might go ""Mmmmmmmmmmm seems to be a lot of units in that foxhole ?""

I agree with you there is no definitive answer in the rulebook
I'm assuming that someone has sent a Q&A off but short of that, that would be my way of playing it in my own games

Seems to be the general feeling.

 

[Stewart]

If the setup requirements for an OB say that "units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched" may dummies (which the index defines as "units") included in the OB setup by themselves under a foxhole counter?

If Dummies are defined as Units...and Setup instructions say Units may setup entrenched...Pretty clear that dummies may setup entrenched.
Never says the unit has to be capable of digging an entrenchment. If you decide that is a requirment, then SMC's can't setup in an entrenchment alone...and we know they are real units.

 

[EagleIV]

If the setup requirements for an OB say that "units in suitable terrain may set up Entrenched" may dummies (which the index defines as "units") included in the OB setup by themselves under a foxhole counter?

I would say that they could get a foxhole (someone else dug it and either moved to a better position or simply dug it to mislead attackers). Usually such SSR say that the foxhole can't be any bigger than is needed to hold everyone (you can't create a 3S Foxhole where you setup just 1 squad) so the dummy stack gets only a 1S foxhole regardless of how many dummies are there.

 

[Robin Reeve]

If the dummy stack could conceivably contain three squads, I don't see why a 3S foxhole should be prohibited.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The SSR usually don't spell out that a "larger than needed" foxhole counter can be placed....but there is a Q&A to that effect, IIRC.