Encirclement !

[jrv]

So what you're saying is that units at different levels are not at different locations?

Yes. Units at different levels can be in the same location. I believe crest status is the only example of this. Units at the same level can be in different locations. Pillboxes are one example. Depression caves are another. Some historical modules have their cellars at ground level (and some have them at level minus one I believe). Different levels and locations can overlap in all possible ways.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

Different building levels are different location. In and out of a foxhole or with and without crest status aren't.

True enough about foxholes/trenches as they are not considered a level beneath the ground level of the hex unlike the units at a crest level of a gully/stream/wadi which specifically points out that they are indeed at a higher level.

 

[jrv]

More comments on location & level. A2.8 lists the cases where there is more than one location in a hex, and in particular crests do not create a separate location. Note however that being at different levels does have some effects. A leader at one level may not affect a unit at another. In this way being at different levels is similar to being in and out of entrenched status; there are some ways in which the units are not exactly in the same location (although being at different levels and being in/not in entrenchments have different effects).

JR

 

[Pyth]

Well, now that the shared location of units sharing crest and IN status has been established -- I think the question as to what are targets for sealing an encirclement remains open... IMO the initial wording of A7.7 (the first sentence) favors Klas' contention that a specific unit in the location is the target and must be potentially NMC'd by each encircling shot of a location... but, (again in my opinion), the wording of the rest of the rule and the sense of the rule is consistent with the idea that a unit -- but not necessarily the same unit -- in the encircled location needs to be potentially NMC'd. Anyone think it's clearer than that? I think it's one for Perry.

 

[Pyth]

Sent to: ASL_qa@multimanpublishing.com

The following issue came up in discussion of encirclement on Gamesquad..

Encirclement [it links here]

Which (if either) formulation below is correct:

A. (In a potentially encircle-able location) at least one single unit in the location must undergo potential NMC from consecutive encircling shots for the location to be marked encircled.

B. (In a potentially encircle-able location) consecutive encircling shots must each potentially NMC a unit in the location, though not necessarily the same unit, for the location to be marked encircled.

-------------

If neither formulation is satisfactory, or the purpose of the question unclear, please consider the following problematic example:

A German MMC is in a gully hex and has crest status facing due North. A second German MMC is in the same gully with crest status facing due south. They are fired on with consecutive shots, one from the North and then one from the South. Each shot has 1 FP and can cower... the point being that the shot from the North can potentially NMC only the South facing crest unit, and the shot from the South can potentially NMC only the North facing crest unit.

The intent is to have all criteria for encircling fire met in the location but no single personnel unit has been subjected to two consecutive potential NMCs.

Q. In the case given above, would the location be marked with an encirclement counter after the second shot?

Thanks

 

[Sparafucil3]

I have always played that it's the Location that is encircled and not the units. As Klas (and others) point out, the rule says the Location is marked Encircled and the effects are applied to the units therein. [A7.7: ... A qualifying target Location is thereafter marked with an Encirclement counter and every non-berserk, non-heroic enemy/Melee Personnel unit therein suffers an immediate one level drop in morale to both the attack that sealed its Encirclement and any other attacks made against that Location as long as it is so marked. ...] What I have got wrong in the past is to also apply Encirclement to my own units for entering the Location in CC and the subsequent Melee. -- jim

 

[Philippe D.]

Yes, my understanding of the rules is that as soon as there is an Encircled unit in the Location, all units of the same side in the same Location are also Encircled - but not those of the other side. And this lasts until the affected side has no units remaining there (unless Encirclement is caused by a continuous cause, like upper level encirclement in a building).

 

[Eagle4ty]

I have always played that it's the Location that is encircled and not the units. As Klas (and others) point out, the rule says the Location is marked Encircled and the effects are applied to the units therein. [A7.7: ... A qualifying target Location is thereafter marked with an Encirclement counter and every non-berserk, non-heroic enemy/Melee Personnel unit therein suffers an immediate one level drop in morale to both the attack that sealed its Encirclement and any other attacks made against that Location as long as it is so marked. ...] What I have got wrong in the past is to also apply Encirclement to my own units for entering the Location in CC and the subsequent Melee. -- jim

IIRC the reason you may sometimes erroneously mark your own units as Encircled prior to Melee, is that the rule was changed at one point with the addition of "enemy/Melee-Personnel". I can't remember if it was in the 1st Ed. ASLRB or changed by errata to the 2nd Ed., but certainly remember at one time simply entering an Encircled Location caused either sides units to become Encircled as well.

 

[Pyth]

Received an answer from PC this morning.

The original question with answer:

Which (if either) formulation below is correct:

A. (In a potentially encircle-able location) at least one single unit in the location must undergo potential NMC from consecutive encircling shots for the location to be marked encircled.

B. (In a potentially encircle-able location) consecutive encircling shots must each potentially NMC a unit in the location, though not necessarily the same unit, for the location to be marked encircled.

If neither formulation is satisfactory, or the purpose of the question unclear, please consider the following problematic example:

A German MMC is in a gully hex and has crest status facing due North. A second German MMC is in the same gully with crest status facing due south. They are fired on with consecutive shots, one from the North and then one from the South. Each shot has 1 FP and can cower... the point being that the shot from the North can potentially NMC only the South facing crest unit, and the shot from the South can potentially NMC only the North facing crest unit.

The intent is to have all criteria for encircling fire met in the location but no single personnel unit has been subjected to two consecutive potential NMCs.

Q. In the case given above, would the location be marked with an encirclement counter after the second shot?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.

No.



....Perry

MMP

__________________


Once again Klas' instinct/insight is confirmed. :nod: And thanks to Perry for the prompt response!