Foxhole Routing w/Enemy in Hex?

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
Foxhole question...

668 Marine hanging in a foxhole has a banzai unit in his hex/location outside the foxhole. Can the cowardly Marine self-break and rout out of the foxhole/hex and thus avoid CC? Does the answer change if there's another enemy banzai unit in an ADJACENT hex?

Relevant rules (NRBH so these are rough summaries):
  • Routing rules say you cannot rout ADJACENT to an enemy unit unless leaving their hex.
  • A location is ADJACENT to itself.
  • The foxhole rules allow combining the MF for leaving the foxhole w/ the cost of the next hex entered to AVOID interdiction.
Thoughts on if the Marine can self-break and legally rout in either case?
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,199
Reaction score
1,780
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
B 27.13 LOCATION: A unit in a foxhole is not in the same Location as a unit outside that foxhole on the same level (not in a pillbox) and in the same hex for purposes of weapon Recovery or TEM, but is considerd in the same Location for all other purposes (including CC and LLMC/LLTC).
The Marine is in the same Location as the Japanese for rout purposes, so I would not see any problem for it to voluntary break and rout to and ADJACENT Location (and further, of course).
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
96
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Off the top of my head, I would say yes. The combined first move out of the foxhole and into the next hex should be legal, provided you don't move to another ADJACENT hex to the out of hex unit, and abide by all the other rout requirements (destination, direction, etc.).

You don't stop in hex after leaving the foxhole to evaluate anything at all. You're already ADJACENT to both the IJA units, and can only move ADJACENT if leaving the enemy Location.

I'm probably mis-remembering the foxhole rules for it having it's own stacking limit, but not being a separate Location. NRBH to check the exact wording.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,630
Reaction score
520
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Foxhole question...

668 Marine hanging in a foxhole has a banzai unit in his hex/location outside the foxhole. Can the cowardly Marine self-break and rout out of the foxhole/hex and thus avoid CC? Does the answer change if there's another enemy banzai unit in an ADJACENT hex?


Relevant rules (NRBH so these are rough summaries):
  • Routing rules say you cannot rout ADJACENT to an enemy unit unless leaving their hex.
  • A location is ADJACENT to itself.
  • The foxhole rules allow combining the MF for leaving the foxhole w/ the cost of the next hex entered to AVOID interdiction.
Thoughts on if the Marine can self-break and legally rout in either case?
Yes, the Marine can rout out of the foxhole and into the ADJACENT location since it is all one combined move and the rules allow routing ADJACENT to an enemy unit if you are leaving "THAT" enemy units "Location" (not hex).

"A10.51:...A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, unless in doing so it is leaving that enemy unit's Location."

Also, keep in mind that entrenchments are not a separate location within a hex. So coming out of the foxhole is not routing to an ADJACENT location nor are you getting closer to an enemy unit because you haven't changed location yet.
 

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
Also, keep in mind that entrenchments are not a separate location within a hex. So coming out of the foxhole is not routing to an ADJACENT location nor are you getting closer to an enemy unit because you haven't changed location yet.
Isn't that the point though? The unit exiting the foxhole is spending MF ADJACENT to an enemy unit (the one in his hex/location or the one next door - either should work) w/o leaving the location though when he exits the foxhole. And the foxhole rules talk about combining for avoiding interdiction purposes only so I'm not sure that saves the Marine...

I'm a little disappointed Tate - figured you'd use this as yet another example of foxholes being total deathtraps! :laugh:
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,199
Reaction score
1,780
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
The unit exiting the foxhole is spending MF ADJACENT to an enemy unit
As the B27.13 rule I cited before, the Marine and the Japanese are in the same Location (the foxhole makes no difference).
Moving within the same Location is not moving ADJACENT.
The Index defintion is: "ADJACENT (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"
ADJACENT implies two Locations.
In the present case, the Marine is moving within one same Location as the Japanese. He will move ADJACENT when routing to an ADJACENT hex.
Robin the nitpicker.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,199
Reaction score
1,780
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
Note too that, if the Japanese was in another hex, ADJACENT to the entrenched Marine, the latter could still get out of his foxhole without being considered entering an ADJACENT Location.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,630
Reaction score
520
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Isn't that the point though? The unit exiting the foxhole is spending MF ADJACENT to an enemy unit (the one in his hex/location or the one next door - either should work) w/o leaving the location though when he exits the foxhole. And the foxhole rules talk about combining for avoiding interdiction purposes only so I'm not sure that saves the Marine...
By definition, being in the same location is not "ADJACENT". To be "ADJACENT" requires two locations.

A10.5 states..."nor - regardless of terrain - may it end a RtPh ADJACENT to or in the same Location with a Known enemy unit.."
Clearly the rout rules distinguish these ("ADJACENT" vs "same Location") as two separate conditions.

A10.51 states..."A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit"
Not expend MF, just "move". Can you move without expending MF...not really but it is important to note that it isn't tied to MF and I would say that "move" implies more of a change of location rather than just MF expenditure.

I'm a little disappointed Tate - figured you'd use this as yet another example of foxholes being total deathtraps! :laugh:
Foxholes don't need any more help to be deathtraps. :D
 

bigdirt32

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
204
Reaction score
6
Location
Colorado
Country
llUnited States
27.13 LOCATION: A unit in a foxhole is not in the same Location as a unit outside that foxhole on the same level (not in a pillbox) and in the same hex for purposes of weapon Recovery or TEM, but is considerd in the same Location for all other purposes (including CC and LLMC/LLTC).

So for routing purposes the Marine and Japanese are considered in same location thus he may rout to an adjacent hex and then continue on. of course if the adjacent hex is open Ground then he can still be interdicted.
 

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
As the B27.13 rule I cited before, the Marine and the Japanese are in the same Location (the foxhole makes no difference).
Moving within the same Location is not moving ADJACENT.
The Index defintion is: "ADJACENT (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"
ADJACENT implies two Locations.
In the present case, the Marine is moving within one same Location as the Japanese. He will move ADJACENT when routing to an ADJACENT hex.
Robin the nitpicker.
Actually there's a Perry Sez here from May '03 which says that a location is ADJACENT to itself:
A.8 - Are you ADJACENT to yourself?
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:56:51 -0500, PerryCocke wrote:

> Rule:A.8
> Question:Is a Location ADJACENT to itself? I.E., if a rule permits
> some activity in an ADJACENT Location, and does
> not *specifically exclude* the unit\'s current Location
> from that activity, is the current Location included by default?


Yes. Yes.

....Perry
Not to mention that there a ton of rules which fall apart if a location is not in fact ADJACENT to itself - for example you couldn't advance from inside a foxhole to outside of one (or vice versa) from within the same hex, if locations were not ADJACENT to themselves.

Does a location being ADJACENT to itself change anyone's answer?
 

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
A10.51 states..."A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit"
Not expend MF, just "move". Can you move without expending MF...not really but it is important to note that it isn't tied to MF and I would say that "move" implies more of a change of location rather than just MF expenditure.
Can't say as I agree with your interpretation that moves automatically means changing locations. At best it's unclear, but for DFF purposes a unit coming out of a foxhole or entering one is clearing moving. Why is the alleged definition of "move" different for a routing unit? Logically, it shouldn't be different, should it?
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,630
Reaction score
520
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Actually there's a Perry Sez here from May '03 which says that a location is ADJACENT to itself:
A.8 - Are you ADJACENT to yourself?
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:56:51 -0500, PerryCocke wrote:

> Rule:A.8
> Question:Is a Location ADJACENT to itself? I.E., if a rule permits
> some activity in an ADJACENT Location, and does
> not *specifically exclude* the unit\'s current Location
> from that activity, is the current Location included by default?


Yes. Yes.

....Perry
Not to mention that there a ton of rules which fall apart if a location is not in fact ADJACENT to itself - for example you couldn't advance from inside a foxhole to outside of one (or vice versa) from within the same hex, if locations were not ADJACENT to themselves.

Does a location being ADJACENT to itself change anyone's answer?
You were right...this makes Foxholes even more of a deathtrap!!!! :mad:

But seriously, no it doesn't for the simple fact that, during routing, the exit from the foxhole and entry of the new location is one combined move. The MF cost is assessed in the hex entered and not in the entrenchment location. Now, if routing worked like regular movement for entrenchments then yes, the Marine would be kaput.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,630
Reaction score
520
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Can't say as I agree with your interpretation that moves automatically means changing locations. At best it's unclear, but for DFF purposes a unit coming out of a foxhole or entering one is clearing moving. Why is the alleged definition of "move" different for a routing unit? Logically, it shouldn't be different, should it?
First, I didn't say "automatically" anything. I said it "implied"...and it does. My response was to your statement..."The unit exiting the foxhole is spending MF ADJACENT to an enemy unit...", the rules says nothing about "spending MF ADJACENT", it says "move"...so, what is the ASL definition of "move"...A.3 seems to imply that "move" only refers to activity during the "MPh" and that any other time it is something else.

I guess I can't say I agree with your interpretation that "move" automatically means MF expenditure. :D

Anyway, this is superfluous to the case in point. Brokies enter/exit entrenchments as a combined move as the enter/leave the location. That being the case the exit MF cost would be spent in that first ADJACENT "new" location entered.
 

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
But seriously, no it doesn't for the simple fact that, during routing, the exit from the foxhole and entry of the new location is one combined move. The MF cost is assessed in the hex entered and not in the entrenchment location. Now, if routing worked like regular movement for entrenchments then yes, the Marine would be kaput.
Well, I can certainly see that interpretation, but...

The foxhole rule actually talks only about combining costs to avoid interdiction. Which isn't the case here - it doesn't say the cost of exit is always spent in the next hex, it just says you can't be interdicted for coming out of a foxhole in OG.

Shall we say I think it's less than clear where the foxhole exit point is actually spent if interdiction isn't an issue. Logically I'd agree though that the rules should be consistent regardless of whether interdiction can occur in the foxhole hex though so I'd support your view as the right one, but don't feel the rule actually says that now.

But given how bad this would make being in a foxhole nearby an enemy, perhaps I should just run with your interpretation so foxholes don't totally suck! :laugh:
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,630
Reaction score
520
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Well, I can certainly see that interpretation, but...

The foxhole rule actually talks only about combining costs to avoid interdiction. Which isn't the case here - it doesn't say the cost of exit is always spent in the next hex, it just says you can't be interdicted for coming out of a foxhole in OG.

Shall we say I think it's less than clear where the foxhole exit point is actually spent if interdiction isn't an issue. Logically I'd agree though that the rules should be consistent regardless of whether interdiction can occur in the foxhole hex though so I'd support your view as the right one, but don't feel the rule actually says that now.

But given how bad this would make being in a foxhole nearby an enemy, perhaps I should just run with your interpretation so foxholes don't totally suck! :laugh:
Here is what the rule says:
"A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered..."

The rule doesn't say there MUST be an Interdiction situation to make this declaration...in fact there could be unknown Interdiction risk due to HIP and or un-obvious LOS. So the routing player has the option to declare the "combined" movement regardless of any clear/obvious Interdiction risk. Also, in your example, the Japanese unit in the same location does present an Interdiction risk unless your Marine declares the combined movement.

B24.71 doesn't strike me as even remotely ambiguous...and believe me, if I could find something else to legitimately throw on the "Foxholes Suck" pile, I would. :D
 

Bret Hildebran

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
425
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
FWIW, the hex in question was a jungle hex with a foxhole in it so there was no interdiction risk for the Marine in that hex.

Overall I think I agree with your interpretation on the foxhole departure, although I'm still not loving the wording in B24.71...
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
Country
llUnited States
Well, I can certainly see that interpretation, but...
Shall we say I think it's less than clear where the foxhole exit point is actually spent if interdiction isn't an issue. Logically I'd agree though that the rules should be consistent
There is that word again! You've used it twice, now. Say it once more and Beatlejuice is going to come up out of the ground and
snatch you away!:bite:
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
96
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
FWIW, the hex in question was a jungle hex with a foxhole in it so there was no interdiction risk for the Marine in that hex.

Overall I think I agree with your interpretation on the foxhole departure, although I'm still not loving the wording in B24.71...
Interdiction would be based on the hex entered from that jungle+foxhole hex. Er, and if Zerkers can interdict or not. (Little fuzzy on that, most of the time the zerker doesn't live long enough in my games to threaten anyone with interdiction.)
 
Top