Gare du Hatten/ Hillock questions

[nathan brown]

Read the rules and still had ? please and thanks.

So the EMRR is a Hillock. Hello desert rules!

Q1) Even though the depiction is a narrow little strip of railway is each whole Hex a hillock (ie with its relevant hex spines possibly stopping LOS (if entrenched)/ adding +1 like a 'normal hillock' if fired along that spine - I'm not sure there would be many of these LOS's! )

Q2) I'm not sure if there are actually any LOS like this or its possibly (it is moreso if the Hillock is just the rail line depiction) but if does it count as crossing multiple Hillocks if your LOS leaves the Hillock and then cuts back across it? (or not because the Hillock is one big long hillock)

Q3) Assuming fire from 'over' (ie the graveyard side of) the EMRR does Gare du Hatten building ground floor get +4TEM (Stone +3 +1 for Hillock) or is it like a 'wall' effect (pick one)

 

[jrv]

q1: yes, with the slight exception that other terrain in the hex is at level zero: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/walls-and-hillock-hex.148398/

q2: it counts as multiple hillocks if your LOS leaves the hillock and then crosses it again.

q3: pick one. There is a rule in Festung Budapest that says they are not cumulative. B32 does not seem to have this, but I am willing to bet it is an oversight. I have not gotten my copy yet, so I can't check whether Hatten has the rule (it should) or not.

JR

 

[Philippe D.]

q1: yes, with the slight exception that other terrain in the hex is at level zero: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/walls-and-hillock-hex.148398/

My understanding was that the EmRR terrain, like a Hillock, was considered Inherent terrain. Is this wrong?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

q3: pick one. There is a rule in Festung Budapest that says they are not cumulative. B32 does not seem to have this, but I am willing to bet it is an oversight. I have not gotten my copy yet, so I can't check whether Hatten has the rule (it should) or not.

I think the oversight is in the Hillock rules - of course on the desert board/overlays there usually isn't any other TEM to apply, so it probably wasn't an issue when those rules were written.

There is nothing special about the EmRR in the Hatten rules.[/QUOTE]

 

[jrv]

on the desert board/overlays there usually isn't any other TEM to apply, so it probably wasn't an issue when those rules were written.

There is often an AFV or a wreck, so it should be not uncommon for the question to arise. Also in Pete Shelling's desert trio it should not be hard to find broken terrain crag next to a hillock (but I have not set up the maps to verify). I believe that this is an oversight, but as currently written outside Festung Budapest the hillock TEM is cumulative per A2.4.

JR

 

[jrv]

My understanding was that the EmRR terrain, like a Hillock, was considered Inherent terrain. Is this wrong?

That is correct. B32.2 says that even though the emrr-hillock is inherent, other terrain in the hex rises from the same level the hillock rises from. If it had been a true hillock and not an emrr, B32.2 would not apply and the question about the level of other terrain in the hex would be open.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

...I believe that this is an oversight,...

As do I - in Chapter F. Something to note down for the 2nd Edition.

 

[jrv]

Per D9.3 a wreck/AFV TEM is not cumulative, so the situation arises in the desert less often than I suggested. Still it can happen, and in particular it might happen in Hatten for those hedge hexes behind the EmRR.

JR

 

[Hexagoner]

Hi guys,

I have a HF1 CG1 in the early part of day 1. The question posted as Q2 in the original post has come up in our game. My opponent has a sighting unit entrenched in hex DD19 ON the emRR (hillock). I have a moving unit on the ground level in Z5. The LOS crosses 3 additional hillock "sections", and my unit is 2 hexes past the end of the 3rd additional hillock section

Reading F6.41 *ON the Hillock", I came to the same conclusion as jrv, i.e. "q2: it counts as multiple hillocks if your LOS leaves the hillock and then crosses it again".

However, reading F6.4 I see "A non-summit hillock hex does not block LOS to other hexes of the same hillock". Pretty clearly, the entire emRR is the "same hillock" - and therefore it would seem to mean that the answer to q2 should be "if the only hexes that could potentially block LOS are other emRR hexes, then the LOS is not blocked, regardless of distance".

What say you?

Tom

 

[RRschultze]

Hi guys,

I have a HF1 CG1 in the early part of day 1. The question posted as Q2 in the original post has come up in our game. My opponent has a sighting unit entrenched in hex DD19 ON the emRR (hillock). I have a moving unit on the ground level in Z5. The LOS crosses 3 additional hillock "sections", and my unit is 2 hexes past the end of the 3rd additional hillock section

Reading F6.41 *ON the Hillock", I came to the same conclusion as jrv, i.e. "q2: it counts as multiple hillocks if your LOS leaves the hillock and then crosses it again".

However, reading F6.4 I see "A non-summit hillock hex does not block LOS to other hexes of the same hillock". Pretty clearly, the entire emRR is the "same hillock" - and therefore it would seem to mean that the answer to q2 should be "if the only hexes that could potentially block LOS are other emRR hexes, then the LOS is not blocked, regardless of distance".

What say you?

Tom

Get rid of the stupid hillock rule and count it as a wall. There is so many questions being raised by this Emrr

 

[jrv]

I have a HF1 CG1 in the early part of day 1. The question posted as Q2 in the original post has come up in our game. My opponent has a sighting unit entrenched in hex DD19 ON the emRR (hillock). I have a moving unit on the ground level in Z5. The LOS crosses 3 additional hillock "sections", and my unit is 2 hexes past the end of the 3rd additional hillock section

Reading F6.41 *ON the Hillock", I came to the same conclusion as jrv, i.e. "q2: it counts as multiple hillocks if your LOS leaves the hillock and then crosses it again".

However, reading F6.4 I see "A non-summit hillock hex does not block LOS to other hexes of the same hillock". Pretty clearly, the entire emRR is the "same hillock" - and therefore it would seem to mean that the answer to q2 should be "if the only hexes that could potentially block LOS are other emRR hexes, then the LOS is not blocked, regardless of distance".

A hillock hex between never blocks LOS from ON one hillock to ON another, regardless of whether they are the same hillock or different and regardless of whether the unit is entrenched/emplaced or not. See LOS from squad F to squad FF on the EX following F6.6. LOS from DD19 to Z5 would be blocked because the LOS leaves and re-enters the emRR several times, but LOS from DD19 to, say, Y2 would not be blocked by hillocks (ignoring that LOS might be blocked by orchard).

JR

 

[nathan brown]

Too many people are sitting on the hillock (/wall) on this question!.

So I am trying to get to the bottom of this/consolidate what I am reading here.

So unless your in Festung Budapest technically the Gare du hatten gets +4 from fire that gets the hillock tem against it as well is what I a man reading.

And (JR?) I am still confused about what is Bad for the LOS from DD19 to Z5. What rule makes the EMRR hexes a seperate hillock to make this LOS bad/over multiple instances of the same hillock/ same railway.

Squad E to squad Z seems to be the concept in the f6 example but they are different hillocks.

I can't see an example of this in F6 but maybe I'm missing a rule/something in EMRR.

Please and thanks as usual.

 

[geezer]

A hillock hex between never blocks LOS from ON one hillock to ON another, regardless of whether they are the same hillock or different and regardless of whether the unit is entrenched/emplaced or not. See LOS from squad F to squad FF on the EX following F6.6. LOS from DD19 to Z5 would be blocked because the LOS leaves and re-enters the emRR several times, but LOS from DD19 to, say, Y2 would not be blocked by hillocks (ignoring that LOS might be blocked by orchard).

JR

I disagree with this.

According to F6.1 the term hillock refers to all hillock hexes on overlay. This is important to consider when reading F6.41.

The word “ovelay” is unfortunate in rule 6.1 because obviously the railroad is not on an overlay but it seems like it must be considered to be so. If every hex of the railroad is considered a seperate hillock, most los will be blocked from one side of the railroad to the other.

Accordingly, DD19 would see Z5. because LOS only goes over one hillock (but many hilock hexes)

I think realistically it should be blocked, but according to rules it isnt.

 

[zgrose]

I agree with Geezer, LOS from DD19 to Z5 passes through hexes of the same hillock so F6.1 and F6.41 should allow that LOS.
I don't agree that realistically it should be blocked but my view of the realism of the map depiction is mostly irrelevant.

 

[Hexagoner]

I sure wish Ch F would be rewritten. Instead of "design for effect" it used the more technical approach to rule writing where every case is attempted to be spelled out - and this is evidence that was not successful. I guess that one could fall back on F6.41 is a higher numbered rule than F6.1 or F6.4 and therefore takes precedence. But I wonder is that meets the HF designer's intent here?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

IMO, the "problem" is not with Section F6 (Chapter F [and G] are rather well/complete written [again, IMO]), but rather with B32.12 that just "uses" the Hillock rules without covering all the difference that can occur between a Hillock overlay and long EmRR.

 

[Andrew Rogers]

I sure wish Ch F would be rewritten. Instead of "design for effect" it used the more technical approach to rule writing where every case is attempted to be spelled out - and this is evidence that was not successful. I guess that one could fall back on F6.41 is a higher numbered rule than F6.1 or F6.4 and therefore takes precedence. But I wonder is that meets the HF designer's intent here?

From the 'game design' perspective ... the short answer is that the railroad embankment is the best way to represent the battlefield south of Hatten. You need to be adjacent to the railway to see the fields to the south of the battlefield.

The railway embankment (although gentle in places), combined with the slightly undulating terrain south of Hatten (patches of 'dead-ground'), largely meant that American forces could approach the village from the south without too much hindrance from units (eg. tank-destroyers) located in the village proper.

The engagement distances for American units in the southern part of the battlefield approaching the railway station was around 200-300m.

German ATGs covering the south were placed adjacent to the railway embankment (around the station) or in the graveyard to defend against this line of advance. This worked well. The attached image reveals the number of American tanks that were KOed in this area.

Andy Rogers

 

[Hexagoner]

From the 'game design' perspective ... the short answer is that the railroad embankment is the best way to represent the battlefield south of Hatten. You need to be adjacent to the railway to see the fields to the south of the battlefield.

The railway embankment (although gentle in places), combined with the slightly undulating terrain south of Hatten (patches of 'dead-ground'), largely meant that American forces could approach the village from the south without too much hindrance from units (eg. tank-destroyers) located in the village proper.

The engagement distances for American units in the southern part of the battlefield approaching the railway station was around 200-300m.

German ATGs covering the south were placed adjacent to the railway embankment (around the station) or in the graveyard to defend against this line of advance. This worked well. The attached image reveals the number of American tanks that were KOed in this area.

Andy Rogers

Andy,

Having been there, how would you prefer the emRR/Hillock LOS question above be resolved? That is, should an entrenched unit on the emRR be able to see over any number of emRR hexes, regardless of gaps in the "hillock" or distance?

Thanks,
Tom

 

[Andrew Rogers]

Andy,

Having been there, how would you prefer the emRR/Hillock LOS question above be resolved? That is, should an entrenched unit on the emRR be able to see over any number of emRR hexes, regardless of gaps in the "hillock" or distance?

Thanks,
Tom

Tom and others

I hope the following covers the questions raised above.

1. The emRR is one long hillock. That would most accurately reflect the terrain and how the CG was playtested. I agree with Klas, the F6 rules are solidly written and treating the emRR as one hillock (I think) covers the questions above.

2. In terms of the accumulative Direct Fire DRMs for the Railway station being behind the emRR (+4 vs +3), I would agree this is an oversight (my bad!). The FB rule (6.124) has an additional sentence covering this (+3 only DRM) and 'Hatten in Flames' would be slightly better off with this sentence. My advice would be to just play be the F6 rules.

Andy Rogers

 

[Vinnie]

Can you become entrenched on the emRR? As far as I was aware, they are treated as paved roads for this purpose and you can't entrench on a paved road.