Gullies and Pillboxes

[Honosbinda]

B30.1 my opponent insists that PB can be set up in gullies; however this rule indicates that PB can ONLY be set up in specific terrain types, gullies not included. The perception is that a a gully hex is really just OG with a gully; whereas to me, a gully is a gully is a gully. I'm probably wrong...

thanks for any responses. cheers Marc

 

[jrv]

The chapter B chart says Fortifiable = "Yes", which means that all fortification types are allowed. Also if particular fortifications are prohibited, they tend to be in the terrain rules for that terrain type, e.g. marsh [B16.5], crag [B17.5], stream [B20.5], and gully does not have such a rule. I am inclined to believe the terrain chart is correct and that B30.1 is not complete. But I think you could submit it for a Q&A.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The chapter B chart says Fortifiable = "Yes", which means that all fortification types are allowed. Also if particular fortifications are prohibited, they tend to be in the terrain rules for that terrain type, e.g. marsh [B16.5], crag [B17.5], stream [B20.5], and gully does not have such a rule. I am inclined to believe the terrain chart is correct and that B30.1 is not complete.

On the other hand a roadblock not allowed in a Gully, and that is mentioned in the Fortification - not terrain - rule. So I think limitations (even when Fortifiable = "Yes") are expressed both in terrain and in fortification rules.

 

[jrv]

On the other hand a roadblock not allowed in a Gully, and that is mentioned in the Fortification - not terrain - rule. So I think limitations (even when Fortifiable = "Yes") are expressed both in terrain and in fortification rules.

So you are saying that you believe a pillbox is not allowed in a gully?

JR

 

[jrv]

On the other hand a roadblock not allowed in a Gully, and that is mentioned in the Fortification - not terrain - rule. So I think limitations (even when Fortifiable = "Yes") are expressed both in terrain and in fortification rules.

I am not so sure you are correct: I believe what you are referring to is based on B29.1, a roadblock may be placed only in "road or runway Location." Although to date we have had no gully-road hexes, I don't think the game rules them out. A roadblock could potentially be placed in a gully if it has a road.

JR

 

[Mister T]

The perception is that a a gully hex is really just OG with a gully; whereas to me, a gully is a gully is a gully. I'm probably wrong...

thanks for any responses. cheers Marc

"A hill is a hill", yet you can place a PB. I would use the same reasoning for a gully.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

So you are saying that you believe a pillbox is not allowed in a gully?

I am sort of leaning that way at the moment, yes. Since the rule says "Open Ground" - and nothing about gullies is mentioned in section "B1." - as opposed to Hills e.g.

But I would have no problem with it being ruled otherwise.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I am not so sure you are correct: I believe what you are referring to is based on B29.1, a roadblock may be placed only in "road or runway Location." Although to date we have had no gully-road hexes, I don't think the game rules them out. A roadblock could potentially be placed in a gully if it has a road.

True, but my point was that not all limitations are mentioned in the specific terrain rules - some are mentioned in the fortification rules as well.

 

[Honosbinda]

"A hill is a hill", yet you can place a PB. I would use the same reasoning for a gully.

Yes, because such are specified as OG in B1.14. You won't see gullies in that section B1 as alt OG (as Klas has remarked already above)

Also see B19.1: 'A gully is treated as a gully, regardless of other terrain in the hex [including open ground].' B19.3 suggests a gully is OG only for TEM and rout, not for fortifications.

 

[Honosbinda]

I am not so sure you are correct: I believe what you are referring to is based on B29.1, a roadblock may be placed only in "road or runway Location." Although to date we have had no gully-road hexes, I don't think the game rules them out. A roadblock could potentially be placed in a gully if it has a road.

JR

Chapter F does speak of roads and tracks through Wadis someplace, as I recall.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Chapter F does speak of roads and tracks through Wadis someplace, as I recall.

Not that I could find - although there is no prohibition on defining a track as going in a wadi as far as I know.

 

[Binchois]

I would definitely side with NO here (Chapter B divider not withstanding). First, the pillbox rules specify:

30.1 A pillbox is a Fortification counter that can be set up only prior to the start of play, and only in Open Ground (including any road/shellholes but not bridges), brush, orchard, grain or woods.
​

Secondly, the rules for Open Ground (B1.0) spell out what terrains are considered OG or modified OG (including hills, roads, shell holes...), gullies are not included. Moreover, the gully rules state:

19.3 Barring other terrain in the hex, a gully is considered Open Ground for TEM and Rout purposes, provided a LOS INTO it exists (see bridges; 6.32).​

I would say that "TEM and rout purposes" means to exclude things like PB set up.

Finally, while I know that chapter dividers are generally assumed more complete than the RB, I do not see where the "Forifiable" column is even defined. Nor anywhere in the RB where the term is adequately defined. Am I missing something?

 

[Russ Isaia]

If PB could be set up in gullies, wouldn't you expect some discussion in the rules of where it is in the hex -- IN the gully versus in the surrounding open ground? And how one distinguishes that (use a Crest counter, for example, even though that counter can only be used by Infantry (B20.9))?

And note -- gullies are Open Ground (and thus eligible terrain for PB) "for TEM and Rout purposes." B19.3. No mention of being OG for other purposes.

Edit: Sorry to step on your toes Binchois. I see now you covered the B19.3 point.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Finally, while I know that chapter dividers are generally assumed more complete than the RB,..

That is actually not a general assumption. Only the "?" gain/loss chart take precedence over the body of the rules, and the ASOP (but only when it comes to defining the order of things).

Otherwise, the rules and diviers should be equally "complete" - in fact I would probably hold that the rules are/should-be more complete.

 

[Binchois]

That is actually not a general assumption. Only the "?" gain/loss chart take precedence over the body of the rules, and the ASOP (but only when it comes to defining the order of things).

Otherwise, the rules and diviers should be equally "complete" - in fact I would probably hold that the rules are/should-be more complete.

Glad to hear you are of this opinion, Klas. I agree! Though, I didn't mean to imply that dividers all "took precedence" over the RB (though the ones you mentioned specifically DO), only that they tend towards comprehensiveness where the RB sometimes defers.

And Russ, no problem with "stepping on my toes..." I am a terrible dancer, myself! Note, there is no being "outside" a gully. You can only be IN one or in crest status.

 

[jrv]

Finally, while I know that chapter dividers are generally assumed more complete than the RB, I do not see where the "Forifiable" column is even defined. Nor anywhere in the RB where the term is adequately defined. Am I missing something?

As far as I know none of the columns/information on the Terrain Chart are "defined." Does that mean that the things covered in the terrain chart are not applicable if they are not covered in the body of the rules? It looks to me as if you have to make of them what you can, despite not being "defined."

JR

 

[Binchois]

As far as I know none of the columns/information on the Terrain Chart are "defined." Does that mean that the things covered in the terrain chart are not applicable if they are not covered in the body of the rules? It looks to me as if you have to make of them what you can, despite not being "defined."

JR

Exactly my point. This is why I would hesitate in assuming that "Yes" the hex is "Fortifiable" means that every kind of fortification can be set up in that terrain. Especially where the RB seems to deny them.

 

[Russ Isaia]

One other data point -- Wire is a form of Fortification that can be placed in a gully. Thus validating the divider reference to "Fortifiable." But then the rules address the Crest level (Wire is in the gully Depression, not at the Crest level, B26.1).

So, Fortifiable just means one or more Fortifications are allowed -- see Rules for which.

 

[jrv]

So, Fortifiable just means one or more Fortifications are allowed -- see Rules for which.

I disagree. If that were true, the column would have "Yes" or "No" and would not put in notes like "Wire only" or "Mine/Wire only". The column is summarizing the text rules.

JR

 

[Honosbinda]

I disagree. If that were true, the column would have "Yes" or "No" and would not put in notes like "Wire only" or "Mine/Wire only". The column is summarizing the text rules.

JR

That is actually not a general assumption. Only the "?" gain/loss chart take precedence over the body of the rules, and the ASOP (but only when it comes to defining the order of things).

Otherwise, the rules and dividers should be equally "complete" - in fact I would probably hold that the rules are/should-be more complete.

I concur with both points and further the dividers/rules should match. Right now, they don't on this point. If there are any disconnects, we ignore the dividers, except for the ? chart, which is indeed called out as a single exception and therefore implies that all other charts/tables outside the rules are subordinate.

Anyway opponent has asked MMP, so we'll find out Thanks for the comments all