Hat ten perimiter

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Hatten end of day 2.german line in blue.american green. He has stug in gg15 whose crew bailed out whem immob Andy grabbed the edge then got back in!! So our lines cross over. The question. Highlight areas are no mans land but what is the area pointed to with a ? Mark....a seperate set up zone for me as the US? It had no units in it. I assumed he could not draw down the edge over my edge start locations... help appreciated.
View attachment 11232
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Bump and clarify. hoping someone who has done perimeters in hatten can have a looksee and check this situation. New picture showing whole front. Bit in pink in question. our fronts cross each other but there weren’t many units to block. is it just an american set up area that US troops can teleport into before CG Day3
 

Attachments

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
374
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
Can you show on the map the Infantry-MMC/Control-marker locations used as the basis for the perimeter marker placement?

it's a bit hard to work out your interpretive artwork.

:)
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
11263The the maps been cleared but there was hardly anything out here to block what you see on the board anyway except for edge hex control markers including the one his tank crew picked up that caused all this crossing. Hope this makes more sense.
 

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
374
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
I don't think immobilised AFVs count as a strategic location.

They are isolated outside the US perimeter can roll for immob removal in 3.6131.

The German perimeter should be Z14 to AA13 and then AA13 to Y11.
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Thanks, your incredible...😂. Appreciate the help.

BUT the AFV was immobilised by a mortar shot and the crew bailed out, took possession of that edge location, and then got back in under fire!
He didn't manage to remobilise it, but he did fix the Gun on a 1!

Thus my quandry/question with the multiple set up areas!
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
bump for assistance from Andy Rogers and or Hatten fans and playtesters please. This is holding up the start of CG Day3.

please look at the pictures above.

His German Afv is outside of my permiter so not isolated or no mans land, and he has two set up areas. And similarly I have two set up areas and can shift troops to the one in pink that had no troops in it but to my reading does not change status as it’s not an isolated area.

We were debating what 3.6053 means in terms being able to use an edge hex if it’s arrow is pointing off map and also what ‘map edges being able to go round corners’ and going from alternate to straight hexgrain’ might mean in terms of potentially running down along my edge hexes back to his other edge hex towards the graveyard area.

if someone could provide a view that would be helpful. The rules don’t mention the possibility of multiple set up areas. 3.6065 has a concept of converting front line locations that are next to no mans land/isolated/ enemy locations into an understandable form like I have tried on my map.

help!
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,774
Reaction score
5,870
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I am not certain, but I think it may be implicit in the perimeter drawing routine that if there are a pair of board-edge hexes pointing at each other and you start with one you cannot touch another board-edge hex except the second. That would make the joining of your single map-edge hex not possible. The single-hex map-edge hex would become a single-hex "loop", but not isolated. Consider if the German StuG crew had captured two board-edge hexes instead of one. The two would have perimeter markers pointing at each other. I think you couldn't trace from the main perimeter into one of the StuG perimeter hexes then to the second because there would be two perimeters (the initial, map edge one and the new one from the map interior) traced into the same strategic locations, which is not allowed. Similarly I think the map-edge single-hex perimeter can't be traced through from the interior because it already has a perimeter (a map-edge one) through it.

Going further, my understanding is that all counters in non-isolated areas are removed into a single pile, and that all these non-isolated areas are considered a single setup area for the next scenario, even if there are disjoint loops.

JR
 

Andrew Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
68
Reaction score
166
Location
Canberra, Australia
First name
Andy
Country
llAustralia
Hi.

I am not an expert on drawing map perimeters. My reading of 3.6054 PERIMETER MARKERS is that there can be two (or more) closed 'loops' (see the second-to-last sentence). It would appear from your images above that there are multiple perimeter areas. These are more likely to be generated the greater the number of map-edge markers on the board (as in your playing).

I agree with jrv's comments above that the non-isolated area troops are moved into a single pile (even from separate perimeter areas) and can then be subsequently set up in the next CG Day in either of the 'disjointed' non-isolated loops.

Andy
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
OK Home from camping now and a little more time to study this. maybe the answer is a Perry Sez but it's going to be a hard question to frame!

the single edge hex loop sounds neat JR but I think it falls down when you say you can't bounce in and out of 2 edge hexes/ 2 sets of edge hexes. That is the American situation in this example as well, and if you can't point a permiter marker Out of an edge hex that causes general problems I think.

So 3.6053 says you point the edge hex permiter markers towards each other along the edge for multi hex strings or off board for single hexes.

Then 3.6054 says you build the loop. To build a loop you must either point permiter markers to the edge hexes, which on a normal situation would mean either you have to point from one of the edge hexes (which may already have a control marker) to the interior to make lets say it all run left to right; the way I've always thought it works, or you would have to point permiter markers from internal hexes in both directions to touch the edge hexes. I see no prohibition on doing that. ie having two adjacent perimiter markers back to back pointing away from each other. Thence to edges.

In that example why couldn't you make the different directions be the hexes that point at the single STUG edge hex in our case?

The EXC in 3.6054 about not overlapping seems to indicate you can overlap in a hex containing a perimiter marker and; that markers placed build on the edge markers placed in 3.6053. Ie you can put pointers into edge hexes.

If so what's stopping a bounce in and out?

Hope I'm making sense. Someone must have had this happen in this or another CG!
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,774
Reaction score
5,870
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The case for a map-edge pair is fairly clear. Assume there are two American map-edge hex pairs, ( GG2, GG4 ) & ( GG8, GG11 ), the hexes between them are also American and all the rest are German map edges. The two edge pairs are segments separated by three German hexes. This is an arbitrary separation, but I think some of the phrasing in 3.6054 is not as tight as it needs to be for zero hex separation. In 3.6053 the both edge hexes get a pair of perimeter markers pointing at each other.

In 3.6054 you start placing non-map-edge perimeter markers.

The case without attempting two edge segments: you start by placing a perimeter marker that points at GG2. You continue on placing perimeter counters without going through GG8 or GG11, each one pointing at the last, until at last you reach GG4. You have formed a loop. That is a successful completion. Repeat for GG8 & GG11, this time without crossing the previous loop. Successful perimeter.

The case with attempting two edge segments: you start by placing a perimeter marker that points at GG2. You continue on placing perimeter counters, each one pointing at the last, until you reach map-edge hex GG11. This is not a successful completion of a loop, so you have to continue by placing another perimeter marker. If you place the perimeter marker in GG8 then you have violated 3.6054, "the new (Alternate) Hex Grain may not overlap another friendly (Alternate) Hex Grain (even on the map edge)." So you can't continue out of GG11 to GG8 and form the loop containing both map edge segments.

Where this gets a little hinky is either with pairs of map-edge hexes that are separated by zero hexes and with singleton map-edge hexes. The text I quoted above actually continues with an EXC: "the new (Alternate) Hex Grain may not overlap another friendly (Alternate) Hex Grain (even on the map edge) [EXC: in a hex already containing a friendly Perimeter marker]." In my unsuccessful case above I separated the two map-edge hexes with three hexes without perimeter counters. If there were a close pair, say ( GG17, GG18 ) or a singleton ( GG20 ), placement of a second perimeter marker from GG17 to GG18 would result in two hex grains that overlap but that seem to meet the EXC. In the cases of adjacent pairs or a singleton, it might be said the placement meet the EXC. Based on the fact that segments separated by one or more hexes are not allowed, I am guessing that close pairs and/or singletons are not allowed either, and that the rule is twisted and malformed

As for forming a question for a q&a, I would suggest using examples as above rather than trying to convey what you mean in the abstract.

JR
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
OK thank you v much. so maybe there is a different way to skin the same cat using the EXC. Can I try a scenario with you and hope you can take the time to look at the map to review. THis is all based on my understanding that a simple loop from GG2 to GG4 would (must) require placement of a Permiter Marker on the already placed map edge perimter marker pointing at the next part of the loop that loops around to GG2.

last question I promise.

EXample:
German loop 1: The Stug loop.
Y11 pointing to edge permiter GG15 (the stug).
Y15 pointing to Y11
Z15 to Y15
GG15 on top of edge perimeter to Z15 (alternate so it does not cross FF14)

German loop 2: the rest of the the map loop
U12 to edge perimeter GG6
V12 to U12
X12 alternate to W12
X16 to X12
Across the board legally until it gets to AA27 and loops around using the edge to Gg6

what is illegal about that? It creates two loops back to back ie one area in effect, and does not bounce in and out of multiple edge areas.

the US would be able to Do something similar ie two loops that back to back.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,774
Reaction score
5,870
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
OK thank you v much. so maybe there is a different way to skin the same cat using the EXC. Can I try a scenario with you and hope you can take the time to look at the map to review. THis is all based on my understanding that a simple loop from GG2 to GG4 would (must) require placement of a Permiter Marker on the already placed map edge perimter marker pointing at the next part of the loop that loops around to GG2.
Not sure I understand this reference to "GG2 to GG4". On your map that segment is part of the map edge that goes from gg7 and around the map past two corners.

last question I promise.

EXample:
German loop 1: The Stug loop.
Y11 pointing to edge permiter GG15 (the stug).
Y15 pointing to Y11
Z15 to Y15
GG15 on top of edge perimeter to Z15 (alternate so it does not cross FF14)
I think this is ok. I am somewhat troubled by it because I think it allows joining one or more singleton (or close pair) edge hexes into a perimeter containing a long edge segment.

German loop 2: the rest of the the map loop
U12 to edge perimeter GG6
V12 to U12
X12 alternate to [typo: V]12
X16 to X12
Across the board legally until it gets to AA27 and loops around using the edge to Gg6
I am guessing "AA27" here is "A27" instead. AA27 is not an edge hex.

what is illegal about that? It creates two loops back to back ie one area in effect, and does not bounce in and out of multiple edge areas.

the US would be able to Do something similar ie two loops that back to back.
I would go with that. Unfortunately the RB perimeter rules are not as clear as I would like, and it's hard to know what to do with some cases. There is a lot that implies that what was written was not what they were thinking, and that they hadn't thought about some situations.

JR
 

nathan brown

Infrequent Flyer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
173
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
thanks. We will indeed go with that and I appreciate your patience. Yes I meant A27.
 
Top