Is Advanding/Assault Moving to the far side Crest status allowed?

[Hipsu]

B20.91 only gives two options for a unit to claim a Crest status during its APh. Either by starting the APh in a depression and simply claiming the crest, or by claiming the crest it crosses while entering the depression.

Is it not allowed to claim the other side while advancing into the depression? Obviously you'd need to take CX for difficult terrain.



I don't think this violates the rules for advancing per se. It's just not mentioned as an option in B20.91

Is this allowed by Assault Moving (provided the unit has 5 or more MF)? What about Minimum Move (in case of Gully/Woods)?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Is it not allowed to claim the other side while advancing into the depression? Obviously you'd need to take CX for difficult terrain.

Correct, that's not allowed. B20.93:
"Infantry may not move directly from one Crest status to another (even in the APh). "

 

[Hipsu]

Correct, that's not allowed. B20.93:
"Infantry may not move directly from one Crest status to another (even in the APh). "

It's not moving from a Crest status to Crest status though.

 

[jrv]

A unit IN a depression may claim crest status; a unit not IN the depression may claim crest status on the near side [B20.91]. These are the only two ways to enter crest status. A unit may not enter a depression and then also claim crest status as part of a single expenditure in the MPh nor as a single Advance. If one could make two moves (enter INTO the depression, move into crest), then one could also do the same when entering through a depression hexside, and that is specifically ruled out in B20.91.

JR

 

[jrv]

There is a q&a on the matter, btw:

B20.91 & B20.93
May a unit in Crest Status on one side of a Depression hex advance INTO the Depression hex and also gain Crest Status on the opposite side of the Depression hex (assuming it was not CX to start with)?
A. No.

JR

 

[Hipsu]

Thanks for the Perry Sez jrv, I also found it in Klas' compilations (thanks Klas) but that also addresses from crest to crest, which was not my example strictly speaking.

But yeah, I anticipated this response. Here's part two of my question, which is not a question but actually a rant.

The B20.93 has an example of a unit wanting to move out of the Crest status like this:
"...It would have to become CX (A4.72) to advance into T4"


Here a unit is leaving a "far side" Crest status, down the crest, across the road, up another crest, and into another hex, all in one single move. I believe this is an acceptable Assault Move as well?
But this unit cannot stop midway and stay in the other crest.
Why?
And why isn't this move allowed in the other direction? (From T4 to T3 far side)

If you asked me, the word "directly" in B20.93 messes everything up and people (even Perry) read too much into it. My belief is that the original rules writer simply meant that a unit cannot "teleport" from one crest to another without spending some MF at the bottom first. Just in case there was a rule or an opposing player that wanted to react while the unit was at the bottom.

But even if this works exactly as intended, it's needlessly complicated because the move works in the other direction. I humbly propose this simplified in the 3rd edition.

 

[Honosbinda]

Thanks for the Perry Sez jrv, I also found it in Klas' compilations (thanks Klas) but that also addresses from crest to crest, which was not my example strictly speaking.

But yeah, I anticipated this response. Here's part two of my question, which is not a question but actually a rant.

The B20.93 has an example of a unit wanting to move out of the Crest status like this:
"...It would have to become CX (A4.72) to advance into T4"
View attachment 11126

Here a unit is leaving a "far side" Crest status, down the crest, across the road, up another crest, and into another hex, all in one single move. I believe this is an acceptable Assault Move as well?
But this unit cannot stop midway and stay in the other crest.
Why?
And why isn't this move allowed in the other direction? (From T4 to T3 far side)

If you asked me, the word "directly" in B20.93 messes everything up and people (even Perry) read too much into it. My belief is that the original rules writer simply meant that a unit cannot "teleport" from one crest to another without spending some MF at the bottom first. Just in case there was a rule or an opposing player that wanted to react while the unit was at the bottom.

But even if this works exactly as intended, it's needlessly complicated because the move works in the other direction. I humbly propose this simplified in the 3rd edition.

You've made a good point -- either the example is wrong, or the rule is written wrong. Because the rules states one must advance into the depression first, before being allowed to carry on later. That implies stopping IN the depression, then the dumb example carries on as if you don't need to stop!

I'd have to go with the example being wrong, based on the intent of the rules overall. Because, in general, movement/advance from one 'location' to another is reciprocal; i.e., if you can get a unit to a place in one direction, you should be able to get it to the opposite place by going the other direction. Hence, it would make sense that an advancing unit has to stop in the depression, not carry on leaving it in the same APh.

I do think the crest rules are strangely prohibitive given some of the other shenanigans they don't prohibit, such as: from a trench, placing a DC onto a pillbox CA, said pillbox covered with wire in an adjacent hex. Hell, if you can do all that without going CX (nor even leaving the trench, nor spending MP to get through the wire), I'd say we should be able to adjust crest status however we want to in the Advance phase.

 

[Hipsu]

I do think the crest rules are strangely prohibitive given some of the other shenanigans they don't prohibit, such as: from a trench, placing a DC onto a pillbox CA, said pillbox covered with wire in an adjacent hex. Hell, if you can do all that without going CX (nor even leaving the trench, nor spending MP to get through the wire), I'd say we should be able to adjust crest status however we want to in the Advance phase.

That's why this rule is so strange to me, strangely prohibitive. The example isn't weird to me. This stopping nonsense is weird. I already said this but I think the rule "may not move directly from one Crest status to another" actually means if you're already on one crest, you can't simply state (or pay 2MF) and appear on the other side 'directly'. You need to show the work (2 MF down, 2 MF up) and obey the usual restrictions (difficult terrain CX etc.). I say if you did that and counted the MF out loud, then you did not move from one crest to another 'directly' and are in fact fine.

And don't you think the rule would've been written more broadly, if the intention was to prevent crossing the depression during APh, and not just talk about Crest status which is a specific semi-location within a hex? The example is proof of this I think.

You may ask: if everything worked as normal then why do we need this rule at all then? We don't, but it's a good reminder for players who are accustomed to changing 'locations' within a hex (during APh) without too much thought. Unfortunately the rule backfired when everyone started reading it by its most restrictive definition.

And even if I'm totally wrong about the original intentions of this rule (who can say), if 3rd edition ever happens, does this rule need to be an exception to normal Advancing rules?

 

[Robin Reeve]

The MF calculation can be misleading.
A unit which exits a pillbox during APh may not enter an adjacent hex (EXC Bunker to adjacent Trench), nor a unit at 1st level of a building advance to ground level and to an adjacent hex.
I don't see the Crest rule restriction as very different from those examples.
And I wouldn't plead for a change, as the rule works fine as written.

 

[Russ Isaia]

You've made a good point -- either the example is wrong, or the rule is written wrong. Because the rules states one must advance into the depression first, before being allowed to carry on later. That implies stopping IN the depression, then the dumb example carries on as if you don't need to stop!

I'd have to go with the example being wrong, based on the intent of the rules overall. Because, in general, movement/advance from one 'location' to another is reciprocal; i.e., if you can get a unit to a place in one direction, you should be able to get it to the opposite place by going the other direction. Hence, it would make sense that an advancing unit has to stop in the depression, not carry on leaving it in the same APh.

I do think the crest rules are strangely prohibitive given some of the other shenanigans they don't prohibit, such as: from a trench, placing a DC onto a pillbox CA, said pillbox covered with wire in an adjacent hex. Hell, if you can do all that without going CX (nor even leaving the trench, nor spending MP to get through the wire), I'd say we should be able to adjust crest status however we want to in the Advance phase.

Crest Status is (as labeled) a status more than a change of Location so I don't see a problem. The question is whether you can (or should) be able to extract yourself from a position with entrenchment benefits and prepare and enter such position all in one APh. Not that the Q&A cited above does allow that in the MPh if you have the MFs, so it is only a question of what the rules should allow in the APh. For the moment they clearly don't allow it in the APh (B20.91) as the first sentence states the Infantry must be "already IN a Depression" to claim Crest status in that same hex in the APh.

 

[Pyth]

Hipsu.... I think you are right about the over-interpretation of the "no direct advance from crest to crest"... but alas the Q&A ship has already sailed. I dont know but I tend to doubt Perry can be persuaded to reexamine that ruling.... but, jeez, the text reads you can't move directy "even in the Advance phase"... i emphasize even to point out that the Aph isnt the only thing being restricted, bit the Mphase as well.... and that sure as hell isnt telling you can't move from crest to crest in the Mph! It's telling you that move is not made "directly" -- not via teleport... and by that exact same logic... the advance from crest to crest isnt prohibited, it just isnt 'direct'... it has to go down and back up. This makes complete sense to me whereas the Q&A take seems arbitrary and ill considered. Oh well, I hope this discussion is starred and flagged for 3rd ed?

 

[Honosbinda]

I already said this but I think the rule "may not move directly from one Crest status to another" actually means if you're already on one crest, you can't simply state (or pay 2MF) and appear on the other side 'directly'. You need to show the work (2 MF down, 2 MF up) and obey the usual restrictions (difficult terrain CX etc.). I say if you did that and counted the MF out loud, then you did not move from one crest to another 'directly' and are in fact fine.

These kinds of 'actually means' arguments are not persuasive when one 'actually reads' what the rule says, and it's damn specific: you can't advance from one crest status to the next by any means, first line of the rule.

Since it makes no sense to be able to pass through a Crest Status (and not be able to stop in Crest) to advance beyond that crest status into a new hex, I conclude the example is wrong and one can only advance INTO the depression from Crest or out of Crest on the same side.

That's not what was addressed in the copied and pasted Q/A, so it's still an open matter one could ask about, since Perry has not yet 'examined the ruling' on this particular.

Perhaps, he could then reexamine his previous work on the issue, such as it is, and develop a more insightful ruling on this quirk, such as it should be.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

It's not moving from a Crest status to Crest status though.

Yes, I misread what you were asking about.

 

[Pyth]

These kinds of 'actually means' arguments are not persuasive when one 'actually reads' what the rule says, and it's damn specific: you can't advance from one crest status to the next by any means, first line of the rule.

You make some claims about actually reading what the rule says, but you don't actually quote the rule! To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think that rule says what you think it does... I quote:

B 20.93 Infantry my not move directly from one Crest status to another (even in the Aph).

This is not about advancing. It is a rule about movemet, about not being able to move directly. Parenthetically, oh RB, does this movement restriction apply 'even' to the Aph too....? oh yes, "even" there.

That's what it actually says.

So, the question is -- can a unit move from crest status, into the depression and then into the opposite crest status in its movement phase -- Yes or No? Does anyone think "no"? ... does anyone actually think you can't move from crest to depression to opposite crest in the Mph? I hope not. You can't move directly is what that rules says -- no skipping the part where you go into the depression. And it surely says the exact same thing about the Aph. It must pay mf to go INTO the depression and then up. How this was ever read differently I honestly don't understand. The prevailing interpretation, as given by the Q&A seems just plainly wrong to me not despite, but because of what the rule "actually says." I'd love a cogent answer as to what the flaw in my reasoning is... I'm never reluctant to admit when I'm wrong. But the "actually read" the rule argument at the moment doesn't persuade me, at all.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

So, the question is -- can a unit move from crest status, into the depression and then into the opposite crest status in its movement phase -- Yes or No? Does anyone think "no"? ... does anyone actually think you can't move from crest to depression to opposite crest in the Mph? I hope not.

It's clear that you can, B20.91:
"Any Good Order Infantry already IN a Depression may (if capable of Advance) claim Crest status in that same hex during its APh by remaining in the same hex and placing a Crest counter beneath it, or by expending two MF in its MPh to do so. "

The rule does not place any restriction that the unit has to start the MPh IN the Depression.

And it surely says the exact same thing about the Aph. It must pay mf to go INTO the depression and then up. How this was ever read differently I honestly don't understand.

I think here is the issue - as this advance is not specifically mentioned in the rules, whereas two other ways in the APh are:
B20.91:
"Any Good Order Infantry already IN a Depression may (if capable of Advance) claim Crest status in that same hex during its APh by remaining in the same hex and placing a Crest counter beneath it"

and
"Good Order Infantry outside a Depression may claim Crest status in the Depression hex it enters along the hexside it enters by expending one less MF than the normal COT of that hex but its Crest counter must be placed so that the middle of the three hexsides it could conceivably protect is the hexside it crossed."

I.e., (a) advancing up from IN the Depression or (b) advancing into the hex from outside.

One can interpret this as the only two ways it's possible, and not just two examples of how it can be done in the APh. The Q&A says the former is correct (I think). Unless I am missing something - which could very well be the case, as my brain is filled with Dinant stuff these days.

 

[Pyth]

I think the reasoning you give is the same reasoning that led to the Q&A answer. The bizarre effect of this interpretation is that a unit may Aph advance from crest status INTO the depression of its present hex up out of the depression and INTO an adjacent depression... but may not stop at crest status in either hex. I think this is explicitly queried in Q&A.

I find that answer pretty darn mysterious, tormented even. I think (surmise-speculate-guess) the original sin here lies with rules that insisted on making gullies/streams single location hexes despite their multiple levels rather than the multi-location hex they probably should have been (just like a multiple level buidling hex.) And then writing these rules which (confusedly) want the crest to IN to crest move prohibited (because a multilevel advance is my guess) and then somehow allow the advance from IN gully to IN unconnected adjacent gully because, you know, one location adjacent hex advance.... I dont see how this can be seen as other than a rules anomaly.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I find that answer pretty darn mysterious, tormented even.

Tormented?
Are you able to debate about a rule without being insulting?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think the reasoning you give is the same reasoning that led to the Q&A answer.

Agree - the Q&A is in line with the interpretation - "the only ways to enter Crest status is those specifically mentioned in the rules (i.e., they are not just examples)".

The bizarre effect of this interpretation is that a unit may Aph advance from crest status INTO the depression of its present hex up out of the depression and INTO an adjacent depression... but may not stop at crest status in either hex. I think this is explicitly queried in Q&A.

I think the Q&A was about advancing from Crest status on side of a Depression into Crest status on the other side of the same Depression hex.

But I do think it might actually be allowed to advance into Crest status in an adjacent hex - that would fall under:
"Good Order Infantry outside a Depression may claim Crest status in the Depression hex it enters along the hexside it enters by expending one less MF than the normal COT of that hex but its Crest counter must be placed so that the middle of the three hexsides it could conceivably protect is the hexside it crossed."

I see your points, but "bizarre effect" and "rules anomaly" - it wouldn't be the first in the ASL rule universe.

 

[Justiciar]

Tormented?
Are you able to debate about a rule without being insulting?

He is not being insulting...."tormented" in this use carries none of that. It means he has problems with the answer. he is not attacking any one.

 

[Pyth]

@Swiftandsure ... apology i truly did not intend to give offense to any individual... least of all Klas who as usual is a model of clarity. Justicar has it -- I'm discontented with the way these rules have been formulated. Nothing personal directed anywhere. I was inititially critical of the interpretation put forward by the Q&A... which I called wrong... but i retract that -- as I said in my previous post I think there's something off kilter in the crest/depression advance rules themselves.

@Klas... Im on phone... not in a good place to do the cut paste of the Q&A... and maybe I misread but I think the Q&A (3 related Q's) is pretty clear about allowing (what I think) are some contradictory crest/advance rules. Will cut n paste it here later if someone doesnt beat me to it.