I'm Scott's opponent. My original inclination was that the move was not allowed--- i.e. in agreement with what JRV and von Marwitz have said.
However, after reading the Q/A below, which I found on Klaus site, I thought it strongly supported allowing Scott's move, even though it does not directly address the situation:
B30.8 & SSR RB6
B30.8 states “A bunker is treated as a pillbox in all respects except that a unit may move/rout/advance/Withdraw-from-CC between a bunker and such a trench as if the bunker were also a trench”. SSR RB6 references B30.8 for trenches connecting to RB buildings and Rubble. Since you are considered to be using trench movement for a bunker and RB building/rubble, does this also mean you can use Non-Assault Movement into RB building-rubble locations without FFNAM or losing concealment if you came from a trench?
A. Yes.
(BTW, this Q/A was a revelation to me, as I have never played that a unit using NAM and entering a building from a connected RB trench could keep concealment (unless otherwise allowed) and not be subject to FFNAM modifier in the building.)
I'm curious if this Q/A changes JRV's or von Marwitz perspective. Klas opinion would also be appreciated.
Also: I allowed Scott to do the move, but he later retracted it based on JRV's quick response, coupled with an analysis from Carl N. I offered to let it stand, but he chose to take it back based on their information. He then requested that he PREP the units, which I also allowed. That events turned out less than ideal for Scott I can understand his frustration, but I just want to make clear there was no issue of sportsmanship here.
JT