Sangar and foxholes

[WILLYG]

I read the rules to allow a sangar and up to 2S foxhole in one hex. My opponent is counting counters and not capacity and suggests a sangar OR up to 3S foxhole?

 

[Wayne]

I read the rules to allow a sangar and up to 2S foxhole in one hex...

I agree.

A Sanger is treated as a Foxhole except a noted (F8.1). Ergo, up to a 2S Foxhole can co-exist in a Sangar Location.

 

[EJ1]

Thanks, Wayne. Fun.

I saw the following:

• “F8.1 A sangar is treated exactly [my emphasis] like a foxhole except as modified herein.” I didn’t see anything in F8 that suggests a relevant modification.
• “B27.12 . . . There is a limit of one foxhole counter per hex . . .”
• Therefore, as I'm reading that, exceptions aside, one treats a sangar as though it's a foxhole for all other purposes, and since, from that, you can't have more than one of these same counters in a hex, I see there's a limit of one sangar, foxhole, or trench, etc. counter per location . . . where the “or” is not the Boolean “and/or”; rather, it is one or the other, not both.

The other day, it was drawn to my attention that, unless prohibited by SSR, one may swap a fortified building for a tunnel. What! The learning continues.

Cheers,

 

[Wayne]

I saw the following:

• “F8.1 A sangar is treated exactly [my emphasis] like a foxhole except as modified herein.” I didn’t see anything in F8 that suggests a relevant exception.
• “B27.12 . . . There is a limit of one foxhole counter per hex . . .”
• Therefore, as I'm reading that, exceptions aside, one treats a sangar as though it's a foxhole for all other purposes, and since, from that, you can't have more than one of these same counters in a hex, I see there's a limit of one sangar, foxhole, or trench, etc. counter per location . . . where the “or” is not the Boolean “or/and”; rather, it is one or the other, not both.

Good points and my answer to the OP may well be incorrect.

B27.1 FOXHOLE: ...The player is free to use as many foxhole 1S, 2S, or 3S counters in his initial setup as he wishes, provided the total squad capacity of those foxholes does not exceed the OB limit.

Wisdom of doing so aside, per the above I think you could co-locate the entrenchment counters, but I see no rule explicitly allowing that, so there's some COWTRA merit to your reading.

However, there's a strong inference in B27 that Foxhole<->Sangar co-Location is implicitly allowed:

B27.5 TRENCHES: All rules pertaining to foxholes apply to trenches except as modified herein.
B27.51 Trench counters may only be placed one per hex prior to play as per scenario OB. A trench (including an A-T Ditch) may not occupy the same Location as a foxhole.

An analogous Foxhole<->Sanger co-Location prohibition is noticeably absent from F8.1 (or anywhere in F8).

Given the seeming copy/paste/adjust look of kinda-analogous F8 vs B27.5 verbiage re this matter, I see no intent in F8 that the Foxhole<->Trench co-Location prohibition applies to Foxhole<->Sanger usage too. I take the absence of that explicit prohibition to be a de-facto allowance of the practice re Sangars and Foxholes.

 

[WILLYG]

Thanks for your observations

 

[Stewart]

A sangar IS a treated as a Foxhole.
Sangar = Foxhole
One Foxhole counter per hex.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of that statement in 8.1?