Snap shot (vs Skulking)

Aaron Cleavin

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,094
Reaction score
555
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
This isn't a snap shot attack...you get to fire at them with -2DRM as they expend the MF to get out which is just silly since when IN a depression you have to cross the same side yet do not get the -2 DRM against you...
Why does it say snapshot then?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
This isn't a snap shot attack...you get to fire at them with -2DRM as they expend the MF to get out which is just silly since when IN a depression you have to cross the same side yet do not get the -2 DRM against you...
I was just commenting what was written:


I personally hate the -2 snapshot in the open of crested inf moving into the terrain in front of them...
But I guess that "snapshot" should not be there, and you mean the 1 MF it costs to exit Crest status (like exiting an entrenchment).


I guess that is the tradeoff of going into crest status and possibly exposing oneselves to the enemy. I wasn't around when the Crest status rule was written, but perhaps (and I am only wildy speculating here :)) one rationale could be that when you are in Crest status the enemy has identified your position and have their weapons aimed in that direction already, whereas when one exits from the depression one "pops into view" much quicker. But, as I said, that is just speculating.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
It was essentially clumped into the Entrenchment exiting rules. Maybe 2nd edition changed it from the first...I always thought it was a combined MF cost.

Funny thing about the shot is that unlike leaving an entrenchment and being at the same level OUTSIDE the entrenchment, there is no "location" out of Crest status...its like a bypass.

I don't recall if the -2 is for the hexside crossed or just applicable from any directional fire on the UNCrested unit to hex center...Its late and I'm tired.

the Rule:
Crest Infantry may exit the Depression hex to a non-Depression hex along the same side of the Depression which they occupy as if they were leaving a foxhole (one MF & COT or normal APh capability). Crest Infantry moving to any other hex must first move (or advance) out of Crest status within the same hex they presently occupy as if they were entering it from an adjacent non-Depression hex.

This is not a snap shot by definition, so LOS must be traced to hex center I believe. Am I mistaken?
And if Infantry move INTO Crest status from an adjacent hex, they are not subject to the -2 DRM as it doesn't state the reverse....
Which you'd think could be viable for the -2 DRM if the hex the Infantry moved from is in LOS to an Enemy unit and the destination hex is also in LOS.

Funny that going from a +1 woods to Crest status leaves the Infantry protected, while Infantry in +2 Crest status is VERY vulnerable if in LOS... Just seems odd.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
It was essentially clumped into the Entrenchment exiting rules. Maybe 2nd edition changed it from the first...I always thought it was a combined MF cost.
It was the same in the 1st Edition.


I don't recall if the -2 is for the hexside crossed or just applicable from any directional fire on the UNCrested unit to hex center...Its late and I'm tired.
Well, the -2 would apply if using Non-Assault Movement and the hex is otherwise Open Ground.


This is not a snap shot by definition, so LOS must be traced to hex center I believe. Am I mistaken?
No, you are correct.
 

Simon62

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
478
Reaction score
65
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I don’t normally comment as the people on here are far more experienced than me , however, I see this as follows:

  1. index states that a hex is “the area inside the six hex sides which comprise a hex, including those hex sides and their vertices.
  2. rule A8.15 - ‘may claim a snapshot of it can trace LOS to the entire hexside that was crossed by the moving unit in entering an on-board hex.
  3. my understanding is that a line of site In building is always allowed to an adjacent hex bar think black rowhouse or factory walls etc and given point 1) above the hexside is part of the hex thus the hexside can be seen. However, it is also part of the entered hex Which is not adjacent and thus can’t be seen????
from my mind the hexside is actually in a parallel universe - it is both, at the same time part of two hexes the hex being left and the hex being entered!!! and there is no distinction between the two.

2) above indicates entering the hex- again this seems ambiguous as the hexside being crossed is in two states that of the hexside being exited and at the same time part of that being entered, one can be seen one can’t.

I think we would play this as you could not snapshot as it states that it is hexside of the hex being entered not that of the one being left.
This all seems very surreal!!!
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
I don’t normally comment as the people on here are far more experienced than me , however, I see this as follows:

  1. index states that a hex is “the area inside the six hex sides which comprise a hex, including those hex sides and their vertices.
  2. rule A8.15 - ‘may claim a snapshot of it can trace LOS to the entire hexside that was crossed by the moving unit in entering an on-board hex.
  3. my understanding is that a line of site In building is always allowed to an adjacent hex bar think black rowhouse or factory walls etc and given point 1) above the hexside is part of the hex thus the hexside can be seen. However, it is also part of the entered hex Which is not adjacent and thus can’t be seen????
from my mind the hexside is actually in a parallel universe - it is both, at the same time part of two hexes the hex being left and the hex being entered!!! and there is no distinction between the two.

2) above indicates entering the hex- again this seems ambiguous as the hexside being crossed is in two states that of the hexside being exited and at the same time part of that being entered, one can be seen one can’t.

I think we would play this as you could not snapshot as it states that it is hexside of the hex being entered not that of the one being left.
This all seems very surreal!!!
Can you give us a picture?
I can't follow your thoughts here.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
"trace a LOS to an entire hexside (even if that hexside is part of a Blind hex) that was crossed by the moving unit in entering a on-board hex

So, the unit has ALREADY crossed the hexside and is in the next hex. "crossed by ...entering "a" (LOL "an") onboard hex...so its in the hex...and the los should be as in that hex....ie. higher elevation.
 
Top