View Full Version : Inherent Terrain Questions
hershmeister
24 Feb 08, 16:50
Another couple of stumpers:
1) A unit has Wall Advantage in a location containing inherent terrain (i.e. Rubble or Debris). Does that unit get the inherent TEM if fired on across a non-wall hexisde? B.6 says inherent terrain apllies to any shot but B9.31 says a WA unit does not get in hex TEM. I could easily go with the higher rules but thought I would ask!
2) A unit is bypassing a building which shares a hexside with a debris hex. If the unit is fired upon at a vertex which is also shared with the debris hex, and the LOS is unhindered otherwise, does the unit get to claim a +1 Hinderance due to the debris hex at the aiming vertex, even though it is bypassing the building hex?
thanks!
hersh
Another couple of stumpers:
1) A unit has Wall Advantage in a location containing inherent terrain (i.e. Rubble or Debris). Does that unit get the inherent TEM if fired on across a non-wall hexisde? B.6 says inherent terrain apllies to any shot but B9.31 says a WA unit does not get in hex TEM. I could easily go with the higher rules but thought I would ask!
No. See the example after B9.35.
Claiming WA, the 4-6-7 will receive hedge TEM vs fire from the 4-4-7, and no TEM vs fire from the 5-2-7 since a unit claiming WA never receives in-hex TEM.
B.6 is talking about the area in which the terrain covers for hindrance purposes. I.e. The LOS does not need to cross the depiction, but merely enter the hex for hindrance to apply.
2) A unit is bypassing a building which shares a hexside with a debris hex. If the unit is fired upon at a vertex which is also shared with the debris hex, and the LOS is unhindered otherwise, does the unit get to claim a +1 Hinderance due to the debris hex at the aiming vertex, even though it is bypassing the building hex?
hersh
Not 100% sure on this one, but I believe it applies because it traced "to or through a vertex of such a hex", per B.6.
:thumup: Absolutely! Both debris and rubble exist throughout the hex including the hexsides. The shot against a unit in a debris hex would be a wash either way, because it presents either a +1 TEM or +1 Hindrance, and since as you state, you wouldn't be receiving the wall TEM, you would most likely be receiving the Hindrance (unless being fired upon from a greater height).
Since the Debris/Rubble exists thoughout the hex, to include hexsides, there is no other way to interpret that it would not exist as a TEM at the hexside wall in question. Sometimes I think you just have to apply the common sense rule first!
Hope this helps Hersh!
No. See the example after B9.35.
Claiming WA, the 4-6-7 will receive hedge TEM vs fire from the 4-4-7, and no TEM vs fire from the 5-2-7 since a unit claiming WA never receives in-hex TEM.
B.6 is talking about the area in which the terrain covers for hindrance purposes. I.e. The LOS does not need to cross the depiction, but merely enter the hex for hindrance to apply.
:devious: Sorry, As opposed to Debris and rubble which cover the entire hex (including its' hexsides), this does not adequately represent the situation and would thus invalidate your No answer.:)
:thumup: Absolutely! Both debris and rubble exist throughout the hex including the hexsides. The shot against a unit in a debris hex would be a wash either way, because it presents either a +1 TEM or +1 Hindrance, and since as you state, you wouldn't be receiving the wall TEM, you would most likely be receiving the Hindrance (unless being fired upon from a greater height).
Since the Debris/Rubble exists thoughout the hex, to include hexsides, there is no other way to interpret that it would not exist as a TEM at the hexside wall in question. Sometimes I think you just have to apply the common sense rule first!
Hope this helps Hersh!
You would think "common sense" would dictate that inherent terrain would apply, however:
In a message dated 10/9/2001 10:31:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
UnknownSender@UnknownDomain (UnknownSender@UnknownDomain) writes:
> Question:If a unit in a rubble (inherent terrain) hex, with a wall on one
or
> more hexsides claims WA, and gets fired on by a unit whose LOS does not
cross
> the wall, does the unit get the rubble (inherent) TEM?
No.
....Perry
MMP
:devious: Sorry, As opposed to Debris and rubble which cover the entire hex (including its' hexsides), this does not adequately represent the situation and would thus invalidate your No answer.:)
I agree that from a realism and common-sense standpoint, the unit should be able to get either the hindrance or the TEM, and should not be left without either.
However, I think the rules spell out differently.
:crosseye: OOps, sorry got focused on the first question!
In answer to the second question: A4.3 indicates the movement costs for an infantry bypass is that of the other terrain in the location being bypassed, and that movement is within the hex, NOT as vehicles, along the hexsides. A4.34 goes on to describe the LOS/LOF. Though the LOS/LOF is traced to the vertx in question, the bypassing unit is NOT utilizing the hexside TEM for movement and would therefore NOT receive its' TEM in this instance as described. IMHO, (Common sense would seem to dictate-though I'm less sure of this answer and others interpretations of the same).:hmmm:
Even though I know what Perry said above, the obsurdity of what it can do is evident.
Place a squad in a rubble location. Gain WA over a wall hexside. Have another squad fire at him with a LOS entering the rubble hex from the opposite side of the hex from the wall hexside. What is the TEM? by the rules - 0 TEM.
You would think "common sense" would dictate that inherent terrain would apply, however:
In a message dated 10/9/2001 10:31:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
UnknownSender@UnknownDomain (UnknownSender@UnknownDomain) writes:
> Question:If a unit in a rubble (inherent terrain) hex, with a wall on one
or
> more hexsides claims WA, and gets fired on by a unit whose LOS does not
cross
> the wall, does the unit get the rubble (inherent) TEM?
No.
....Perry
MMP
:) Good find!
:(However, I would state that Perry has been reversed on occasion and I would challenge his intrepretation based upon the circumstances and rules presented. Having been that infantryman and at that wall with rubble and debris strewn around behind, next to, and on top of me, I can at least speak from a degree of expeirience if not authority. The rulling from Perry flys in the face of common sense and is totally unqualified. So what TEM do you give him? There is No open terrain throughout the hex (including it's hexsides)? Do you give them the wall TEM somehow?:hmmm::hmmm:
I think this one needs to be re-evaluated! Would I give you a no TEM shot? Yeah, probablly now that I've been made aware of a kind-of-official ruling, :mad:but it would be grudgingly, and I wouildn't have a warm and fuzzy about it!:nuts:
I'm with you Tom. I think it needs to have an exception in the rules for inherent terrain - allowing you to get inherent terrain TEM if you have WA.
Unfortunately, the rules do not state that (yet).
The Perry ruling was from 2001. A lot of time has passed with no change. I suspect there has not been an advocate for the change. They were too busy getting Bridge TEM to a -1. :devious:
I'm with you Tom. I think it needs to have an exception in the rules for inherent terrain - allowing you to get inherent terrain TEM if you have WA.
Unfortunately, the rules do not state that (yet).
The Perry ruling was from 2001. A lot of time has passed with no change. I suspect there has not been an advocate for the change. They were too busy getting Bridge TEM to a -1. :devious:
:) It would still seem to indicate that the unit would receive the Hindrance at least from a same level firer) as ther LOS/LOF would necessarilly have to cross at least one non-wall hexside, yes? I don't think they could deny the Hindrance modifier.
:hmmm: Also, what's your take on the 2nd question? Am I reading into that one as well?:D
:) It would still seem to indicate that the unit would receive the Hindrance at least from a same level firer) as ther LOS/LOF would necessarilly have to cross at least one non-wall hexside, yes? I don't think they could deny the Hindrance modifier.
:hmmm: Also, what's your take on the 2nd question? Am I reading into that one as well?:D
On the first part above, there is no hindrance - you are tracing LOS to the center dot of the hex, not through the hex.
The second part - i.e., tracing fire to a bypassing unit with inherent terrain as part of the vertex.
I would look at this from A4.34 - "Should the LOS of a firing unit reach an Open Ground Bypass hexside vertex unobstructed (see also C.5), that unit can claim a LOS and a First Fire -2 DRM for non-Assault Movement in the open."
Given your LOS to the vertex was unobstructed, I would say the adjacent inherent terrain would not come into play.
Edit: The resoning behind this is that for a hindrance to apply, you need to trace through it. In the case of a vertex, you are tracing to a point. For inherent TEM, you are tracing to the vertex of the otherwise open ground hex, not the vertex of the inherenet terrain hex (even though they are the same point). They key is the target is in the non-obstacle portion of the non-inherent terrain hex.
B.5 states: "It is not necessary that a LOS actually cross such a symbol to be affected - mere entrance of the hex (even if only to trace a LOS to or through a vertex of such a hex) or a LOS exactly along one of its hexsides (A6.1) suffices."
The way I would rather play it is more complicated. If tracing to a vertex, and the "arc" between the LOS to the center dot and the vertex does not cross the inherent terrain hex, then it is unhindered/blocked. Unfortunately, that is not what the rule says.
Edit2: on further thinking, I would write it to have the "arc" between the vertices of the hexside being bypassed. That way if your LOS comes from the bypassed hex side of the hexside or exactly along it, you would get the terrain of the bypassed hex. (this makes sense since by definition you are actually traversing the terrain in the hex, not the hexside). otherwise, you would get the hindrance.
hershmeister
24 Feb 08, 19:33
I'm with you Tom. I think it needs to have an exception in the rules for inherent terrain - allowing you to get inherent terrain TEM if you have WA.
Unfortunately, the rules do not state that (yet).
The Perry ruling was from 2001. A lot of time has passed with no change. I suspect there has not been an advocate for the change. They were too busy getting Bridge TEM to a -1. :devious:
its all part of the new ASL movement to create lower in hex TEM :D
now what about question #2?
its all part of the new ASL movement to create lower in hex TEM :D
now what about question #2?
See above.
Even though I know what Perry said above, the obsurdity of what it can do is evident.
Place a squad in a rubble location. Gain WA over a wall hexside. Have another squad fire at him with a LOS entering the rubble hex from the opposite side of the hex from the wall hexside. What is the TEM? by the rules - 0 TEM.
I believe you are saying that an enemy squad is in rubble. A friendly squad gains WA over the enemy squad, and then you have a different friendly squad position to fire with zero TEM. If this is what you meant then the enemy unit would receive the in hex TEM which is the rubble.
If you meant your own squad was in rubble and then gained WA, this is no different that the tough decisions players have to make in this regard with a building and WA.
I believe Perry's ruling is to maintain consistency with WA, even though intuitively it doesnt make sense because of inherent terrain. I understand why he would answer this way and it in the long run believe it actually makes the rule situations easier.
Chas
MLaPanzer
24 Feb 08, 20:10
Another couple of stumpers:
1) A unit has Wall Advantage in a location containing inherent terrain (i.e. Rubble or Debris). Does that unit get the inherent TEM if fired on across a non-wall hexisde? B.6 says inherent terrain apllies to any shot but B9.31 says a WA unit does not get in hex TEM. I could easily go with the higher rules but thought I would ask!
2) A unit is bypassing a building which shares a hexside with a debris hex. If the unit is fired upon at a vertex which is also shared with the debris hex, and the LOS is unhindered otherwise, does the unit get to claim a +1 Hinderance due to the debris hex at the aiming vertex, even though it is bypassing the building hex?
thanks!
hersh
1 As already stated NO
2 NO. for one thing it would be going into the hex so it couldn't be a hindrance. But besides that one thing that many people forget is that the vertex is the AIMING point. The unit is actually IN the hex of the object Bypassed it is NOT on the vertex. Now if it traveled down the hexside of the debris it would get the hindrance.
Ok, in the following map, the German squad bypasses the D1 building along the D1.D2 hexside. The Russian chooses to DFF, selecting the D1.D2.E2 vertex.
Does the hindrance from the orchard apply?
If you meant your own squad was in rubble and then gained WA, this is no different that the tough decisions players have to make in this regard with a building and WA.
Chas
:( However, it is very different from the situation of a unit in a building. Rubble/debris exists throughout the hex, to include the hexsides, even the wall hexside(s). Additionally, the inherent terrain presents a 1/2 level TEM blockage/Hindrance, even along any of its hexsides. A case can certainly be made for shellholes, grain, etc., but I believe Rubble and debris to be different matter entirely as they present one with unique circumstances.
I believe Perry's ruling is to maintain consistency with WA, even though intuitively it doesnt make sense because of inherent terrain. I understand why he would answer this way and it in the long run believe it actually makes the rule situations easier.
Chas
:icon_bs::) I also stand in disagreement with Perry, if this is indeed his position on the matter, that it maintains consistancy. It does not maintain consistancy within the majority of the rules in General and LOS/LOF rules in particular.
My argument here:
1. This is an artwork dependent game. That is to say LOS/LOF are predicated upon the artwork of the map involved. We make LOS/LOF calculations based upon a faint show (or lack thereof) of terrain existing beyond a thread line. The artwok presented in RB, ABTF, VOTG, etc. specifically shows debris/rubble extending past the hexsides to, as was pointed out in the RB rules themselves, reinforce the position this terrain encompases even the hexsides.
2. Failing the above, we resort to artifical terrain, covered in detail in the rules themselves. Rubble & debris go to some length and detail to impress upon the player that the effects of this terrain exists thoughout the hex AND HEXSIDES.
3. The ruling does not promote consistancy , at least within the main body of rules for LOS/LOF, because it is counter-intuitive and perhaps almost arbitrary in nature. In fact it is inharmonious and inconsistant, oft times subject to misintrepretation and misunderstanding - as evidenced by this thread.
4. This ruling should be subject to re-evaluation and review, and perhaps the supporting rule(s) re-written in such a manner as to clear up any misunderstandings.
5. Now if you would like to play a nice little fun game utilizing t.y. HR #......:D:D:D: I'll be putting it together as soon as I'm off the forum!:clown:
On the first part above, there is no hindrance - you are tracing LOS to the center dot of the hex, not through the hex.
The second part - i.e., tracing fire to a bypassing unit with inherent terrain as part of the vertex.
I would look at this from A4.34 - "Should the LOS of a firing unit reach an Open Ground Bypass hexside vertex unobstructed (see also C.5), that unit can claim a LOS and a First Fire -2 DRM for non-Assault Movement in the open."
Given your LOS to the vertex was unobstructed, I would say the adjacent inherent terrain would not come into play.
Edit: The resoning behind this is that for a hindrance to apply, you need to trace through it. In the case of a vertex, you are tracing to a point. For inherent TEM, you are tracing to the vertex of the otherwise open ground hex, not the vertex of the inherenet terrain hex (even though they are the same point). They key is the target is in the non-obstacle portion of the non-inherent terrain hex.
B.5 states: "It is not necessary that a LOS actually cross such a symbol to be affected - mere entrance of the hex (even if only to trace a LOS to or through a vertex of such a hex) or a LOS exactly along one of its hexsides (A6.1) suffices."
The way I would rather play it is more complicated. If tracing to a vertex, and the "arc" between the LOS to the center dot and the vertex does not cross the inherent terrain hex, then it is unhindered/blocked. Unfortunately, that is not what the rule says.
Edit2: on further thinking, I would write it to have the "arc" between the vertices of the hexside being bypassed. That way if your LOS comes from the bypassed hex side of the hexside or exactly along it, you would get the terrain of the bypassed hex. (this makes sense since by definition you are actually traversing the terrain in the hex, not the hexside). otherwise, you would get the hindrance.
:nuts: Yeah! Don't even know what I was thinking! After taking a breather to reevaluate whaat had been said about the hindrance, it was perfectly clear...DUHHHH!:clown:
I think your idea has merits!
Blackcloud6
24 Feb 08, 21:54
Ok, in the following map, the German squad bypasses the D1 building along the D1.D2 hexside. The Russian chooses to DFF, selecting the D1.D2.E2 vertex.
Does the hindrance from the orchard apply?
No, the hindrance does not apply
Hi,
It is correct that there is no protection from the Rubble if the unit has WA. This is intentional (AFAIK). It is supposed to be dangerous to claim WA when being outflanked.
Hi,
It is correct that there is no protection from the Rubble if the unit has WA. This is intentional (AFAIK). It is supposed to be dangerous to claim WA when being outflanked.
I fully agree with this as far as the rules go.
I just think it funny that the troops actually stand on top of the rubble to look over the wall.
MLaPanzer
28 Feb 08, 15:43
I fully agree with this as far as the rules go.
I just think it funny that the troops actually stand on top of the rubble to look over the wall.
Look at it this way. the men are at the wall with there attention on the other side of the wall. this present there rear away from the wall.
Look at it this way. the men are at the wall with there attention on the other side of the wall. this present there rear away from the wall.
Exactly, and to their rear is 40m of 1/2 level obstacle rubble. They clearly are above it since they get no protection.
MLaPanzer
28 Feb 08, 20:19
Exactly, and to their rear is 40m of 1/2 level obstacle rubble. They clearly are above it since they get no protection.
Well if you want to look at it that way. They would be protected some what by a Building also. I think it just comes down to making that tactical decision do I want to prevent the enemy from gaining wall advantage or get the 360 protection of in hex terrain. I like that little nuance.
Well if you want to look at it that way. They would be protected some what by a Building also. I think it just comes down to making that tactical decision do I want to prevent the enemy from gaining wall advantage or get the 360 protection of in hex terrain. I like that little nuance.
:) It's not so much as I disagree with the rule in its' entirety, or even what it is trying to simulate. What my point of contention is, that it does not fit in neatly within the total framework of the LOS/LOF rules and the way the majority of the game is played. I find the rule a bit....disturbing; I would guess is the best word I can think of at the moment.:hmmm: My points are as follows:
1. Rubble and debris (especially) are inherent terrain that exist throughout the hex including hexsides - as previousdly stated in this thread.
2. The point of LOS/LOF would necessarilly lie along the hexside(s) of the wall/hedge being claimed for wall advantage and not to the center of hex as normal (please stay with me here for the sake of the argument-I realize the LOS still runs to the center of the hex for game purposes), as the defending units in this instance are at a particular location within the hex (i.e. at its' hexside).
3. The game is already repleat with instances of units being in a particular "location", so I do not believe an addendum/clarification would make this a particularly difficult concept to understand (snap shots for example).
4. The rules, as written, are difficult to understand or interpret because they do present a "counter-intuitive" (for a lack of a better word) situation to the player.
5. For a moment, lets say the units were in the adjacent hex claiming Wall Advantage (a meer distance of a few feet or less than a meter usually), the defending unit would not only gain the wall TEM, but the shot would be further penalized by being blocked (rubble) or at least incur any hindrance from the original hex (usually).-I hope I'm making myself clear here without going into a rather long explanation of the positions of respective units.
Potential Soloutions:
1. Ammend the current rule(s) to relect the current relationship within regards to wall advantage to clarify the situational difference (something like adding an" [EXC: Wall Advantage...] statement) to clear up misunderstandings. -Not prefered, but better than it stands today.
2. Draw the LOS to the vertex least favorable to the attacking units and perhaps give the units at the wall a -1 DRM cumulative with the inherent TEM/Hindrance of the target hex (if the LOS/LOF is drawn over that depiction).
a. This would be also adequately simulate the additional fact that your troops are strung out and on-line, thus be easier targets for such fire, even if there would be NO in hex TEM/Hindrance, and would at least address the situation in an understandable (logical?) format.
Just Thoughts :D:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.