Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Armored unit(s) can take advantage of the unique protection afforded by an escarpment hexside; armor unit(s)cannot be attacked from an adjacent hex bisected by an escarpment line---ever.

Example, If Bardia is friendly controlled and the hex to pass at Sollum is occupied
by a friendly unit, an armor unit in Sollum can only be attacked from across one hexside via the coast road hex due east, since that is the only hex in the armor unit ZOC.



Best Wishes,

Matt









 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vmi1983 wrote:
Armored unit(s) can take advantage of the unique protection afforded by an escarpment hexside; armor unit(s)cannot be attacked from an adjacent hex bisected by an escarpment line---ever.

Example, If Bardia is friendly controlled and the hex to pass at Sollum is occupied
by a friendly unit, an armor unit in Sollum can only be attacked from across one hexside via the coast road hex due east, since that is the only hex in the armor unit ZOC.



Best Wishes,

Matt












Not entirely correct. This would only apply to enemy armor units. Armor units cannot attack across escarpments at all. Enemy infantry can attack across escarpments if they are in an enemy zoc(doesnt neccessarily have to be the defender's zoc). Your friendly unit in the pass south of Sollum projects a zoc to the hex to the east which an enemy infantry could be in. The enemy would be in a ezoc and are able to attack across escarpments.
This was discussed in a previous thread on whether armor units could or could not be attacked across escarpments.
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.
In my opinion, just another case of rules not being cross checked by designers, there really still has not been an official clarification on this. Add it to the list of things wrong with this game.

Happy Gaming,
Erik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
vmi1983 wrote:
Armored unit(s) can take advantage of the unique protection afforded by an escarpment hexside; armor unit(s)cannot be attacked from an adjacent hex bisected by an escarpment line---ever.

Example, If Bardia is friendly controlled and the hex to pass at Sollum is occupied
by a friendly unit, an armor unit in Sollum can only be attacked from across one hexside via the coast road hex due east, since that is the only hex in the armor unit ZOC.



Best Wishes,

Matt












Not entirely correct. This would only apply to enemy armor units. Armor units cannot attack across escarpments at all. Enemy infantry can attack across escarpments if they are in an enemy zoc(doesnt neccessarily have to be the defender's zoc). Your friendly unit in the pass south of Sollum projects a zoc to the hex to the east which an enemy infantry could be in. The enemy would be in a ezoc and are able to attack across escarpments.
This was discussed in a previous thread on whether armor units could or could not be attacked across escarpments.
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.
In my opinion, just another case of rules not being cross checked by designers, there really still has not been an official clarification on this. Add it to the list of things wrong with this game.

Happy Gaming,
Erik



I read the previous posts- I am even less convinced.

1) "Only units in an Enemy ZOC can attack." (No Exceptions)

2) "ZOC does not extend across escarpment for armor units." (No exceptions)

3) A player cannot use units to attack if it is not in the enemy ZOC, (see #2). (No exceptions)

4) Sollum or Halfaya Pass was a defensive choke point. The rule is in place to block avenues of approach, and to provide safer passage either along the coast road corridor or safer passage south of the escarpment ridgelines parallel to the road.

5) I have emailed Grant. I'll post his response asap.

Matt

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hoyt

Durango
Colorado
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
Enemy infantry can attack across escarpments if they are in an enemy zoc(doesnt neccessarily have to be the defender's zoc). Your friendly unit in the pass south of Sollum projects a zoc to the hex to the east which an enemy infantry could be in. The enemy would be in a ezoc and are able to attack across escarpments.


vmi1983 wrote:


I read the previous posts- I am even less convinced.

1) "Only units in an Enemy ZOC can attack." (No Exceptions)

2) "ZOC does not extend across escarpment for armor units." (No exceptions)

3) A player cannot use units to attack if it is not in the enemy ZOC, (see #2). (No exceptions)

4) Sollum or Halfaya Pass was a defensive choke point. The rule is in place to block avenues of approach, and to provide safer passage either along the coast road corridor or safer passage south of the escarpment ridgelines parallel to the road.

5) I have emailed Grant. I'll post his response asap.

Matt



The word "the" in #3 would seem to counter the argument that you can attack enemy unit A even if you are not within Unit A's ZOC as long as you are within enemy unit B's ZOC

redblackmonkey wrote:
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.


Which is ridiculous. The absence of friendly units makes the armor invulnerable? The presence of friendly units allows the enemy to ignore the friendly unit but allows the attack on the armor. Ridiculous.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blockhead wrote:
redblackmonkey wrote:
Enemy infantry can attack across escarpments if they are in an enemy zoc(doesnt neccessarily have to be the defender's zoc). Your friendly unit in the pass south of Sollum projects a zoc to the hex to the east which an enemy infantry could be in. The enemy would be in a ezoc and are able to attack across escarpments.


vmi1983 wrote:


I read the previous posts- I am even less convinced.

1) "Only units in an Enemy ZOC can attack." (No Exceptions)

2) "ZOC does not extend across escarpment for armor units." (No exceptions)

3) A player cannot use units to attack if it is not in the enemy ZOC, (see #2). (No exceptions)

4) Sollum or Halfaya Pass was a defensive choke point. The rule is in place to block avenues of approach, and to provide safer passage either along the coast road corridor or safer passage south of the escarpment ridgelines parallel to the road.

5) I have emailed Grant. I'll post his response asap.

Matt



The word "the" in #3 would seem to counter the argument that you can attack enemy unit A even if you are not within Unit A's ZOC as long as you are within enemy unit B's ZOC

redblackmonkey wrote:
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.


Which is ridiculous. The absence of friendly units makes the armor invulnerable? The presence of friendly units allows the enemy to ignore the friendly unit but allows the attack on the armor. Ridiculous.




Suit yourself.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:


The word "the" in #3 would seem to counter the argument that you can attack enemy unit A even if you are not within Unit A's ZOC as long as you are within enemy unit B's ZOC

redblackmonkey wrote:
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.


Which is ridiculous. The absence of friendly units makes the armor invulnerable? The presence of friendly units allows the enemy to ignore the friendly unit but allows the attack on the armor. Ridiculous.



I never said it made sense, seems ridiculous to me as well. But that seems to be how the rules are written(maybe not intended?).
1- Infantry CAN attack across escarpments if in AN enemy ZOC(Yes or No?)
2- Armor does not project zoc across escarpments(Yes or NO?)
So with only 1 armor on one side of an escarpment and 1 enemy infantry on the other side there is no attack(Yes or No?)

The other point of view of this rule is also a little quizzical...
So my unit(an infantry which can attack across escarpments) sees across the escarpment(armor which exerts NO control) and I CAN'T attack, where as I can attack enemy infantry?(are the enemy tanks camouflaged better than the infantry, or not visible?) Yes it may of been highly dubious to assault an armor unit with just infantry across an escarment...

Where is #3(as worded above) in the rule book? Am I missing it?


I will await official clarification.

Happy Gaming!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
Quote:


The word "the" in #3 would seem to counter the argument that you can attack enemy unit A even if you are not within Unit A's ZOC as long as you are within enemy unit B's ZOC

redblackmonkey wrote:
So far the only way an armor unit cannot be attacked by an infantry across an escarpment is if it is a one on one situation with no friendly units adjacent projecting zoc.


Which is ridiculous. The absence of friendly units makes the armor invulnerable? The presence of friendly units allows the enemy to ignore the friendly unit but allows the attack on the armor. Ridiculous.



I never said it made sense, seems ridiculous to me as well. But that seems to be how the rules are written(maybe not intended?).
1- Infantry CAN attack across escarpments if in AN enemy ZOC(Yes or No?)
2- Armor does not project zoc across escarpments(Yes or NO?)
So with only 1 armor on one side of an escarpment and 1 enemy infantry on the other side there is no attack(Yes or No?)

The other point of view of this rule is also a little quizzical...
So my unit(an infantry which can attack across escarpments) sees across the escarpment(armor which exerts NO control) and I CAN'T attack, where as I can attack enemy infantry?(are the enemy tanks camouflaged better than the infantry, or not visible?) Yes it may of been highly dubious to assault an armor unit with just infantry across an escarment...

Where is #3 in the rule book? Am I missing it?


I will await official clarification.

Happy Gaming!


1) Yes
2) Yes
-So with only 1 armor on one side of an escarpment and 1 enemy infantry on the other side there is no attack(Yes or No?) - NO

It is very dubious infantry would trudge across escarpment, come down the forward slopes and into the open and attack a tank and mobile infantry combined arms division.

Thus the rule applies to multiple escarpment hexsides, therefore it may be wise to use armor to defend key pass hexes- depending. There is no #3 in the rulebook -not quoted- it is an interpretation based on rule #2.

I think the rule is designed to canalize movement and combat somewhat.

Who knows for sure?

I am waiting on an answer from Grant Wylie.

Thanks,

Matt













 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To all:

This is a quote taken from a previous thread from Mike Wylie:
Mon. Aug 22nd, 2016

"Infantry can attack across an escarpment. Armor can defend itself against an attack across an escarpment."

To me, this seems to be more in line with what the game was intended for. If armor can defend itself across an escarpment, then it seems logical that enemy units(infantry) can attack armor across escarpments.

This of course led to the actual conundrum regarding the zoc rules. If there is no enemy zoc, then one cannot attack. Armor does not project zoc across escarpments but can still defend themselves from attack? Under the zoc rules, they shouldn't have to. Hence the discussion about the actual terminology of the zoc rules. Only units in AN(not the, not defender) enemy ZOC are eligible to attack. So from that particular wording I posited the idea that the attacker does not have to be in the defender's zoc, merely an enemy zoc. He still has to be adjacent to the unit he is attacking of course.

This was the one situation that I had found that seemed to fit the rules as written and also with what Mike had stated. It is, I will grant you a bit of a compromise between the rules and what one of the game designer's has stated. Perhaps it all comes down to semantics and interpretation.
Also, in the designer notes and strategy section(14) on page 7, they were discussing fortresses and escarpments and how escarpments limit the hex lanes of attack for armor(not infantry). Infantry looses (1) one attack die if attacking across escarpments, so there is some reduction there, and armor is hit on 5 or 6, making hits on armor across escarpment that much harder to achieve with 1 less die.

My one infantry vs. one armor across escarpment example was just that, an example(as per my interpretation of the rules as written). The infantry could always move to a different hex side and attack from there making it a moot point strictly by the rule book.

(Setting aside the whole zoc issue for now) If an infantry can attack other infantry across escarpments, why not armor? Do the escarpments get bigger, or harder to slog through just because its armor?

I will abide by whatever decision Worthington puts out, but there have been previous threads on this and clarifications requested with no clear cut response, so until then.

I think the simple correction would be to leave zoc affecting movement and supply(as in the text next to the unit zone of control example on p.7 or house rule zoc on movement and supply as you see fit for your tournament at the con) Then combat should be only predicated by adjacency with infantry being able to attack across escarpments, and armor not attacking across but they can be attacked.

Happy Gaming!(At least in this game, let all your rolls be 6's)

Erik

p.s. please post some thoughts and conclusions on any of the minor tweaks you use for the tournament and how they worked. Maybe some AAR's as well. I would be most interested.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
redblackmonkey wrote:
To all:

This is a quote taken from a previous thread from Mike Wylie:
Mon. Aug 22nd, 2016

"Infantry can attack across an escarpment. Armor can defend itself against an attack across an escarpment."

To me, this seems to be more in line with what the game was intended for. If armor can defend itself across an escarpment, then it seems logical that enemy units(infantry) can attack armor across escarpments.

This of course led to the actual conundrum regarding the zoc rules. If there is no enemy zoc, then one cannot attack. Armor does not project zoc across escarpments but can still defend themselves from attack? Under the zoc rules, they shouldn't have to. Hence the discussion about the actual terminology of the zoc rules. Only units in AN(not the, not defender) enemy ZOC are eligible to attack. So from that particular wording I posited the idea that the attacker does not have to be in the defender's zoc, merely an enemy zoc. He still has to be adjacent to the unit he is attacking of course.

This was the one situation that I had found that seemed to fit the rules as written and also with what Mike had stated. It is, I will grant you a bit of a compromise between the rules and what one of the game designer's has stated. Perhaps it all comes down to semantics and interpretation.
Also, in the designer notes and strategy section(14) on page 7, they were discussing fortresses and escarpments and how escarpments limit the hex lanes of attack for armor(not infantry). Infantry looses (1) one attack die if attacking across escarpments, so there is some reduction there, and armor is hit on 5 or 6, making hits on armor across escarpment that much harder to achieve with 1 less die.

My one infantry vs. one armor across escarpment example was just that, an example(as per my interpretation of the rules as written). The infantry could always move to a different hex side and attack from there making it a moot point strictly by the rule book.

(Setting aside the whole zoc issue for now) If an infantry can attack other infantry across escarpments, why not armor? Do the escarpments get bigger, or harder to slog through just because its armor?

I will abide by whatever decision Worthington puts out, but there have been previous threads on this and clarifications requested with no clear cut response, so until then.

I think the simple correction would be to leave zoc affecting movement and supply(as in the text next to the unit zone of control example on p.7 or house rule zoc on movement and supply as you see fit for your tournament at the con) Then combat should be only predicated by adjacency with infantry being able to attack across escarpments, and armor not attacking across but they can be attacked.

Happy Gaming!(At least in this game, let all your rolls be 6's)

Erik

p.s. please post some thoughts and conclusions on any of the minor tweaks you use for the tournament and how they worked. Maybe some AAR's as well. I would be most interested.


I think you are right- but I am still waiting for the answer. I believe for the Prezcon tournament, we will adjust Victory. Tomorrow I will have time to play some. I think, the Brits win only if they control all five fortresses by game's end.

Thanks,
Matt
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From Worthington Publishing:

We will make a "Living Rules" change to the rules and post them on our web site page on HoldFast North Africa. The rule change will be:

On paragraph 11.2 COMBAT the first paragraph, second sentence will be replaced with:

Delete "Only units in an enemy ZOC are eligible to attack." and replace with "Only enemy units in the attacking unit's ZOC may be attacked."

Per Mike Wylie, Worthington Publishing
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Stonemark
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This rule change I believe will clear up any previous confusion on the combat and ezoc rules. Combat now determined by attacker' zoc. Makes more sense now.

Thanks Mike and Worthington for making an offical clarification.

Thanks Matt for doing the leg work and contacting them on this.

Much thanks and appreciation to both!
Erik
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Looby
United States
Wadhams
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for your posts Erik= I appreciate it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.