Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Lock 'n Load: Band of Heroes» Forums » Rules

Subject: Stacking in Foxholes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've read the stacking rules for bunkers, but what about foxholes, do they have the same stacking limits as bunkers (3 MMC + 2 SMC) ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe foxholes just become part of the hex's terrain and have no effect on stacking. All units in the hex are assumed to be in the foxholes, so they all get the modifier. So, normal stacking applies.

Now--can foxholes be placed in the same hex with a bunker? I'll have to go look that one up. (If so, normal stacking would still apply outside the bunker--so again, no effect on stacking.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SJBenoist wrote:
Hopefully not ALL units ... AFV's shouldn't get any bonus for Foxholes (unless they represent various earthwork-type fortifications).


Hmm--I just ran upstairs and reread the Foxhole rules. They don't mention vehicles at all. But I would assume only dismounted infantry can benefit from Foxholes; vehicles should not be affected.

Now, what about weapon teams? Do they get to use Foxholes? For now, I'm going to say yes--because I think the Foxhole marker just represents "improved terrain," and a weapon team might dig their gun in a bit or build some kind of rudimentary emplacement.

Given enough time, even vehicles could be "dug in," I guess. But I suspect that happened so seldom that it'd call for a special scenario rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SJBenoist wrote:
Agreed.

A good house rule might be "if it can occupy a building, it can occupy a foxhole".

So no AFV's, no RR's, and et cetera.


RRs? Recoilless Rifles? I think those are prohibited in buildings because their backblast would damage the building; they're not meant to be used indoors. But there's no reason one couldn't be fired from a foxhole. Probably happened all the time.

My next semi-related question: can a Foxholes marker be in the same hex as a Bunker marker? (If so, of course only units outside the bunker would benefit from the foxholes.)


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Given enough time, even vehicles could be "dug in," I guess. But I suspect that happened so seldom that it'd call for a special scenario rule.


A vehicle could be "dug in" a foxhole? Can it move afterwards?

Quote:
can a Foxholes marker be in the same hex as a Bunker marker? (If so, of course only units outside the bunker would benefit from the foxholes.)


How large is a hex representing? Is it able to contain 2 types of defensive buildup at the same time? I have doubt that if the superior would order the engineer to build both at the same time and the same place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SJBenoist wrote:
That should have read "WT's", not "RR's". blush

I'd suggest preventing all WT's from using foxholes to keep the rule simple. No vehicles, no WT's.


On second thought, I agree. I was just punching and clipping counters last night, when I came across German 88s and other big weapons that wouldn't fit with foxholes. If they're going to have some kind of protective emplacement, it'd have to be a special scenario rule (or a future rule).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So generally speaking there doesn't seem to be any rules concerning how many units or what kind of units may be located in a foxhole?

I was just reading about foxholes in ASL to see what the rules are and this is what the book says (for ASL). I may use this as a guideline.

1. Mortars may be fired from a foxhole (No other large ordnance)
2. Foxholes may contain 1,2 or 3 squads (not including the area outside the foxhole)plus up to 4 SMC
3. The TM is not cumulative with other terrain in the hex
4. Unit must pay extra movement points to enter a foxhole otherwise it is considered outside the foxhole
5. Foxholes may not be placed in (sunken/elevated road, bridge, runway, marsh, crag, stream, water obstacle, rubble or building)


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark L
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The scenario "Big Cats at Twilight" from Lock 'n Load: Not One Step Back has an SSR that gives tanks that set-up in a foxhole hull-down status, but not the +1 TM. Once they leave the firing position - by reverse movement only - they can't get it back. But this is an SSR only, not a standard rule.

"The Bridge at Chef du Pont" scenario has a German 75mm WT set up in a foxhole, so WTs can use foxholes.

I'd go with the rules as written - allow any unit to benefit from the foxhole. v3 rules specifically state that foxhole TM is added to the TM of its hex (21.2). Furthermore, there aren't any terrain restrictions on where a foxhole can be placed: put it in a building and it represents a fortified building, without requiring extra rules. Therefore, a foxhole counter might represent a variety of defensive preparations, so why not allow vehicles to benefit from the +1 TM. An 88 in a foxhole would be one in a prepared position - dug in, sand-bagged, etc. In LnL, an 88 can't move anyway.

Foxholes and bunkers: Why not? Units outside the bunker get the foxhole TM + hex's terrain, units inside the bunker get bunker TM + hex's terrain (not including the foxhole).

If more restrictive foxhole rules are needed for a scenario, they could be specified in an SSR.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grahamj wrote:
So generally speaking there doesn't seem to be any rules concerning how many units or what kind of units may be located in a foxhole?


How many is pretty clear: foxholes don't affect stacking, so normal stacking rules apply for any hex foxholes are in. And all units in that hex are automatically considered to be in the foxholes.

Presumably, however, vehicles (and probably weapon teams as well) would not get the foxhole defense modifier (even though that's not yet spelled out in the official rules).

Quote:
I was just reading about foxholes in ASL to see what the rules are and this is what the book says (for ASL). I may use this as a guideline.

1. Mortars may be fired from a foxhole (No other large ordnance)
2. Foxholes may contain 1,2 or 3 squads (not including the area outside the foxhole)plus up to 4 SMC
3. The TM is not cumulative with other terrain in the hex
4. Unit must pay extra movement points to enter a foxhole otherwise it is considered outside the foxhole
5. Foxholes may not be placed in (sunken/elevated road, bridge, runway, marsh, crag, stream, water obstacle, rubble or building)


While it's inevitable that the LnL games will be compared to other games on the same scale (and I've done it myself), I think the important thing is to consider what's most congruent with the published LnL rules.

IMO, the five rules listed above seem too complicated for LnL purposes. But as you say, they may be OK as a guideline of sorts.

Basically, anything in the hex that naturally fits into foxholes should be considered in them and thus benefit from the TM (that's what the existing LnL rules say, and I like the simplicity of it). No reason the foxhole TM shouldn't be cumulative with woods or whatever else is in the hex (and the current LnL rules say it is cumulative).

The LnL rule for foxholes probably does need to be expanded to specify two things: (1) which units do and do not benefit from the +1TM and (2) where foxholes may not be placed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zhredder wrote:
The scenario "Big Cats at Twilight" from Lock 'n Load: Not One Step Back has an SSR that gives tanks that set-up in a foxhole hull-down status, but not the +1 TM. Once they leave the firing position - by reverse movement only - they can't get it back. But this is an SSR only, not a standard rule.

"The Bridge at Chef du Pont" scenario has a German 75mm WT set up in a foxhole, so WTs can use foxholes.

I'd go with the rules as written - allow any unit to benefit from the foxhole.


I might prefer disallowing vehicles to benefit (except by SSR).

Quote:
v3 rules specifically state that foxhole TM is added to the TM of its hex (21.2). Furthermore, there aren't any terrain restrictions on where a foxhole can be placed: put it in a building and it represents a fortified building, without requiring extra rules. Therefore, a foxhole counter might represent a variety of defensive preparations, so why not allow vehicles to benefit from the +1 TM. An 88 in a foxhole would be one in a prepared position - dug in, sand-bagged, etc. In LnL, an 88 can't move anyway.


If foxholes are to be that versatile, I'd rather they be called "field fortifications" or something else. If they're placed in a building hex, my natural inclination would be to assume actual foxholes have been dug outside the building, in the yard, so to speak. But in LnL, building hexes don't have "yards"; the building is presumed to take up the whole hex--which is why vehicles aren't allowed there. Foxholes inside a building is a pretty weird concept. (But it's also pretty weird that buildings and huts take up the whole 50x50-yard area of a hex. No wonder ASL resorted to bypass movement and such.)

Quote:
Foxholes and bunkers: Why not? Units outside the bunker get the foxhole TM + hex's terrain, units inside the bunker get bunker TM + hex's terrain (not including the foxhole).


I agree with that. (And units inside a bunker are treated as if they're in another hex for all other purposes anyway, so there's not much basis for arguing that they should get the foxhole TM.)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark L
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SJBenoist wrote:
P.S. I don't own NOSB, what does LnL use for "Hull Down"? Non-turrent shots blocked, a OFT modifier, or something else?

Per the SSR, a hull hit = miss.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How big are these foxholes anyway? If a vehicle can fit in it they should call them elephant holes.
The only foxholes I've heard of during my time in the military are the ones you dig in the earth, and the only foxholes I've dug could only fit one soldier. Now if you are referring to trenches than that's a different matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark L
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Patrick Carroll wrote:
If foxholes are to be that versatile, I'd rather they be called "field fortifications" or something else. If they're placed in a building hex, my natural inclination would be to assume actual foxholes have been dug outside the building, in the yard, so to speak.

Well, admittedly, that was just my rationalization for the rules as written. More rationalizations follow.

Quote:
But in LnL, building hexes don't have "yards"; the building is presumed to take up the whole hex--which is why vehicles aren't allowed there. Foxholes inside a building is a pretty weird concept. (But it's also pretty weird that buildings and huts take up the whole 50x50-yard area of a hex. No wonder ASL resorted to bypass movement and such.)

Based on LOS rules, buildings do not take up the whole hex (one exception: 10.5 Terrain Markers, i.e. "overlays"). But certainly there aren't any provisions for bypass movement and such, and I'm sure the main reason is to avoid unnecessary complication.

I like lots of detail and chrome in a game, but I also appreciate elegant abstractions and design. Consider the concept of bypass-type movement in a combat environment. IMO, a squad is going to make maximum use of cover when moving through a building hex - so they always pay 2 MP. If they are trying to move somewhere quickly, they are going to take obvious routes - roads, open fields, etc. - rather than moving through yards where they might encounter various annoyances like small fences, gardens, lawn furniture, etc. And vehicles aren't going to much like moving between buildings either. It reduces their mobility and restricts their field of fire, not to mention the risk of ambush. So, IMO, differentiating between movement into a building vs. around it within a building hex is needless chrome; perhaps even unrealistic.

Foxholes outside the building: +1 TM. Building: +3 or +4 TM. Which would you pick?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So after asking a simple question such as how many units can be in a foxhole I guess the simple answer is as many units as can be in a hex, right? So that means 3 squads + 2 vehicles + 2 SMC (1 WT or 2 HS/Crew equals 1 squad).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark L
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
James,
Yes, as many units as can legally stack in the hex are "in" the foxhole. (I think Patrick said as such twice, but maybe it just got lost in all the other discussion! )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think sometimes its better when a game doesn't try to be too simplified, it can leave room for uncertainty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grahamj wrote:
I think sometimes its better when a game doesn't try to be too simplified, it can leave room for uncertainty.


"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." (Albert Einstein)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zhredder wrote:

Based on LOS rules, buildings do not take up the whole hex (one exception: 10.5 Terrain Markers, i.e. "overlays"). But certainly there aren't any provisions for bypass movement and such, and I'm sure the main reason is to avoid unnecessary complication.

I like lots of detail and chrome in a game, but I also appreciate elegant abstractions and design. . . .


Thanks for saying that. I needed that readjustment in perspective to help me better enjoy my new LnL games.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zhredder wrote:
Based on LOS rules, buildings do not take up the whole hex (one exception: 10.5 Terrain Markers, i.e. "overlays"). But certainly there aren't any provisions for bypass movement and such, and I'm sure the main reason is to avoid unnecessary complication.
The grognad in me keeps pointing out that, if buildings don't take up whole hexes, then vehicles should be able to enter & pass through building hexes. Occasionally I beat the grognad down with a stick, but he has a point!

I'm sure some abstraction would serve to create a 'bypass' rule that didn't need special counter positioning & spotting rules. The existing spotting rules assume that units in cover can be hidden until they fire - a vehicular rule would simply add that the defensive modifier to a vehicle from a building hex would be lower once spotted, in it's own forward arc. Something like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Wulf Corbett wrote:
zhredder wrote:
Based on LOS rules, buildings do not take up the whole hex (one exception: 10.5 Terrain Markers, i.e. "overlays"). But certainly there aren't any provisions for bypass movement and such, and I'm sure the main reason is to avoid unnecessary complication.
The grognad in me keeps pointing out that, if buildings don't take up whole hexes, then vehicles should be able to enter & pass through building hexes. Occasionally I beat the grognad down with a stick, but he has a point!

I'm sure some abstraction would serve to create a 'bypass' rule that didn't need special counter positioning & spotting rules. The existing spotting rules assume that units in cover can be hidden until they fire - a vehicular rule would simply add that the defensive modifier to a vehicle from a building hex would be lower once spotted, in it's own forward arc. Something like that.


I try to placate that voice by mentioning that the building might be too close together to allow the vehicle to go between them (or the TC is afraid of some unspotted loon with a Gammon bomb) and there is plenty of maneuver room on the road.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
martimer wrote:
I try to placate that voice by mentioning that the building might be too close together to allow the vehicle to go between them (or the TC is afraid of some unspotted loon with a Gammon bomb) and there is plenty of maneuver room on the road.
I agree that's perfectly reasonable, but to have it as not only the default but the mandatory situation (even if your own infantry occupy both buildings!) is unrealistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
That's why I typed 'try'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.