The -1 TEM for runway was *not* incorporated because it's an open area devoid of cover. It was incorporated because of the lack of shock absorption and increased risk of ricochet due to the nature of runway asphault. See the Runway terrain notes at the back of Chapter B.
Explain board 38. (I'm assuming this is the one with the dirt strip) Not much in the way asphalt yet equally vulnerable to a -1 TEM.
In any event, the assignation of a -1 to bridges in no way implies lineage back to either runways or boulevards. I choose to view it as a 'mini-hazardous movement modifier' rather than some foggy absorbtion/ricochet paradigm.
Again, "open areas devoid of cover" are intended to be covered by Open Ground. That is what OG is supposed to be.
sheesh...runways...boulevards, both ARE, in fact, open areas devoid of cover AND additionally typically lacking the gentle undulations in them (due, no doubt to the arrogant efforts of man to subjugate nature) considered part and parcel of "Open Ground". I hesitate to mention this, but this is the sort of rationale that has morphed into nearly (over 60, if you count Jay's parallel thread) pages. I shouldn't have to defend or define terrain features. The features mentioned above, as well as bridges of all makes, are features that infantry usually fear to tread; they
cross them rather than occupy them. A bridge conveniently offers the defender of it
one single exit point from it AND a rather confined area
upon it. The TEM reflects this rather nicely; subtle and elegant.
Using logical reason, there is no speculation to the fact bridge scenario balance will be altered in a (currently) unknown way due to this rule change. The change doesn't justify discarding previous ROAR knowledge for no improvement in game play.
I
don't think it should be discarded out of hand, I also don't think it should used as The Golden Rule, either. Whatever side of the fence one may find themselves, the simple fact remains that the TEM
will have an effect on play. On this we agree. Where we part is in the extent of the effect. I do not feel there will be a sea change requiring the pre- and post errata era. Whatever the range of movement, I feel the game will adapt and be better for it.
The "many variables" is a "straw man" argument. .
I find it humourous that when the "straw man" makes his appearance, it is usually to dismiss a point one finds inconvenient to address.
Just because there are many random elements which determine the final results of an ASL scenario doesn't mean there isn't a monitorable statistical effect to ultimate scenario balance which can be traced to the -1 bridge TEM (particularly with respect to Resid. Fire). This -1 TEM will alter the statistics of bridge crossing scenarios; there is no doubt about that
Are we to presume that the very next playing of Urban Guerillas resulting in a German win is strictly attributable to J7? The presence or absence of a single TEM, modifier, low/high DR at the right/wrong time does not subvert the viability of ASL in any way. Balance, whatever that really is, cannot be solely compromised by the TEM of a single hex. There is no way I am going to even attempt to present a list of things that would ameliorate, negate, heighten or in any other way effect the outcome of a scenario beyond a mere -1 TEM. Perhaps if I had to choose a single one, it would be time. If forced to rush a bridge before the defenders were suppressed or the crossing hindered in some way, the additional -1 is going to be a b*tch, no doubt. But, everyone being aware of the TEM means that not only will the defender be aware of this, but the attacker will as well and will be proactive in his efforts ahead of any contact with the feature.
The knee-jerk reaction is most certainly going to be that every bridge scenario playing reported is going to be scrutinised through the prism of the bridge TEM
only, whether or not it was a major factor in the outcome or not. How is that in any way "monitorable" absent a definitive statement (which, coincidentally, ROAR lacks) regarding the TEM from one or both players? Is every bridge scenario suddenly captive to the odious effects of this TEM
solely? Are they beholden not to superior play or any other aspect of ASL perhaps owing existence to hay? I don't think so.
Ultimately the TEM is just another ASL factor to deal with and minimise.
Perhaps you should take some time in your novella contribution to actually justify support for the -1 TEM rule change, instead of just building counter-arguments against its resistance.
Perhaps
you should check back a bit; I have done this. It is difficult to do so when apparently, it is ignored in the noise.
Though, through counter-
points, highlighting misleading claims, errors or asking for content rather than emotion or slant, one can see the seeds of the support; one needs but to open one's eyes.
Seems like most who have accepted it have been doing so based on biased interpretations of reality arguments,
Upthread, I made a point based on the 'reality' versus 'abstraction' relation. It is still relevant to the discussion. Yet, conversely, those who oppose it choose to either acknowledge the reality of that particular point, usually just before dismissing it out of hand, or reach for the abstraction/effect rejoinder before claiming balance will be irreparably altered in one direction. (note the use of "usually" before taking aim).
Yet, stating the above quoted passage as such, implies it to be almost a dirty thing, a thing to be ashamed of. If you understand the symbiotic relationship between 'reality' and 'abstraction', you will realise it is not an insult to be in either camp and that they share the same ground.
biased acceptance of which is the most correct source of the bridge TEM rules,
Not true,
both sides have acknowledged the ambiguity of the chart and rules, prior Q&A and pre- and post ASLRBv2 applicibility. This discussion has, for the most part, revolved
civilly around the perceived reach of the TEM, not such trivial matters such as which part of the RB is more correct than the other. The chance that the TEM was a considered modification to the system has also been acknowledged, however grudgingly or (un-)likely some may feel it to be. The effect on
existing scenarios, too, has been debated, with far more varied opinions on this particular aspect.
At this stage of the discussion, having laid out my personal reasons
for the TEM, the natural progression is to counter points I feel in error, misleading, gross simplifications or out of context. I have also made a point to note those points I feel valid or well-made, whether I agree with them or not. To acknowledge the contrarian view is to strengthen one's own point; dismissing it simply because they dare differ lays bare the weakness of one's argument.
and "because Perry is the never-can-do-wrong rules God"
I have to assume you have come late into this thread, because this particular horse has already been ridden into the ground. I can assure you, noone has chosen to pin their tail on the infallibility of Perry, however careful he has shown to be in the past. Yet, I find no shame in stating my respect for Perry in any event...
