2nd Ed RB, Errata, B10.1 and Journal 10 'Umpire's View'

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
97
Location
In my castle by the sea, Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
Having caught up on my Journal reading to J10, I read pages 3 and 32 as stating that trees no longer float.

To be honest the group I usually game with never used floating trees to block LOS but other may have had other experiences.

Is this now the official interpretation of B10.1? - "Trees Don't Float"
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,292
Reaction score
5,374
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Having caught up on my Journal reading to J10, I read pages 3 and 32 as stating that trees no longer float.

To be honest the group I usually game with never used floating trees to block LOS but other may have had other experiences.

Is this now the official interpretation of B10.1? - "Trees Don't Float"
As far as I know that is the rule since at least ASLRB v2, regardless of J10. Trees and other non-inherent terrain do not float. B10.1 says that with non-inherent terrain (buildings, woods, grain, brush, etc), the terrain rises from the upper level of the hex, i.e. the crest line conforms to the outline of that non-inherent terrain, even if the visible parts of the crest line seem to suggest otherwise.

The change in J10 was an optional rule that let players try to determine where the crest line really runs. If you are playing standard rules, all non-inherent terrain is at the upper level. If you are playing the optional rule, you can try to figure out where the crest line runs then it is not visible. For grain, woods, etc this produces reasonable results. For buildings this optional variant introduces its own strangeness.

JR
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
908
Reaction score
187
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
This recent thread discusses exactly the issue you refer to. I personally think this is a good place for a house rule, at least between regular opponents... My proposed house rule: when a crest line isn't visible through terrain depiction always use the implied crest-line and if the LOS can't be resolved satisfactorily to both parties roll a die 50/50. In face to face play I usually (um, always) play with maps beneath a thin sheet of acrylic... and I like to make liberal use of dry erase markers and grease pencils to annotate the map (eg EXIT HERE)... it occurs to me in casual games opponents could draw the implied crest line on the acrylic before the los check (if you can find suitably thin markers) -- just a thought, seems like it might be fun... I've never tried it, but may experiment.

Ahhh... ninja'd by JRV... yes the point about building strangeness deserves attention imo.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
908
Reaction score
187
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
@jrv... yes it's an optional rule, but it's encouraged....

Chapter B Footnote 3A.

10.1 HILLS: In addition to having visible Crest Lines beneath some terrain, newer boards are much better at depicting where Crest Lines actually are by using gaps in the terrain. In many areas of these boards, most players will be able to agree on where the Crest Lines actually are underneath the other terrain of grain, brush, woods, or buildings even without visible Crest Lines. When players can so agree, we encourage them to use the actual Crest Lines to determine LOS.
 

The Purist

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
97
Location
In my castle by the sea, Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
Cheers for the responses. I believe we will likely keep going with the 'reasonable' assumption that unseen crest lines follow a 'reasonable' line similar to the rest of the hill's visible crests.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,292
Reaction score
5,374
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
@jrv... yes it's an optional rule, but it's encouraged....

Chapter B Footnote 3A.

10.1 HILLS: In addition to having visible Crest Lines beneath some terrain, newer boards are much better at depicting where Crest Lines actually are by using gaps in the terrain. In many areas of these boards, most players will be able to agree on where the Crest Lines actually are underneath the other terrain of grain, brush, woods, or buildings even without visible Crest Lines. When players can so agree, we encourage them to use the actual Crest Lines to determine LOS.
It says "when players can so agree." I disagree.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,292
Reaction score
5,374
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Well then I'm not even gonna try to convince you to draw pretty crest lines on the acrylic... no crayons for you!👨‍🎨🖍
If I'm drawing then the crest line goes from this hex into these next three hexes. That's obviously the intention.

If I am going to play footnote 3a, draw a straight line from the two visible ends of the crest line. There's no curve in the invisible part. I don't see how else you could play it.

JR
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
908
Reaction score
187
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Any three hexes it would be convenient for me to have a crest line in. It will vary with the scenario and the turn.
Are you saying you'd game the contour line unreasonably to commonsense but within the letter of the house rule law? or saying something else? Sorry if I'm being dense I just want to make sure I get your meaning correctly. If I do have your meaning correctly about gaming the rule to your advantage, then I concur entirely it's not a 'house rule' you'd want to implement. It isn't meant to be gamed. In the thread I linked to in this thread theres a pic illustrating the OP's question. In that illustration I think the the slightly curved crest lines running beneath the bamboo are well implied and could be drawn reasonably by someone acting in good faith. Good faith being an implied prerequisite for the use of this kind of house rule.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,153
Reaction score
2,634
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Note also that newer boards now usuaully depict the Crest Line above woods, brush, grain....so the EXC in B10.1 kicks in.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
908
Reaction score
187
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Me thinks some of JR posts are missing some :)...
Sure. But I don't think he's just kidding about disliking the invisible crest line rule (or better termed; policy) and I think I get it -- that sort of thing is antithetical to a tight competitive rule set, is a kind of flaw. Why add that kind of blemish when there's already an estsblished rule that avoids it?
I personally think the reasons for the new crestline rule outweigh the cons but reasonable people can definitely disagree... and perhaps new boards will make it all academic... now let's talk about the need for precision-width counters for measuring vehicular bypass ;)
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,153
Reaction score
2,634
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Sure. But I don't think he's just kidding about disliking the invisible crest line rule (or better termed; policy) and I think I get it -- that sort of thing is antithetical to a tight competitive rule set, is a kind of flaw. Why add that kind of blemish when there's already an estsblished rule that avoids it?
Well, in the rulebook it is only added as a "suggestion" in a footnote - which is fine, IMO. Personally I would not use it - I would play as B10.1 specifies when there is no visible Crest Line, since it avoids the "guessing/speculating/arguing" of where the Crest Line should-be/is.


I personally think the reasons for the new crestline rule outweigh the cons but reasonable people can definitely disagree... and perhaps new boards will make it all academic... now let's talk about the need for precision-width counters for measuring vehicular bypass ;)
The "new" part of the rule is (IMO) only handling the new boards where the Crest Line is above the woods/brush/grain/whatever art.
 
Top