A12.15 Searching and "ASL Physics"

cwillmer

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
16
Location
ct
Country
llUnited States
My long-time campaign game opponent Jim, has become very fond of searching. He runs half-nuts, crews, and the occasional squad from place to place and looks into all the nooks and cranny's on the VotG map. It's annoying, actually very annoying.

We've had a number of discussions about the oddities in the search mechanics. Kinda reality versus the rules.

For example, in the situation below the 467 in N42 will attempt to search in it's MPh.

11607

Per A12.152 he could, based on the die roll, search O42, O43, and N43 as these are Accessible hexes. The index defines Accessible as "An adjacent location which a hypothetical Infantry unit could - ignoring any enemy presence - advance into under normal AFPh conditions." A12.152 further states that "All Searched hexes (including all above-ground locations in those hexes) automatically reveal their contents, including the prescence of minefields (but not their type or strength) and Fortified Buildings. All enemy concealed units revealed lose their "?" (or if hidden are placed on board with a "?")."

The 467 cannot "access" any of the searched hexes let alone all of the locations in those hexes yet ALL enemy units, fortified buildings, set DCs, minefields etc. are discovered be they in the Cellar, at ground level, or at levels 1 or 2.

I've cited the rules and understand them as written but it does beg (or bugger) reality.

Thoughts?

Charlie
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
455
Reaction score
331
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
It's a mechanic, I find that once I discarded the notion that game turns are a hard 2 minutes, it didn't bother me. It is necessary once you have the combination of the possibility of HIP and limited turns. If it were that you could only search ADJACENT locations, searching would take forever, and wouldn't be effective. Eventually he'll get sick of losing guys thru search casualties.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,161
Reaction score
2,571
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Eventually he'll get sick of losing guys thru search casualties.
And TI units don't advance during APh.
Searching is useful, but not always a good tactic - not speaking of a bad search dr.
All depends the situation - and if you are bunching all concealed/HIP within a one hex circle, you would adapt your setup.
Nothing prevents, either from firing at the potential searching unit with one defender, if you feel that it could strip many concealed ones...
 

labelcd6

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
79
Reaction score
12
Location
Kentucky, United States
First name
Carl
Country
llUnited States
Noob chiming in here: seems to me that the unit in the example could only search the floor directly below. I get it that O43 is adjacent (not ADJACENT), but it seems that the rule is written for the example of a unit on ground level searching and starting in the ground level funding units in all floors, not the example given, where a unit on lvl 2 goes downstairs and then searches an entire adjacent hex.

I'd there any errata to support the interpretation you all gave?
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,161
Reaction score
2,571
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The problem is that the "Accessible" Index definition is about Locations that can be reached by an advance during the APh, but that Searching is about Accessible hexes, which aren't defined anywhere.

A Location in a hex adjacent to a unit at level 1 or 2 of a building is not in an accessible Location (no possible advance during APh between them).

But is the hex accessible?
I don't know.
 

A_T_Great

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
404
Reaction score
227
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
Noob chiming in here: seems to me that the unit in the example could only search the floor directly below. I get it that O43 is adjacent (not ADJACENT), but it seems that the rule is written for the example of a unit on ground level searching and starting in the ground level funding units in all floors, not the example given, where a unit on lvl 2 goes downstairs and then searches an entire adjacent hex.

I'd there any errata to support the interpretation you all gave?
I agree, the only accessible hexes are M42 and if it is connected to the occupied hex, N41. This infantry unit in it's present location could not advance into any other hex, so they are not accessible.
 

A_T_Great

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
404
Reaction score
227
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
The problem is that the "Accessible" Index definition is about Locations that can be reached by an advance during the APh, but that Searching is about Accessible hexes, which aren't defined anywhere.

A Location in a hex adjacent to a unit at level 1 or 2 of a building is not in an accessible Location (no possible advance during APh between them).

But is the hex accessible?
I don't know.
The definition of Accessible, is in the index.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
792
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I guess the problem folks are seeing is whether the rule means that searchable Locations must be Accessible to the searching unit or simply to the searchers' hex. To me, only the former interpretation makes any sense, since the vast majority of hexes are, in some way, Accessible to any adjacent hex.

More specifically, the use of the term "Accessible hex" is, on both occasions, in reference to the hex being searched. So I assume it makes the most sense to define an Accessible hex as "a hex in which at least one Location is Accessible to the unit/Location in question."

A12.152 SEARCHING: As each Good Order Infantry/Cavalry MMC, or moving stack that contains ≥ one MMC, ends its move it may attempt to reveal concealed enemy units (/Minefields; 12.33) in Accessible hexes....The Final dr indicates the number of Accessible hexes other than its own of the ATTACKER's choice which the unit/stack may not Search.​
So in the OP, I believe the searching unit has fairly limited search potential. As for the realism of search results, I believe others have already hit the nail on the head. It is a game mechanic which, I think, pretty-well balances risk, waste, and reward to simulate a force's realistic potential to scout. It's time consuming and dangerous, so without a fairly easy chance to have fast results, it would hardly be worth doing - especially in a typical scenario with fewer than 10 turns.
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,161
Reaction score
2,571
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The definition of Accessible, is in the index.
What I explained.
But the definition is about Locations, while the Search rule is about Accessible hexes.
Do you get my point now?
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,436
Reaction score
460
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
My long-time campaign game opponent Jim...
Hi Charlie... :)

...has become very fond of searching. He runs half-nuts, crews, and the occasional squad from place to place and looks into all the nooks and cranny's on the VotG map.
Searching is fun... 🤣

It's annoying, actually very annoying.
"It's" annoying? Or "He's" annoying? An important distinction as you well know...so don't make me pull out the Petulance Card on you...LOL
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,931
Reaction score
2,964
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
FWIW, I agree that "accessible" means "accessible" to the Searching Unit. -- jim
 

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
732
Reaction score
183
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
There are many ways to search a hex in war, like dump a belt of MG ammo in a window, followed by a grenade. That hex is clear, for now. Squads don't move one at a time in battle, fire phases aren't enforced, it's just a game.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,436
Reaction score
460
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
Bump search is safer. Use a 8-0/7-0 leader or a 1/2 squad.
Maybe it is safer...but too time consuming....especially since those are all gutted buildings which cost 3MF to enter each Location. Just using Charlie's map pic as an example...I count 54 Locations in that VotG city block alone.

As the German I cannot leave that many Locations unchecked due to the possibility of a HIP unit that could pop up at an inopportune time to advance into my stack of 3 broken units and a 9-1 leader as they sit in their "2 hexes behind the front line" rally point.

Also...as Charlie well knows...HIP DCs in VotG can be an absolute manpower killer. I think the last time he was the Russian and pushed the plunger on one I lost 3-4 squads, a leader or two and some SWs due to the rubbling of a multi-level building.

So why am I so concerned about this stuff...because I've been the Russian several times against Charlie and I've done all that stuff to him...LOL
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,333
Reaction score
1,262
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Maybe it is safer...but too time consuming....especially since those are all gutted buildings which cost 3MF to enter each Location. Just using Charlie's map pic as an example...I count 54 Locations in that VotG city block alone.

As the German I cannot leave that many Locations unchecked due to the possibility of a HIP unit that could pop up at an inopportune time to advance into my stack of 3 broken units and a 9-1 leader as they sit in their "2 hexes behind the front line" rally point.

Also...as Charlie well knows...HIP DCs in VotG can be an absolute manpower killer. I think the last time he was the Russian and pushed the plunger on one I lost 3-4 squads, a leader or two and some SWs due to the rubbling of a multi-level building.

So why am I so concerned about this stuff...because I've been the Russian several times against Charlie and I've done all that stuff to him...LOL
Everybody has a style, which is one of the great things about ASL. Maybe use ‘mop up’ more often, I’ve probably only done it once or twice but is is in the bag of trIckes.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,436
Reaction score
460
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
Everybody has a style, which is one of the great things about ASL. Maybe use ‘mop up’ more often, I’ve probably only done it once or twice but is is in the bag of trIckes.
Alas...No Quarter in is effect in VotG so no Mopping Up...but I agree personal style is one of the great things about ASL.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
752
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Doesn't VotG have systematic No Quarter? RB does. This means Mopping Up is not an option.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
455
Reaction score
331
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
There is an older Q&A that states the fol:

A12.152 Can Searching reveal the contents of Locations that are not Accessible?
A. Yes, as long as one Location in the hex is Accessible. [J1; Mw]

I am tempted by this to think that A_T_Great might have the right of it, as there are several hexes in the example above which are not accessible to the searching unit at the moment he declares the search. But them why not just say one Location in the hex that is ADJACENT?

Unfortunately the question's poser didn't add "...to the searching unit at the moment it declares the search." to the question. But to read it otherwise begs the question accessible to what? If I am interpreting the Q&A correctly, it seems that searching should be reserved for units on the ground floor only, as were the searching unit on the ground floor, it could search all the locations in any adjacent hex.

I hate to re-hash Q&A, but maybe this is worth sending in another Q&A for?
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,436
Reaction score
460
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
There is an older Q&A that states the fol:

A12.152 Can Searching reveal the contents of Locations that are not Accessible?
A. Yes, as long as one Location in the hex is Accessible. [J1; Mw]

I am tempted by this to think that A_T_Great might have the right of it, as there are several hexes in the example above which are not accessible to the searching unit at the moment he declares the search. But them why not just say one Location in the hex that is ADJACENT?

Unfortunately the question's poser didn't add "...to the searching unit at the moment it declares the search." to the question. But to read it otherwise begs the question accessible to what? If I am interpreting the Q&A correctly, it seems that searching should be reserved for units on the ground floor only, as were the searching unit on the ground floor, it could search all the locations in any adjacent hex.

I hate to re-hash Q&A, but maybe this is worth sending in another Q&A for?
I'm thinking my opponent was using a hypothetical searcher on the 2nd level to make his point...as I don't ever recall searching from up there.

With that said...I would have zero problem if they were to make it a rule that the searcher had to be at ground level.
 
Top