A12.15 Searching and "ASL Physics"

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,045
Reaction score
916
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
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.
Yeah, one style that peeves me is the dread deploy every 1/2 squad in the counter mix, lol. The lads should fight as squads ! It’s called A ‘S’ L. That’s ok though because I have a counter style called CC.
Oh, back on topic: searching=not good but sometimes nessasary.
My bad on the no mop up. Just trying to brain storm for you.
 
Last edited:

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
418
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
My bad on the no mop up. Just trying to brain storm for you.
No worries...heck the brain storms this game has caused to all of us over the years is another reason I will never quit playing it...LOL
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,045
Reaction score
916
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
No worries...heck the brain storms this game has caused to all of us over the years is another reason I will never quit playing it...LOL
One cool thing about Champaign games is the strategy level is way improved so before every scenario look afresh at the overall big picture and think like a General instead of a major.
 

cwillmer

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
12
Location
ct
Country
llUnited States
I chose the 2nd level to illustrate the point that, per A 12.152, the searching unit can be in any location and search all accessible hexes whether or not he can access any of them. In my example there are 6 accessible hexes to the 467 containing 21 locations. Kinda absurd that all of them can be searched at one time by one MMC.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
992
Reaction score
212
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
IMO (based on index definitions)
Accessible = ADJACENT but without LOS stipulation... a unit in a foxhole, a unit in a second foxhole, and there's a wall between them. These units are in Accessible (& adjacent non-ADJACENT) locations.

I chose the 2nd level to illustrate the point that, per A 12.152, the searching unit can be in any location and search all accessible hexes whether or not he can access any of them.
But doesn't A12.152 say the hexes must be accessible!? It does. And a simple interpretation of the rule (using the definitions in the index and applying them to hexes in A12.152 would be that one location in the searched hex must be accessible to the searching unit. The searching unit could hypothetically advance into it. If one location is accessible, the hex is accessible.


By what definition of Accessible are non-continuous upper-level building hexes Accessible to the searching unit? What definition of Acessible could you even hypothetically be working with? As I see it, there isn't one. You've defined accessible as undefined... and then said therefore it's a broken rule (absurd indeed) that allows you to search ANYTHING from ANYWHERE. If accessible is as mysterious and ill-defined as you think... where in A12.152 does it say the 'accessible' hexes even be nearby?

I agree Search is powerful. It's powerful when used as written with a rather uncontroversial definition of accessible. And it definitely doesn't work like you think it does. The rules isn't that broken.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
573
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
But them why not just say one Location in the hex that is ADJACENT?
ADJACENT requires LOS, IIRC. Accessible means that you can Advance into it regardless of whether you can see into it.

(edit) Pyth ninja'd me!
 

cwillmer

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
45
Reaction score
12
Location
ct
Country
llUnited States
An Accesible hex is one that is adjacent not ADJACENT. IMO the operative word in the definition of accessible is "hypothetical". It does not state that the hex must be accessible to the unit in question.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
573
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
An Accesible hex is one that is adjacent not ADJACENT. IMO the operative word in the definition of accessible is "hypothetical". It does not state that the hex must be accessible to the unit in question.
I suspect you'll just have to send in a email to the official Q&A otherwise this thread will just run in circles.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
992
Reaction score
212
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
An Accesible hex is one that is adjacent not ADJACENT. IMO the operative word in the definition of accessible is "hypothetical". It does not state that the hex must be accessible to the unit in question.
Yes a q&a should do it. Despite my bluster it is possible you are right. I get the "hypothetical" quandry but ASLRB uses "hypothetical" elsewhere and not the way you are. (See Routing, open ground and any hypothetical interdictor.)

FWIW the main point of your post has been lost in the 'accessible' issue --

Search is arguably a bit over-powered in an urban setting with lots of 2 level buildings and fortified basements about. If you'd put your guy on ground level you'd have the same searchable location tally you gave for the search unit at level 2 without an argument. It is a bit much. But I think CT knudsen had it right way back in his original reply.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
622
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
An Accesible hex is one that is adjacent not ADJACENT. IMO the operative word in the definition of accessible is "hypothetical". It does not state that the hex must be accessible to the unit in question.
I suppose one could use the word "Accessible" as a basic adjective: "the hex is Accessible," meaning simply that it is possible (somehow) to enter that hex. But surely the rule means to say something more specific than that. What the rule implies is that the searched hexes must Accessible By something. As I said above, that "something" must be the searching unit. Under A12.152, it is the searching unit(s) that must be able to Access a Location in order to search that Location's hex. The searching units are the subject of the paragraph:

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.​
This chimes well with the definition of an "Accessible Location" which also requires reference to some hypothetical unit in order to make sense:

Accessible (an adjacent Location which a hypothetical Infantry Unit could -- ignoring any enemy presence -- advance into under normal APh conditions).​
Again, the Location isn't simply "Accessible," it is Accessible By some hypothetical unit. Rather than being the "operative word," the use of "hypothetical" here is irrelevant - there must be a unit in order for a search to take place! So reread the definition in context:

Accessible (an adjacent Location which [the searching Infantry Unit] could -- ignoring any enemy presence -- advance into under normal APh conditions).​

The term "Accessible hexes" (which the RB doesn't define) is likely chosen (in A12.152) because a search will reveal the entire hex, even though only one Location needs to be "Accessible" to the unit. But zgrose has it right. A question to Perry should do the trick.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
395
Reaction score
256
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
OTOH, the rule could be written that way solely to exclude hexes that could not be prospectively advanced into even from ground level, ie up/down a cliff, into a deep stream, into a water obstacle, that sort of thing.

The distinction in terms of LOS between ADJACENT and accessible is interesting, and it's clear that this definition was created to stop someone saying a search could not happen because a given location can be advanced into but is not in LOS, and therefore may not be searched. I'm struggling to think if a situation in which you would have an accessible but not ADJACENT location (outside of dealing with a pillbox), but I'm sure there must be one that I am not thinking of.

I'm merely playing the Devil's advocate here, and I'm interested to see what Perry comes back with - after the dust has settled from Winter Offensive, of course!
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,080
Reaction score
1,662
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
OTOH, the rule could be written that way solely to exclude hexes that could not be prospectively advanced into even from ground level, ie up/down a cliff, into a deep stream, into a water obstacle, that sort of thing.

The distinction in terms of LOS between ADJACENT and accessible is interesting, and it's clear that this definition was created to stop someone saying a search could not happen because a given location can be advanced into but is not in LOS, and therefore may not be searched. I'm struggling to think if a situation in which you would have an accessible but not ADJACENT location (outside of dealing with a pillbox), but I'm sure there must be one that I am not thinking of.

I'm merely playing the Devil's advocate here, and I'm interested to see what Perry comes back with - after the dust has settled from Winter Offensive, of course!
The one that seems most likely is mentioned in the definition of "accessible", Caves (G11.6).
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,332
Reaction score
2,810
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
OTOH, the rule could be written that way solely to exclude hexes that could not be prospectively advanced into even from ground level, ie up/down a cliff, into a deep stream, into a water obstacle, that sort of thing.

The distinction in terms of LOS between ADJACENT and accessible is interesting, and it's clear that this definition was created to stop someone saying a search could not happen because a given location can be advanced into but is not in LOS, and therefore may not be searched. I'm struggling to think if a situation in which you would have an accessible but not ADJACENT location (outside of dealing with a pillbox), but I'm sure there must be one that I am not thinking of.
Two adjacent gully hexes not connected by a gully hexside.
 

labelcd6

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
9
Country
llUnited States
Again, I think what the rules are trying to allow is a unit to search an ADJACENT building location and its upper (and lower) locations (adjacent).

If no locations of the hex are ADJACENT to the unit, then the unit cannot search the hex.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,658
Reaction score
2,190
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I would like a definition of an "Accessible hex".
Such as: "A hex is Accessible from another hex, if at least one of its Locations is Accessible from at least one Location of that other hex".
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
622
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I would like a definition of an "Accessible hex".
Such as: "A hex is Accessible from another hex, if at least one of its Locations is Accessible from at least one Location of that other hex".
I think that's just it. There is no such term. The term is Accessible, and only Locations are defined as being Accessible. I think the word hex was used simply because you can only search any Accessible Location, but doing so will reveal the entire hex.

I see the confusion, but this really seems more realistic and likely. As it is, you can reveal a lot with a good dr. At least the rule (as I interpret it) requires that you position your Searchers in an optimal way (i.e., not in a Steeple, on the wrong side of a cliff, or beneath the board 50 Bridge! ;)).
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,899
Reaction score
679
Location
New Baltimore, MI
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.

View attachment 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

Think of it this way and may become more acceptable: The unit is supposed to be about ten men, the SL says "Gruber and Schmidt, get your asses over to N43 and see what is there. Klink and Schultz, you two check out O43. Klein and Schwarz, you guys take a look at O42. The rest of us will stay here and hold the fort. Now go you turds and hurry up and get back..." Or, if you think that takes up too much time he could have given the orderas they moved to the building: ...The rest of use will go upstairs, meet us there."

It works for me. We don't know, nor do we care, how the squad carried out its mission; we care about the results.
 
Top