A23.7-.71 Set DC from the Location under a Bridge

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Hi all,
A debate on the French forum asks the following question:
A23.71 speaks of a Set DC "destroying a bridge hex", so may it be set by a unit under the Bridge?
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I believe so. The rule twice refers to how a set DC can destroy a Bridge in that hex including one sentence that also refers to a specific building level:

A23.71: ...A Final KIA result on a Set DC attack results in the destruction of any bridge or affected building level in that hex (see Rubble, B24.11).​

I find the mention of some "affected building level" telling since it implies a distinction: that a set DC directly affects any Bridge in the hex, but only the specific Building Level it is set in.

It think this makes sense. You would most likely set a DC under the Bridge, so while in the Location beneath (where a unit would have to spend all of its MFs to set it).
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Well, most of the time, you set demolition charges from upon the bridge - of course under its surface - rather than scale its pillars.
If you are right, a unit in the board 50 stream can place the DC on the bridge spanning it two levels higher.
Seems wrong to me - barring the usual "ASL physics" possibility.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Well, most of the time, you set demolition charges from upon the bridge - of course under its surface - rather than scale its pillars.
If you are right, a unit in the board 50 stream can place the DC on the bridge spanning it two levels higher.
Seems wrong to me - barring the usual "ASL physics" possibility.
Yeah. If the rule does play as I suggested, there should really be an exception for the board 50 bridge (which didn't exist when the rule was written)!

EDIT: Oops! No issue with board 50! See below.? .... should have looked at it first!
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I seem to remember that there was a discussion, where the bridge on board 50 actually was considered at level 0, even if the two hexes with which it is connected are level 1 - so my example may be wrong.
That said, placing a DC from under a bridge would require some scaling capacity...
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I seem to remember that there was a discussion, where the bridge on board 50 actually was considered at level 0, even if the two hexes with which it is connected are level 1 - so my example may be wrong.
That said, placing a DC from under a bridge would require some scaling capacity...
Now that I look at the bridge in question (50V5) this must be true. The Level 1 road descends down to the Level 0 bridge then back up to Level 1 on the other side. Here's the previous thread.

But I still tend to think that the DC can be set from either Location. Did you send for a Q&A?
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
My only thought is that, assuming it is ok to set the DC IN the depression to blow up a bridge, the unit firing the DC would have to have LOS INTO the depression to see the DC. That right there reduces the times that the tactic would be useful because the unit also has to be two hexes away.

JR
 

phlegm027

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
234
Reaction score
368
Location
Vernon. NJ
Well, most of the time, you set demolition charges from upon the bridge - of course under its surface - rather than scale its pillars.
If you are right, a unit in the board 50 stream can place the DC on the bridge spanning it two levels higher.
Seems wrong to me - barring the usual "ASL physics" possibility.
Where’s the bridge supported? Unit under the bridge have access to the supports of a bridge?
‘if it’s an engineer setting it, then they probably would be able to get a DC planted somewhere on the bridge.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,364
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Given you can only set a DC in your location, A23.7, I'm not certain any DC set in the location below the bridge woukd make an attack ON the bridge location to affect it.
I thinkmthe EXC in B6.33 is an exception to the modifiers not an exception to the fact the bridge location must be targeted.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Given you can only set a DC in your location, A23.7, I'm not certain any DC set in the location below the bridge woukd make an attack ON the bridge location to affect it.
I thinkmthe EXC in B6.33 is an exception to the modifiers not an exception to the fact the bridge location must be targeted.
The debate here is that the rule states that the DC is set in the bridge's hex, not in its Location.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,364
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
A Final KIA result on a Set DC attack results in the destruction of any bridge or affected building level in that hex
This part?

This is overridden by the section from the bridge chapter.
The same Original DR used on the IFT to resolve attacks against units on the bridge is used against the bridge itself by adding a +3 TEM for a stone bridge, or a +2 TEM for a wooden bridge, or a +1 TEM for a pontoon bridge (+2 TEM if underwater) [EXC: Set DC; A23.71
This shows that the attack must be against the bridge location.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
A Final KIA result on a Set DC attack results in the destruction of any bridge or affected building level in that hex
This part?

This is overridden by the section from the bridge chapter.
The same Original DR used on the IFT to resolve attacks against units on the bridge is used against the bridge itself by adding a +3 TEM for a stone bridge, or a +2 TEM for a wooden bridge, or a +1 TEM for a pontoon bridge (+2 TEM if underwater) [EXC: Set DC; A23.71
This shows that the attack must be against the bridge location.
It is not clear.
B6.33 is about HE attacks vs. units on the bridge, which is a per Location resolution (even with ATT) and of the quasi-collateral effects vs the Bridge.
The set DC exception indicated points to the fact that a -3 DRM is applied: it is a quite different attack than a placed DC ("A Set DC which detonates without destroying a bridge hex has no effect on units on or beneath the bridge. "), I think that the rule doesn't require that the DC were placed in the Bridge Location (even though I would like that it did).
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
220
Reaction score
147
Location
Paris area
Country
llFrance
This is overridden by the section from the bridge chapter.
(...)
This shows that the attack must be against the bridge location.
I think that too ; the EXC about A23.71 is to remind that -3 DRM and that if it does not destroy the bridge, nothing happen to the units there. Nothing else.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
"A Set DC which detonates without destroying a bridge hex has no effect on units on or beneath the bridge."
Seems a bit odd though that a Set DC beneath a bridge that does not destroy the bridge does not affect any other units beneath the bridge. The DC could even have been Set for a reason other than to attack the bridge.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I would expect an erratum which makes the rule state that the DC must be set in the bridge's Location, if it is meant to destroy the bridge...
 
Top