AT ditches allowed across RB RR?

mkernan

Recruit
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Kodiak, Alaska
Country
llUnited States
Greetings,

Just got my partners set up for RB. He has an AT dirch across the RR. Is that ok? If so what RB rules sections cover it?

The RR section in the rule book state no entrenching on a RR... but that was written after RB came out.

If it's legal- it's legal I'm fine with that.

Thanks,
MArk
 

Bryan Holtby

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
67
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
If it was included in v2 of the rulebook but not v1 then it was either a Q&A or a clarification. Either way the rule stands, no entrenching.

Besides, he's crazy to spend FPP on something that is so easily bypassed IMHO :) Mines and Wire are the way to go.
 

mkernan

Recruit
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Kodiak, Alaska
Country
llUnited States
Thanks Byran,

We both will most likely make a number of mistakes. :? But that is the whole replay factor of RB.. right? :D This CG is a first time for both of us. (have played others)

IF there is a QA or erratta or clarification do you know where? He may ask.

Thanks again,
Mark
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
IF there is a QA or erratta or clarification do you know where? He may ask.
I hope you are wrong about him asking, but if he does point out that without an SSR to the contrary, the rules stand. So the burden of proof is on him if he wants to put intrenchments on the RR.

Sam
 

tearlach

Recruit
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
I am Mark's opponent and here is my case for AT's in RR hexes.

First thing is rules order (E.2) which says that "Whenever a seeming contradiction occurs between rules cases, the higher alphanumeric rule case always takes precedence...). The rule case in question is O2., it should therefore take precedence over B32.

Secondly the RR in RB is not the same as RR in B32. The RR in RB is linked to B9, that they are "treated exactly like a wall." B27.54 says that "even wire, walls or hedges have no effect on movement between connecting trenches"

While RR in RB is a hex side terrain feature, RR in B32 linked to road rules. I don't know how you apply R32 rules to RR in RB. How do you apply what are essentially road rules to walls?

Chuck
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
First thing is rules order (E.2) which says that "Whenever a seeming contradiction occurs between rules cases, the higher alphanumeric rule case always takes precedence...). The rule case in question is O2., it should therefore take precedence over B32.
OK, but where in O2 does it say that you can place entrenchments on the RR? The absence of the statement never means that you can do something.... "concentrate on what the rules allow".

I can see the reason for the question, but I think your case is weak. If you still have questions, you can send them to Perry and get an answer from MMP.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
10
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
To me its obvious that the AT ditch can be placed, and I see no reason for a Perry sez.

tearlech got it right. The RB RR has nothing in common with the B32 RR. The former is a modified wall, and thus a hexside feature, the latter is a modified road and thus a hex feature. So the hexes that have RB RR's at some hexsides may be a paved road hex, but may also be an OG hex or a shellhole hex or whatever. But none are RR hexes.

O2 says
Each hexside (including vertices) crossed by the gray and black railway depiction-but not the depiction itself (i.e., not the artwork)-is treated exactly like a wall for all purposes
.
So when looking at how the RRs affect the game, look at the wall rules, not at the B32 RR rules or paved road rules.

If Sam or anyone else still think different, then take a look at the B32 rules and tell how to apply the movement, LOS etc. rules that you find there to the RB RR.

OK, but where in O2 does it say that you can place entrenchments on the RR? The absence of the statement never means that you can do something.... "concentrate on what the rules allow".
O2 says that the RR is treated as walls - and that means that you can do everything that you can do where there is a wall - simple as that, and the rules allow trences and AT-ditches to be placed in a hex containing wall hexsides.
 

tearlach

Recruit
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
SamB said: "OK, but where in O2 does it say that you can place entrenchments on the RR?"

In B27.54 which are included by reference in O2 when O2 says RR are treated "exactly like a wall."

As to why I would use AT: to channel an attack and ease shifting of forces.

Chuck
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
559
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
To me its obvious that the AT ditch can be placed, and I see no reason for a Perry sez.

tearlech got it right. The RB RR has nothing in common with the B32 RR. The former is a modified wall, and thus a hexside feature, the latter is a modified road and thus a hex feature. So the hexes that have RB RR's at some hexsides may be a paved road hex, but may also be an OG hex or a shellhole hex or whatever. But none are RR hexes.

O2 says
Each hexside (including vertices) crossed by the gray and black railway depiction-but not the depiction itself (i.e., not the artwork)-is treated exactly like a wall for all purposes
.
So when looking at how the RRs affect the game, look at the wall rules, not at the B32 RR rules or paved road rules.

If Sam or anyone else still think different, then take a look at the B32 rules and tell how to apply the movement, LOS etc. rules that you find there to the RB RR.

OK, but where in O2 does it say that you can place entrenchments on the RR? The absence of the statement never means that you can do something.... "concentrate on what the rules allow".
O2 says that the RR is treated as walls - and that means that you can do everything that you can do where there is a wall - simple as that, and the rules allow trences and AT-ditches to be placed in a hex containing wall hexsides.
I agree with Ole. In fact, to prevent the use of AT-Ditch/Trench in an RR hex would require an errata...not just a Q&A.

I have used trenchs between the RR many times. It is great for shuttling Ruski back and forth from cellars. Consider the cost to move out of the cellar & across the RR vs moving directly from the cellar. The trench would cancel any debris costs that might be present. Also, using the trench means one can make this manuver without lossing '?' or being subject to FFNAM.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
Well, shut my mouth!

:oops:

I conclude from Ole's post (and Tater's) both of whom have more Red Barricades Experience than I that I might have been wrong.

Sam
 

Hubbs5

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
647
Reaction score
48
Location
Greeley, CO
Country
llUnited States
SamB said:
Well, shut my mouth!

:oops:

I conclude from Ole's post (and Tater's) both of whom have more Red Barricades Experience than I that I might have been wrong.

There! I can do something the President is incapable of.... :twisted:

Sam
Which President? :wink:
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
559
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Comments like this make it VERY difficult not to reply in an off-topic manner. It would be nice if we could avoid these little jabs.

There...now I have done something that the Democrats are incapable of...

...be civil...
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
Comments like this make it VERY difficult not to reply in an off-topic manner. It would be nice if we could avoid these little jabs.
You are correct. My bad. :cry:

I've deleted the off-topic part of my post. Sorry about that.
 
Top