B23.83 Rooftop Location Not Building Location ...

[aslredbarricade]

B 23.8 Rooftops are treated the same as another building floor level at the next higher half level elevation except as amended below.

B23.83 A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes

A26.14 An armed, Good Order Infantry MMC at any non-rooftop, non-subterranean level in any hex of a building can gain Control of the building; a side need not physically occupy all levels or all hexes of a building to gain Control of it as long as the conditions of A26.11 are fulfilled.

A26.11 During play, a side gains control of a <building> by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit. [EXC: subterranean units] in that same <building>.

I can interpret this two ways, and cannot decipher on my own which is correct - so I am reaching out to see if there is a clear answer.

My specific questions are as follows:
1.) "Rooftops are in play. There is a factory with a rooftop, with four rooftop access points. There are enemy units, say 10 squads, on the rooftop of this factory. Do I gain control of this factory (one that belonged to the enemy side at scenario start) if I enter a hex of the factory with a friendly unit (per A26.14) and there are no enemy units in the ground level hexes of this factory?" [The answer, for me, is NO. I interpret that the 10 squads on the factory rooftop qualify as an enemy presence per A26.11, therefore the conditions mentioned in A26.14 are not fulfilled]

2.) ITR 6 The Ceramic Factory, "MISSION: The Russians win at game end by Controlling building 20 O5 (Factory Overlay) and building 20 C8." SSR 3 states that Rooftops are in effect for Factories only." So if the Russians control the ground level locations of the two Factories, and the Germans have 50% of their initial Order of Battle, say 10 Squads, who have never left the factory since the scenario start, but have gone up the factory stairwells from the ground level to hold out up on the rooftops, who wins the scenario? I can argue this both ways. Firstly, it seems clear to me that the Russians do not Control the Building since the conditions of A26.11 are not fulfilled. There is an enemy presence. However, the Victory Condition state that the Russians must control the Factories to win. B23.83 says that "A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes." So it could be argued that for Victory Condition Purposes the German's presence on the Roof is not relevant to Russian Control for Victory. [The answer for me is unclear. The Victory Condition for the Russian is to Control the Factories. The Rooftop Location is not considered a building location for Victory Condition Purposes. But the Rooftop Location is considered a Building Location for Building Control Purposes. Perhaps for clarity the Scenario should require the Russians to Control all non-rooftop locations of the Factories to win? Or is it clear that the Russians must win, as the Victory Conditions state, by Controlling the Factories? I don't know. It makes my head hurt]

3.)ASL A103 Mayhem in Manilla. (from ASL Annual '96) Victory Conditions: "The Americans win immediately when they have at least twice as many Good Order squad equivalents as the Japanese in either building aC3 or aG2." SSR 3 "Rooftops are in Effect". Do Japanese squad equivalents on the Rooftops count in the Victory calculation ratio the Americans need to achieve a two to one and immediate victory? [My answer for this one is crystal clear - the Japanese units on the rooftops are not counted for purposes of the American ratio for achieving a win per the Victory conditions. It is clear to me, in this case, that "B23.83 A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes" applies. The Rooftop Japanese units are not counted for the Victory Condition Purposes. Does that make sense?]

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I believe you're drawing a false dichotomy. Building Control (A26.14) is a subset of Victory Conditions (A26.), so I don't think it's possible to make some of the distinctions you're making; units on Rooftops have no effect on Building Control (since it's part of Victory Conitions).

So my answers are:

1) Yes, you control the factory.

2) Looks like the Russians won.

3) The Japanese on the roof are not counted in the ratio.

Paging Dr. Malmstrom to tell me how I'm wrong...

S

 

[aslredbarricade]

Spencer,

Thanks for responding.

I rather agree with you about the victory conditions part, and can understand that argument about building control being a subset of Victory Conditions. Point well taken. I had not understood that connection before. So rooftop units cannot prevent one side or the other from accomplishing a Victory Condition, including a building-control-Victory-Condition, because they don't count for that purpose..

I tend to disagree with respect to Building Control in general, however, because of A26.11 "During play, a side gains control of a <building> by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit. [EXC: subterranean units] in that same <building>." I think that the Russians do not control the Factory, because rooftop units are not excepted, and are therefore an enemy presence in the building.

I am interested in why the only exception to this condition in A26.11 is the subterranean unit. Rooftop units are not listed as an exception. So I think that for all purposes other than Victory Conditions, the Russians do not control the factory. The rules (A26.14) seem to account for the fact that Rooftop units may not GAIN control of a building. But the rules also seem clear that a Rooftop unit prevents the other side from gaining control of a building. Note that rooftop units are disqualified in rule A26.14, but not disqualified in the conditions in rule A26.11. I think this is intentionally done. (Otherwise rooftops units would be listed as an EXC in A26.11, as they are in the later rule A26.14)

That being said, I'm not sure I can conjure up a situation in which NOT controlling a building because of rooftop units being present would make any difference since they wouldn't matter for Victory Purposes That makes me laugh. But at least my head doesn't hurt quite so much now.

Perhaps in a Campaign Game, where controlling (or not controlling) the building would very much effect the next day's possible setup locations, etc. Then it would matter that the Building was or was not controlled (not for any Victory Condition Purposes, but for setup areas and weapon recovery, and fortification removal, and perimeters, and so forth).

Thanks again.

Other considerations?

Randy

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Spencer,

Thanks for responding.

I rather agree with you about the victory conditions part, and can understand that argument about building control being a subset of Victory Conditions. Point well taken. I had not understood that connection before. So rooftop units cannot prevent one side or the other from accomplishing a Victory Condition, including a building-control-Victory-Condition, because they don't count for that purpose..

I tend to disagree with respect to Building Control in general, however, because of A26.11 "During play, a side gains control of a <building> by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit. [EXC: subterranean units] in that same <building>." I think that the Russians do not control the Factory, because rooftop units are not excepted, and are therefore an enemy presence in the building.

I am interested in why the only exception to this condition in A26.11 is the subterranean unit. Rooftop units are not listed as an exception. So I think that for all purposes other than Victory Conditions, the Russians do not control the factory. The rules (A26.14) seem to account for the fact that Rooftop units may not GAIN control of a building. But the rules also seem clear that a Rooftop unit prevents the other side from gaining control of a building. Note that rooftop units are disqualified in rule A26.14, but not disqualified in the conditions in rule A26.11. I think this is intentionally done. (Otherwise rooftops units would be listed as an EXC in A26.11, as they are in the later rule A26.14)

That being said, I'm not sure I can conjure up a situation in which NOT controlling a building because of rooftop units being present would make any difference since they wouldn't matter for Victory Purposes That makes me laugh. But at least my head doesn't hurt quite so much now.

Perhaps in a Campaign Game, where controlling (or not controlling) the building would very much effect the next day's possible setup locations, etc. Then it would matter that the Building was or was not controlled (not for any Victory Condition Purposes, but for setup areas and weapon recovery, and fortification removal, and perimeters, and so forth).

Thanks again.

Other considerations?

Randy

I still think you're making a false distinction, actually. AFAICT, there is only one "Control," and its only purpose is VC.

I think the first part of A26.11 is a statement regarding Location/hex/building control, and so the exception only includes "subterranean" because each of those concepts can include both subterannean and non-subterannean units (e.g. in a Tunnel Location for Location, hex and building are obvious), but you can't possibly have a Location with both Rooftop and non-Rooftop units in it. Also, A26.11 goes on to point you to A26.13-.14 for hex/building control, clearly indicating that A26.11 must be read in the light of A26.14 for purposes of Building Control.

Even if there is a seeming inconsistency here, it's a good interpretive principle to read the less specific (A26.11) in light of the more specific (A26.14), IMO.

So, I stand by my answers.

Hope I'm helping...

S

 

[aslredbarricade]

Your comments made me try to think of situations where Control was pertinent to some game mechanic other than Victory Conditions…

Only two quickly came to mind, that use Control rules for non Victory Point Purposes:

1.) The movement point cost to enter a vehicular factory entrance from the outside of the factory changes from 2MF to 1MF if such a location is Controlled (B23.742) by the friendly side (open ground entrance benefits). This one is often an important advantage to the DEFENDER in factory scenarios. It also lets those reinforcements cruise right to the front through the RB Factories.

2.) Also in Red Barricades, the Friendly Perimeter is positioned based on hex and building control, and can be adjusted based only on such Control of locations. This affects the specific actions I mentioned about whether one side can perform Refit actions such as weapon recovery, fortification removal, whether a unit is isolated, and most importantly of course, whether Germans and Russians can setup in such Building Locations the following Campaign Game Day.

The way I'm thinking, these would be the only rules that the Building Control vs Building-Control-For-Victory-Condition-Purposes distinction would become pertinent.

I think the cumulative authors of the rules wrote them with such a distinction in mind Otherwise, why would they bother to distinguish between "for Victory Condition Purposes" instead of just saying "for Building Control purposes" in the rooftop rules?

Randy

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Your comments made me try to think of situations where Control was pertinent to some game mechanic other than Victory Conditions…

Only two quickly came to mind, that use Control rules for non Victory Point Purposes:

1.) The movement point cost to enter a vehicular factory entrance from the outside of the factory changes from 2MF to 1MF if such a location is Controlled (B23.742) by the friendly side (open ground entrance benefits). This one is often an important advantage to the DEFENDER in factory scenarios. It also lets those reinforcements cruise right to the front through the RB Factories.

2.) Also in Red Barricades, the Friendly Perimeter is positioned based on hex and building control, and can be adjusted based only on such Control of locations. This affects the specific actions I mentioned about whether one side can perform Refit actions such as weapon recovery, fortification removal, whether a unit is isolated, and most importantly of course, whether Germans and Russians can setup in such Building Locations the following Campaign Game Day.

The way I'm thinking, these would be the only rules that the Building Control vs Building-Control-For-Victory-Condition-Purposes distinction would become pertinent.

I respectfully disagree. I only think one side can Control a Location/hex/building for any purpose. There's plenty of complexity with those three! :laugh:

I think the cumulative authors of the rules wrote them with such a distinction in mind Otherwise, why would they bother to distinguish between "for Victory Condition Purposes" instead of just saying "for Building Control purposes" in the rooftop rules?

Randy

Maybe they had already thought of Mayhem in Manila's VC or something like it? I seem to recall more "more guys in the building" and other varietal VCs in the early days.

S

 

[Fred Ingram]

I rather agree with you about the victory conditions part, and can understand that argument about building control being a subset of Victory Conditions. Point well taken. I had not understood that connection before. So rooftop units cannot prevent one side or the other from accomplishing a Victory Condition, including a building-control-Victory-Condition, because they don't count for that purpose..

I tend to disagree with respect to Building Control in general, however, because of A26.11 "During play, a side gains control of a <building> by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit. [EXC: subterranean units] in that same <building>." I think that the Russians do not control the Factory, because rooftop units are not excepted, and are therefore an enemy presence in the building.

I guess it comes down to whether units on the roof top are considered IN the building

As you said: B23.83 A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes

All 3 of your questions hinged on victory conditions and building control


you said: "I think the cumulative authors of the rules wrote them with such a distinction in mind. Otherwise, why would they bother to distinguish between "for Victory Condition Purposes" instead of just saying "for Building Control purposes" in the rooftop rules?"



If the victory conditions of the scenario do NOT involve building control, then it does not matter who is on the roof or anywhere else in the building

My opinion: For Victory Purposes (building control) - rooftop units do not constitute the "presence of enemy units in the building"

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Spencer's answers are correct. The whole "A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes..." line is what exempts the rooftops from impacting Building Control. All of the Control rules are a sub-set of the VC rules and thus we've just been told Rooftops don't count at all for building control. If it's simpler, think of the units as ON the building rather than IN it & you have to be IN the building to control it...

 

[aslredbarricade]

Bret (and Spencer and Fred),

I agreed with Spencer, and I agree with you, that Rooftops units are not going to retain control of the building for Victory Condition Purposes. Thanks to you guys, and to Fred, for sharing that understanding.

It sounds to me like "A Rooftop Location is not considered a building location for rout and Victory Condition Purposes…", in your understanding, would also cover and include the thought (admittedly, among other things) the same thing as saying "A Rooftop Location is not considered a building location for rout and building Control Purposes." Chas explained more or less the same thing to me in a private email.

The only reason I cannot wrap myself around agreeing with that line of thinking is because Rooftop units are not an exception to the exclusive sole control rule A26.11. If a Rooftop location is a building location, then those Rooftop units are a presence in a Building location and would prevent the loss of control. To fix the rule, perhaps rulebook v#3 should add the clause [EXC units on rooftop locations] to rule A26.11. I find the blanket statement "for Victory Condition Purposes" to be a confusing way of over-riding A26.11, especially because nowhere in the rules does it state that a unit on a rooftop location is not IN the building. I am of the opinion that the rules need more clarity on this point.

Bret, do you believe that the rules allow for Building Control, for any purpose other than Victory Condition related purposes? I am leaving that open as a possibility. Specifically the reduction of cost to enter a friendly controlled vehicular factory entrance. Are you of the opinion that a friendly unit in a factory controls the entire building for purposes of another unit entering a heretofore unentered hex of the same factory containing a vehicular factory entrance, despite enemy units still remaining on the roof? So enemy units on the roof would not retain control of the building, and their ground level opponents would have open ground entrance benefits for all vehicular entrances, even though they had not physically entered the hexes? It bothers me (obviously )

I understand that this line of reasoning has no effect on Victory Conditions.

I was just trying to understand why the rules were written as they were. I think that the Rooftop and Building Control Rules need work, and need clarity in rulebook version#3. Before playing my last scenario, I read all the relevant rules, and came away with a different rules interpretation that has been presented to me by you, and Spencer, and Fred. This shouldn't happen, in a well written rules set. Somebody sign me up for the next proof reading, and I'll give it a read with my twisted interpretations. I'd seriously like to be helpful in that respect.

I thank you three sincerely for sharing the correct way to interpret the rooftops and building control rules. It is much appreciated!

Randy Knight

 

[klasmalmstrom]

... Specifically the reduction of cost to enter a friendly controlled vehicular factory entrance. Are you of the opinion that a friendly unit in a factory controls the entire building for purposes of another unit entering a heretofore unentered hex of the same factory containing a vehicular factory entrance, despite enemy units still remaining on the roof? So enemy units on the roof would not retain control of the building, and their ground level opponents would have open ground entrance benefits for all vehicular entrances, even though they had not physically entered the hexes? It bothers me (obviously )

Whether or not you can use the reduced entry cost of a vehicular-sized-entrance depends on whether you Control that particular hex or not - who Controls that building doesn't matter.

B23.742:
"...[EXC: Any vehicle may enter/exit a Factory Location containing a printed stairwell symbol or across a road hexside at Open Ground costs provided the hex is controlled by friendly forces (the stairwell symbol in this case representing a vehicular-sized entrance)]..."

And in order to gain Control of a hex you need (as per A26.13): "..an armed Good Order Infantry MMC at ground level can gain Control of the hex it occupies..." and it will gain Control of the hex if (as per A26.11): "...During play, a side gains Control of a Location/hex/building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit [EXC: subterranean units] in that same Location/hex/building (see also 26.13-.14 for hex/building Control)...."

So (as far as I can see) an enemy unit on the roof is still in the same hex, so it will deny Control of the hex.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Whether or not you can use the reduced entry cost of a vehicular-sized-entrance depends on whether you Control that particular hex or not - who Controls that building doesn't matter.

B23.742:
"...[EXC: Any vehicle may enter/exit a Factory Location containing a printed stairwell symbol or across a road hexside at Open Ground costs provided the hex is controlled by friendly forces (the stairwell symbol in this case representing a vehicular-sized entrance)]..."

And in order to gain Control of a hex you need (as per A26.13): "..an armed Good Order Infantry MMC at ground level can gain Control of the hex it occupies..." and it will gain Control of the hex if (as per A26.11): "...During play, a side gains Control of a Location/hex/building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit [EXC: subterranean units] in that same Location/hex/building (see also 26.13-.14 for hex/building Control)...."

So (as far as I can see) an enemy unit on the roof is still in the same hex, so it will deny Control of the hex.

Yeah, I think you're right. That is interesting.

S

 

[aslredbarricade]

Klas states: "So (as far as I can see) an enemy unit on the roof is still in the same hex, so it will deny Control of the hex."

Dammit, Klas, I was just getting comfortable and my headache was going away.

The rooftop squad denies control of the factory hex (and the open ground benefits of the VSE), but according to Bret and Spencer and Chas the same rooftop squad does not affect Control of the Building. How on earth can the guys on the roof deny control of a building hex and not deny control of the building itself?

That is precisely why I was trying to create a dichotomy between Building Control and Victory-Purposes-Building-Control.

I'm going to bed and leaving this discussion to my betters!

I'm back to confused and unhappy with the rules. Not that this is anyone's problem but mine

Cheers,
Randy

 

[aslredbarricade]

Yeah, I think you're right. That is interesting.

S

Spencer,

Don't you think that to be consistent in the application of the rules logic, one would have to rule that hex control is a subset of Victory Conditions, and therefore the rooftop unit in Klas's example would have no effect on the control of the hex?

His rules citations are the same as those for our previous discussion about building control, with the exception that he highlighted "hex" instead of "building".

Do you see that problem as I do?

Randy

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Spencer,

Don't you think that to be consistent in the application of the rules logic, one would have to rule that hex control is a subset of Victory Conditions, and therefore the rooftop unit in Klas's example would have no effect on the control of the hex?

His rules citations are the same as those for our previous discussion about building control, with the exception that he highlighted "hex" instead of "building".

Do you see that problem as I do?

Randy

B23.82:
"..A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition purposes."

What this says (IMO) is just that the rooftop isn't considered to be a building Location for VC purposes. It looks to me that it is still a Location in the hex.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Whether or not you can use the reduced entry cost of a vehicular-sized-entrance depends on whether you Control that particular hex or not - who Controls that building doesn't matter.

B23.742:
"...[EXC: Any vehicle may enter/exit a Factory Location containing a printed stairwell symbol or across a road hexside at Open Ground costs provided the hex is controlled by friendly forces (the stairwell symbol in this case representing a vehicular-sized entrance)]..."

And in order to gain Control of a hex you need (as per A26.13): "..an armed Good Order Infantry MMC at ground level can gain Control of the hex it occupies..." and it will gain Control of the hex if (as per A26.11): "...During play, a side gains Control of a Location/hex/building by occupying it with an armed Good Order Infantry MMC without the presence of an armed enemy ground unit [EXC: subterranean units] in that same Location/hex/building (see also 26.13-.14 for hex/building Control)...."

So (as far as I can see) an enemy unit on the roof is still in the same hex, so it will deny Control of the hex.

I hate to disagree with Klas here, but I do not think this is quite so clear and I think this rule is in error. The usage of the virgule "/" makes this rule utter crap in this instance since it is treated as "and/or" and here I think the intent is to simply be "or". IMO, hex control is gained by gaining control of the ground Location without any other enemy unit in the Ground Location. Otherwise you could just state to control a hex you must control all the Locations within that hex and be done with it. While I agree Klas has parsed this correctly, I personally believe this is one that needs to be cleaned up. For example, lets say the VC are Location control in a building. You enter the ground floor with a unit but I have a unit on the second level. With Klas' interpretation of "and/or", I could deny control of the ground level by saying I still have a unit in the hex. I know this isn't the way we play it so that tells me this rule is written wrong. Personally, I would read "/" as "or" and everything works. -- jim

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Spencer,

Don't you think that to be consistent in the application of the rules logic, one would have to rule that hex control is a subset of Victory Conditions, and therefore the rooftop unit in Klas's example would have no effect on the control of the hex?

His rules citations are the same as those for our previous discussion about building control, with the exception that he highlighted "hex" instead of "building".

Do you see that problem as I do?

Randy

B23.82:
"..A Rooftop Location is not considered a building Location for rout and Victory Condition purposes."

What this says (IMO) is just that the rooftop isn't considered to be a building Location for VC purposes. It looks to me that it is still a Location in the hex.

Apparently not, Randy... Rooftops are weird when it comes to controlling buildings (only). They're just like anything else for hex and Location control, AFAICT. The "exception" comes in B23.742 and A26.14, both of which are specific to buildings. Klas only "picked out" in A26.11 which is general.

As for your question of "how can it control the hex and not the builidng," that doesn't bother me. Control can be very strange. It is possible to 1) control all locations of a builidng and not control the builidng and 2) control a building and control none of its locations. Hex/building dichotomy pales next to that, IMO.

S

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Spencer,

Don't you think that to be consistent in the application of the rules logic, one would have to rule that hex control is a subset of Victory Conditions, and therefore the rooftop unit in Klas's example would have no effect on the control of the hex?

His rules citations are the same as those for our previous discussion about building control, with the exception that he highlighted "hex" instead of "building".

Do you see that problem as I do?

Randy

I hate to disagree with Klas here, but I do not think this is quite so clear and I think this rule is in error. The usage of the virgule "/" makes this rule utter crap in this instance since it is treated as "and/or" and here I think the intent is to simply be "or". IMO, hex control is gained by gaining control of the ground Location without any other enemy unit in the Ground Location. Otherwise you could just state to control a hex you must control all the Locations within that hex and be done with it. While I agree Klas has parsed this correctly, I personally believe this is one that needs to be cleaned up. For example, lets say the VC are Location control in a building. You enter the ground floor with a unit but I have a unit on the second level. With Klas' interpretation of "and/or", I could deny control of the ground level by saying I still have a unit in the hex. I know this isn't the way we play it so that tells me this rule is written wrong. Personally, I would read "/" as "or" and everything works. -- jim

You're right, Jim, but I think the use of "/" and its and/or sense is intended to communicate that you are often getting control of Locations/Hexes/Buildings simultaneously. A hard exclusive or might imply to some readers that you have to choose. <shrug>

S

 

[Sparafucil3]

You're right, Jim, but I think the use of "/" and its and/or sense is intended to communicate that you are often getting control of Locations/Hexes/Buildings simultaneously. A hard exclusive or might imply to some readers that you have to choose. <shrug>

S

I totally understand that, but in this case I think you have no choice but to read that as "or". To do otherwise is to create the conundrum I depicted. The other possible way to read that is as a "map" since the items separated by the virgule ("/") match from one instance to the other. Mapping them as such saves you from having to write the same sentence "n" number of times where n=number of items separated by the virgule. IMO, you can't claim a Location control in a hex which has other Locations and still cling to the possibility that hex control is different when we are forced to use the same sentence in the rule to determine control. You can't be allowed to read it one way in instance and another way in a second instance. Since we know how Location control works, how do you parse the sentence to make Location control work as you understand it? The answer is to say either "or" or it's a "map". Anything else falls apart. -- jim

 

[aslredbarricade]

Fellow ASLers,

What I cannot understand is how these arguments write off rooftop units for building control purposes, but don't write off rooftop units for hex control purposes?

That makes no sense, and has no consistency in my mind.

Either the Control rules are a subset of the Victory Conditions, or they are not. I don't see how we can use that language when speaking of building control, and not also apply it to hex control?

I'm interested in how to play the game. I had been playing that rooftop units deny building control, and therefore if the Victory Conditions require one side to control the building, that side must also clear the roof. That is how the rules read to me (the 'for victory condition purposes' rooftop clause being too vague for my tastes). But I have changed that position since more experienced gamers say otherwise.

It is clear that some people of experience in this forum have spoken that this is not the case, that rooftop units are irrelevant to building control, "because building control is a subset of Victory Conditions". (Spencer and Bret)

But hex control is also a subset of Victory Conditions, so what Klas is suggesting about hex control seems in opposition to what has been shared regarding Building Control.

Anyone have some clear answers for clarity and consistency?

Help

Randy

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I totally understand that, but in this case I think you have no choice but to read that as "or". To do otherwise is to create the conundrum I depicted. The other possible way to read that is as a "map" since the items separated by the virgule ("/") match from one instance to the other. Mapping them as such saves you from having to write the same sentence "n" number of times where n=number of items separated by the virgule. IMO, you can't claim a Location control in a hex which has other Locations and still cling to the possibility that hex control is different when we are forced to use the same sentence in the rule to determine control. You can't be allowed to read it one way in instance and another way in a second instance. Since we know how Location control works, how do you parse the sentence to make Location control work as you understand it? The answer is to say either "or" or it's a "map". Anything else falls apart. -- jim

What you call "map" is pretty much what I was driving at. I believe that is the intent.

I'm curious, was the "/" defined in 1st Ed. Index?

S