B24.2 & A2.4 Interaction?

[Aaron Cleavin]

A strict reading of A2.4 And B24.2 wold have it that if a stone building had upper level(s) rubbled but not ground then it would cost 6MF to move into at ground level from outside the building, and have +6 TEM (+4 for wooden).
I think this is not correct but do not see errata / Q&A to the contrary.

In KGS 2.831 it is SSR'd that A2.4 does not apply for such in KGS, but outside of KGS these hexes would seem to provide super strong points?

 

[fanatic+1]

The example in B24.2 indicates it does not play that way for MF cost. This implies it does not play this way for TEM, but it is not clear.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

The example in B24.2 indicates it does not play that way for MF cost. This implies it does not play this way for TEM, but it is not clear.

Yes the example makes the MF clear, and I think arguing for aggregate TEM on the basis if A2.4 would be pedantic at best.

 

[Tater]

Yes the example makes the MF clear, and I think arguing for aggregate TEM on the basis if A2.4 would be pedantic at best.

See B24.121..."The movement costs and TEM of rubble replace whatever terrain was previously present [EXC: bridges remain intact but with a rubble counter on top]."

That would fall under A2.4..."unless specified otherwise"...

 

[klasmalmstrom]

See B24.121..."The movement costs and TEM of rubble replace whatever terrain was previously present [EXC: bridges remain intact but with a rubble counter on top]."

That would fall under A2.4..."unless specified otherwise"...

That is for Falling Rubble though I believe - I think the OP's situation was where an upper-lever Location was rubbled, and the ground level Location is now covered by rubble outside of the building depiction, per B24.2. The B24.2 example makes it clear what the MF cost to enter is though.

 

[Ed Caswell]

That is for Falling Rubble though I believe - I think the OP's situation was where an upper-lever Location was rubbled, and the ground level Location is now covered by rubble outside of the building depiction, per B24.2. The B24.2 example makes it clear what the MF cost to enter is though.

Rule B24.2 states, "The ground level of any hex containing upper level rubble is assumed to be covered throughout the hex,...". It seems to me that Rule B24.121 is correct when it states, "...replace whatever terrain was previously present...".

Ed

 

[Hemaelstrom]

I really think that example should state 5 MF, not 3. If it had first been a woods/building hex with a cost of 4 MF for entry, then add to it the rubble from the upper levels (which by B24.121 replaces the woods), surely the hex would be harder to enter, not easier? It seems the cost for entry to the building was left out of consideration. 3 for the rubble plus 2 for the building.
Exiting the building from such a hex should cost more too, like an entrenchment, otherwise units leaving the building apparently don't encounter the rubble at all. But that is well outside the rules as given.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Rule B24.2 states, "The ground level of any hex containing upper level rubble is assumed to be covered throughout the hex,...". It seems to me that Rule B24.121 is correct when it states, "...replace whatever terrain was previously present...".

Rule B24.121 is for Falling Rubble, which isn't the case in OP's situation. But the example makes it clear what the MF cost is anyway.

 

[Tater]

That is for Falling Rubble though I believe - I think the OP's situation was where an upper-lever Location was rubbled, and the ground level Location is now covered by rubble outside of the building depiction, per B24.2. The B24.2 example makes it clear what the MF cost to enter is though.

Well how would rubble get to the ground level location from the upper level rubbled location? It fell...hence it is falling rubble.

Also, B24.2 is still talking about Rubble falling..."Rubble falling into a hex already containing uncleared rubble has no additional effect other than the danger it poses to the occupants of that hex (24.121)."

In addition the B24.2 makes the statement about the upper level rubble affect on ground level to include the exceptions for the affects of falling rubble..."The ground level of any hex containing upper level rubble is assumed to be covered with rubble throughout the hex, although it does not harm units at ground level when it occurs and units may cross the ground level hex through a connecting (non-rubble) building hexside at non-rubble movement rates."

If it isn't falling rubble then why would it need to include the exceptions to the affects of falling rubble. And what does "when it occurs" refer to? Obviously and logically it refers to when that rubble from the upper level falls into the ground level.

I guess a query could be sent to Perry but, I think there is enough in the rules to get to an answer both by text and by deduction.

 

[Stewart]

It never states it becomes a Rubble-building hex as a rubble can't be a building.
The MF requirement of A2.4 is not followed in the rules in Chap B. I'm pretty sure with the verbiage of the Rubble section that a simple A2.4 occurs [EXC: Combined MF do not apply]
I'm pretty sure that's an easy explanation. Since they don't put it...AND they have the MF exception... TEM is not Cumulative.
I would agree that the fire from outside the building would receive the RUBBLE TEM.. while units from within the building would not....similar to the Factory rules.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I would agree that the fire from outside the building would receive the RUBBLE TEM.. while units from within the building would not....similar to the Factory rules.

Normally the rubble and the building would have the same TEM, as the rubble from the upper floors collapsing would be of the same type. However, if the ground level of the building was Fortified, I would play as if fire from out side would still get the increased building TEM - would make less sense (IMO) if rubble outside of the building suddenly made the fortifying less effective.

 

[von Marwitz]

Normally the rubble and the building would have the same TEM, as the rubble from the upper floors collapsing would be of the same type. However, if the ground level of the building was Fortified, I would play as if fire from out side would still get the increased building TEM - would make less sense (IMO) if rubble outside of the building suddenly made the fortifying less effective.

I agree.

Despite one could argue that the rubble blocks firing slits of the the Fortified Location etc. But we know that reality arguments won't lead us anywhere this way or the other.

von Marwitz

 

[Stewart]

However, if the ground level of the building was Fortified, I would play as if fire from out side would still get the increased building TEM - would make less sense (IMO) if rubble outside of the building suddenly made the fortifying less effective.

There would be no doubt