Board 1 Ques.

[Pitman]

God forbid "reason" enter into ASL.

Whether you like it or not, "interpretation" enters into ASL all the time. For example, with LOS (esp. with building "shadows").

I do not believe that the creator of Board 1 intended that to be a two hex building, and until someone official says otherwise, I won't play it that way.

 

[jwise]

Whether you like it or not, "interpretation" enters into ASL all the time. For example, with LOS (esp. with building "shadows").

This is hardly the same thing -- one can `reason' (read: `argue') as to whether a LOS passes through a building depiction or only through its shadow, but one cannot reason as to whether, should the LOS pass through the building depiction, it is blocked.

Likewise, you are free, I suppose, to `reason' (again, read: `argue') as to whether the two buildings in question are or are not continuous, but if they are continuous (and no one in this thread has suggested otherwise), then the rules are perfectly clear: they are a single multi-hex building.

 

[asloser]

God forbid "reason" enter into ASL.

Whether you like it or not, "interpretation" enters into ASL all the time. For example, with LOS (esp. with building "shadows").

I do not believe that the creator of Board 1 intended that to be a two hex building, and until someone official says otherwise, I won't play it that way.

Yes, there are issues which are not crystal clear in ASLRB or things that require common sense or iterpretation. The building shadow is one of them, boards having centredots printed offcenter are another. This one just is not one of them.

Once again. Real slow. In this case it is not about what you believe was the intention, it is about clear rule how to handle buildings.

There are other rules I might not personally like, but if it says so in the book I'll have to live with it. In ASL you need to enjoy the overall effect and feeling the game has and quit making big issues about things you do not like when it comes to micromechanics of the game.

 

[ds]

I'm not stuck on the LOS question. It was never an issue. The problem was how many levels the building had. Was it two single story houses or one two story house?

And for those of you who want to use the rulebook as the sole means of survival, I think you would be hard pressed to find a rule that leaves no room for further argument on this point.

EX: B23.22 can be (incorrectly) read as stating that any building whose depiction even slightly spills out into a second hex is considered a two story house. Again, you must consider the designers intent...

or

B23.1 which reads "Any hex containing one or more brown or gray rectangular overview building depictions is a building hex" clearly defines hex 1CC7 as NOT being a building hex at all, because the hex is not fully CONTAINING the building depiction (because you rule-mongers all know that by strict definition "containing" means "to keep within its limits").

So again, a purely rules angle seems to fall short.

 

[jwise]

EX: B23.22 can be (incorrectly) read as stating that any building whose depiction even slightly spills out into a second hex is considered a two story house. Again, you must consider the designers intent...

It does, and it is -- no intent necessary. To argue otherwise is to require an amount by which a building may enter another hex without being two stories tall to be defined, and you would be awfully hard-pressed to find a distinction anywhere near as simple as the current `does or does not enter next hex'.

or

B23.1 which reads "Any hex containing one or more brown or gray rectangular overview building depictions is a building hex" clearly defines hex 1CC7 as NOT being a building hex at all, because the hex is not fully CONTAINING the building depiction (because you rule-mongers all know that by strict definition "containing" means "to keep within its limits").

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the relevant defintion from Merriam Webster is `to have within', and the relevant defintion from American Heritage is `` To have within; hold.''. Certainly, 1CC7 `has within' it a building depiction, no?

So again, a purely rules angle seems to fall short.

Rather, I'd say that these examples fall short of being relevant to the question at hand...

 

[ds]

BTW, it's refreshing to see that not everybody agrees on everything with this 'game'... I was starting to think that this ASL thing was actually a front for some freaky religion... well, maybe I'll keep that though for a little while longer :shock:

 

[sdkfz]

More Map Issues

OK I pulled my COI issue of the board (COI came with unmounted boards to glue over the original due to hex size differences) - One building - two hexes.

Then I pulled my recently purchased copy cause the old one is starting to show it's age - same thing - one building- two hexes - you'd think that the error would have been fixed after 20 years!

I had a quick look at some other boards

Hex X32 on the VotG map is like this (Yeah I know it is not released yet -sure hope they fix it - nows the time!)
Rogue B10 Hex DD5 (adding insult to injury as the stairway hex is outside the building depiction - at least they got it right on the reissue)
You could argue the same for RB J21
ABtF P19/Q20 9 (although they row housed that one so I guess it can pass)
AbtF F1/F2 ( now that should be three buildings! jeez - this gets more complicted all the time)


Throwing gasoline on a fire - In looking at hex F5- if a 467 squad defensive first fires at H4 from F5 then another enemy unit moves from C7 to D6 to E6- no final fire is allowed right? I mean the very clear gap running through the hex from E5/F4 towards F6/G6 means that the are actually two buildings in F5 and you can not shoot through a building (assuming not rubbled with a height advantage of course). Of course no upper level movement is allowed either between the two 'buildings' unless you go to F6 first. Jeez - in re looking this over I just realized we need half hex rubbled counters now! I mean what if only the left side gets rubbled?

 

[Rindis]

For those of you troubled by 1CC7 and 'why would anyone design it that way', remember some history.

When board 1 was done, all there was was Squad Leader. And in SL, there was no such animal as the 'inherent stairwell'. If there was a square dot, the building had multiple levels. If there wasn't it didn't. So, at that point no problem.

As far as current rules and the depiction, I recall (no board 1 at work... ) that buildings are all depicted with a pretty hefty black line surrounding them, and that that doesn't hit the interior of 1CC7 at all. If it did, I'd see it as two abutting buildings, but that's not the depiction I remember.

 

[UXB]

new product idea

Here's a great product idea:
ASL Map Architectural Drawings,
room layouts
stairwell locations
wallpaper patterns (SSR: +1 LV DRM: ugly walpaper cammo, any unit in a building with ugly wallpaper gets a +1 LV DRM to any attacks made vs. it.
[EXC: British ATTACKER never uses this DRM, they have horrible home
decors]

Now we can have a product all those Star Trek fans have had for years,
architectural drawings.

For the building in question, I think a uniform application of the rule, must
apply. Recall the special rules in the RB about the Market, and all the
rules in the CG's about Water Towers. So I'd have to say that the rule
interpretation is correct, it's a two hex building at L 1 1/2, and even the resolution of the dispute was correct. When in doubt a friendly roll of the die solves the problem.

In a side note I know the people who live in that building and only the CC7
hex is 1 1/2 level, it's a spacious addition, 2 BR, 1 1/2 BA ADDTN, w/ HWD FLR, MRBL FRPL, 2 CAR GAR, ALL MOD CONS, PERMITS ON FILE

;-)

 

[Reepicheep]

For what it's worth, albeit perhaps not that much, the VASL LOS utility treats CC7/DD7 as two one-story buildings (ie. not a multi-hex building). It could go either way though... someone might have programmed that intentionally, or it could have been an oversight.

Henceforth I shall no longer be using VASL to check LOS. If VASL shows a clear LOS along the CC7/DD7 hexside, it is wrong, plain and simple. If it was a programming error, it can be accepted as such because accidents happen. If it was deliberate, it immediately casts suspicion on all VASL board depictions, IMO.

Bruce, I think you misunderstood what I said... VASL's LOS utility doesn't show a clear LOS along CC7/DD7. What I said was it treated the CC7/DD7 building(s) as two single story buildings... ie. it won't let you check LOS from Level 1 of either hex.

 

[Treadhead]

Bruce, I think you misunderstood what I said... VASL's LOS utility doesn't show a clear LOS along CC7/DD7. What I said was it treated the CC7/DD7 building(s) as two single story buildings... ie. it won't let you check LOS from Level 1 of either hex.

Ah, I understand now.

Nevertheless, I think I'll stick with checking LOS on the actual board when playing ftf.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[asloser]

EX: B23.22 can be (incorrectly) read as stating that any building whose depiction even slightly spills out into a second hex is considered a two story house. Again, you must consider the designers intent...

It is not incorrect, it means actually just that. This is the reason why one needs to be extremely careful when drawing buildings on an ASL-compactible map.

Again. You need to find a rule that says building shape has anything to do with determining the type of the building, otherwise you have no case.

B23.1 which reads "Any hex containing one or more brown or gray rectangular overview building depictions is a building hex" clearly defines hex 1CC7 as NOT being a building hex at all, because the hex is not fully CONTAINING the building depiction (because you rule-mongers all know that by strict definition "containing" means "to keep within its limits").

HUH? Why so? In my opinion this states that any hex with a building or even a part of a building within it is a building hex. Why it is so difficult? But, if you want to discuss semantics of the english language please find another opponent - my wiev of how the rules should be read (or mongered if you will) are not going to change on arguments like this.

 

[Larry]

This issue has gotten very interesting. The question raised by Mark Pitcavage really intrigued me -- kind of a quasi-realism argument about then intent of the artist of board 1.

I pulled out my old SL rule book to check Mark's "intent" argument out. According to rule 7.4 of SL, only buildings larger than 3 hexes were considered multi-story. This meant ground floor and 2nd floor. So when board 1 was drawn, it was drawn as ground floor only.

The concept of the 1st floor was not introduced until GI Anvil of Victory. Rule 155 preface sought to "rectify that oversight." Multi-hex buildings are defined there as having a 1st floor above the ground floor with the now common assumed staircase.

For ASL purposes, the original intent of the artist according to SL rules is irrelevant. The rules changed in GI and stayed that way in ASL. The question is how do players treat the adjoining or abutting (read as no green in between) depiction now.

The first generation of board 1 (with the poorly cut board edges that made them not quite geomorphic) is quite clearly a two hex building as the convergence of the figure 8 never crosses. The replacement board (circa COI I think) reduced the size of the depictions in CC7 and DD7 and are the heart of the dispute now.

Sorry, original intent cannot cut the mustard on this one. The original board 1 is clearly 2 hexes in size and clearly intended to be ground floor only because of the "oversight" addressed in GI. There is no green in between the buildings in the two hexes and whether they abut or adjoin, for rule purposes they appear as one contiguous building structure with no interruption.

One final observation, the first floor might provide another location but no LOS advantage on board 1 alone. Perhaps it makes a difference with another board abutted.

 

[SamB]

Hey, Eric...

I can see building on both side of the thread, but I'm convinced that the intent of the artist was that this LOS was clear.

Sam