Bocage LOS

[rdw5150]

I think you are missing the nuance I raised in post #35. In this case it is definitely not black and white...

Steve

Hi!

OK I will give you this one is a little murky...... what board is this from?

Even the way I have been playing, we would probably call this clear.

Where I can see what you mean that C7/D6 vertex artwork is "extended", one could also say that it (the artwork) is also part of the C7/D7Hexside and therefore clear.

But again, I think this one is murky.

<SHRUG> with the way the maps are, especially older ones with painted artwork and newer TPP maps (which seem to have fatter walls and hedges), there are going to be issues which do not fit perfectly into either scenario.

I was looking at your post again, the way you play does the little bit of hedge/wall/bocage that sticks out from B6/GG6/B7 (into GG7) vertex block LOS?

I still think that "if it hits the artwork" is (overall), cleaner (at least to me).

Peace

Roger

 

[Sparafucil3]

I can't wait to pull this rule on Trezza!

I am still looking forward to hitting your ass with WP in a gully. -- jim (assuming I ever play again).

 

[MajorDomo]

The rules say the artwork is part of a wall/hedge/bocage vertex and thus confers the benefits.

I have always played the LOS down the hexspine means exactly down the hexspine, not slightly off the hexspine but hitting the hexspine artwork.

So the question whether the artwork is part of the vertex or part of the hexside artwork becomes a judgement call.

We make these judgement calls for many LOS situations involving woods, buildings, building shadows, crest lines, VBM...

Rich

 

[BattleSchool]

Still amazes me after all these years a group of experienced players can't agree on what the rules say.

You may want to consider that theologians are still working on the Bible, a work that would seem to have more import than the rules for a game.

JR

Too right!

The king James version is supposed to be the last word on foxholes, while some texts are just plain heretical.

And don't get me started on those latter-day Calvinists who believe that the IIFT is predestined.

There is but one Don, the Father, from whom all things came; and there is but one IFT, the Infantry Fire Table, through which all dice must pass. Sicilians 7:3.

 

[zgrose]

Walls and hedges are (whoops) NOT blocked along the hexspine...

Only if the target is in the "next" hex. If the target hex is >1 hex beyond, many of the same issues being brought up as "bocage issues" apply to walls and hedges as well.

 

[Rock SgtDan]

Is a VERTEX part of the hexSIDE or hexSPINE?

The definition of hexside includes the vertices.
The definition of hexspine refers to hexsides, so also includes the vertices.

However, when a rule or combination of rules indicates "A" for hexsides but "B" for hexspines, you cannot determine whether A or B applies to the common vertex.

The definition of Vertex does not clear this up.

This LOS thread mentions numerous cases of A vs B.
Not only wrt spine vs side, but wrt the type of artwork on the line: bocage, hedge, wall, cliff...
So it seems that a tabular presentation of the combinations would be useful, with the cells of the table telling the user which line the vertex is a part of, for that case.

Then in time MMP might be good enough to rectify differences which arose from the rules being created incrementally by committees, as opposed to deliberate design choices.

might need two tables. One for LOS effects, and another for TEM effects.

 

[Doug Kirk]

So has then been officially decided? Anyone submitted anything to the powers that be?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

So has then been officially decided? Anyone submitted anything to the powers that be?

Didn't the old Q&A pretty much answer these situations as well ?

 

[jrv]

Didn't the old Q&A pretty much answer these situations as well ?

Perry's Q&A in #31 confirms that he thinks the artwork applies for hexspines as well as hexsides. But we still have no certain way of determining whether the artwork is hexside or hexspine when a bocage hexside meets a bocage hexspine. For wall & hedge it does not matter because in either case the defender just gets the TEM, but in the case of bocage, if the artwork is hexspine, then LOS is blocked. In the Q&A example it would be hard to argue that the LOS crosses hexspine artwork. In some corner cases it will be more debatable.

JR

 

[Doug Kirk]

Didn't the old Q&A pretty much answer these situations as well ?

I suppose it does. Is that official? I was just hoping for a different outcome. I think that ruling is monumentally stupid. Just means bocage becomes unplayable in my mind. And now you are going to string every LOS involving a wall or hedge to see if it clips the artwork when the string is clearly off the hexspine. Just using geometry is so much easier.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I suppose it does. Is that official?

As official as one considers an unpublished Q&A from MMP.

And now you are going to string every LOS involving a wall or hedge to see if it clips the artwork when the string is clearly off the hexspine. Just using geometry is so much easier.

So the way you have played it, if it where a wall/hedge, then there would not have been any TEM?

 

[Steven Pleva]

So the way you have played it, if it where a wall/hedge, then there would not have been any TEM?

No, the problem case is whether the LOS is blocked or clear when it leaves the firer's hex. See post #35. Is that blocked or clear? Hard to determine whether it is hexside or hexspine. You have a ruleset that is arguably overly complicated to begin with and now you add ambiguity to the mix. That is way I think this ruling is poor...

Steve

 

[clubby]

No, the problem case is whether the LOS is blocked or clear when it leaves the firer's hex. See post #35. Is that blocked or clear? Hard to determine whether it is hexside or hexspine. You have a ruleset that is arguably overly complicated to begin with and now you add ambiguity to the mix. That is way I think this ruling is poor...

Steve

I see what you're saying from your post on 35. If me and my son were playing that shot, based on the ruling here, I'd say it's blocked because by my measurement it enters the bocage depiction more on the hexspine side than the hexside side. If one of us made a stink about it, I'm sure we'd just roll for it. The problem with rolling for it is does that first roll grant LOS for the rest of the scenario or CG? One shot? I hate rolling for something like that.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

No, the problem case is whether the LOS is blocked or clear when it leaves the firer's hex.

Ok, take the picture in post #35 and assume everything are walls and that there is no wall along either the D6-C6 or D6-C7 hexside. Would you then play as if a target in D6 would get the wall TEM if fired along the indicated LOF?

 

[Steven Pleva]

Ok, take the picture in post #35 and assume everything are walls and that there is no wall along either the D6-C6 or D6-C7 hexside. Would you then play as if a target in D6 would get the wall TEM if fired along the indicated LOF?

In the past I would have said no. Now I don't know what to think. Perhaps one could argue it is blocked since the obstacle is not a hexspine. For the LOS to be clear that depiction had to be considered part of the hexspine. At a minimum I think some errata is needed around this...

 

[klasmalmstrom]

In the past I would have said no...

Ok, I would not have had a problem with that. I.e., I think that if the TEM applied, then it would be blocked if if were Bocage.

Now I don't know what to think. Perhaps one could argue it is blocked since the obstacle is not a hexspine.

That did come up, but then I thought it strange that if the LOS went down the hexspine exactly the LOS would be clear - i.e., if seemingly more of the wall was in the LOF, the LOS would be clear, which also seems a bit odd, IMO.

 

[Steven Pleva]

That did come up, but then I thought it strange that if the LOS went down the hexspine exactly the LOS would be clear - i.e., if seemingly more of the wall was in the LOF, the LOS would be clear, which also seems a bit odd, IMO.

I agree with this. That is why I think it should be straight geometry. That makes walls and bocage identical except for straight down the hexspine. Sounds like we have something else right now and that leaves us with more questions. For the record, I've never had an issue with this until two weeks ago. That makes me wonder why there was a need to codify a change to how people played. I realize that I am only one person here. However, I have played people from all over the world and it never came up. That leads me to believe that I was not a part of a small enclave playing a rule incorrectly. In the end I will honor whatever ruling sticks on this issue. My hope is that it is clear and unambiguous. Right now I don't think we can say that...

Steve

 

[zgrose]

One could say that when a graphic is ambiguous as to hexside or hex spine, assume hexside. That way you maintain the "graphic still matters" rules while providing a relatively easy out for edge cases.

That leads me to believe that I was not a part of a small enclave playing a rule incorrectly.

I think a lot of people don't play that graphics matter (walls/hedges/bocage) and take more shots than they should be able.

 

[Steven Pleva]

One could say that when a graphic is ambiguous as to hexside or hex spine, assume hexside. That way you maintain the "graphic still matters" rules while providing a relatively easy out for edge cases.

I don't think that is going to be particularly helpful. It may move where the edge cases are, but you will still have them.

 

[zgrose]

I don't think that is going to be particularly helpful. It may move where the edge cases are, but you will still have them.

I'd be curious to see an example where "tie goes to hexside" doesn't resolve.

Personally I'd be fine with "graphics don't matter only look at the hexlines" since you don't have to deal with that "both sides of the LOS thread" issue.