Broken Bamboo VC

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,114
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
The VC state (in both versions): "The British win at game end if they Control >= 5 of the 6 building hexes that are <= 4 hexes from 47CC6."

Let's pick the nits first: all of the "British" in this scenario are Gurkhas. Why not call them Gurkhas? A common complaint, but whatever. Slightly weirder: all of the eligible building hexes are within 3 hexes -- why is the radius set to 4?

None of that's important, though. The important issue is that all of the buildings are huts. That means there is a significant potential for them to collapse during the course of the scenario. Indeed, with no prohibition on kindling, the Japanese could deliberately collapse all of them, or a significant number of them, before the Gurkhas can even get close enough to see them.

Collapsed huts are explicitly not buildings (although they are still huts). Neither player can gain (or lose) Control of something that doesn't exist.

If there are < 5 huts not collapsed, can the Gurkhas still win?

The best fix that I can think of is to replace "building" with "hut" in the VC. No matter what condition they're in, they're always huts, and even if they're blazing, Control can be established via the procedure in A26.161.

It just seems odd to me that this has never come up before, since it seems a fairly popular scenario; I couldn't find any prior discussion about this.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,392
Reaction score
3,933
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I think G5.51 (last sentence) kicks in in the Huts collapses:

"...Control of a Collapsed hut counts toward hut/building Control Victory Conditions [EXC: A26.16 applies if the hut is Ablaze], as will Control of its hex if it has been eliminated (5.7)."
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,030
Reaction score
2,671
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The VC state (in both versions): "The British win at game end if they Control >= 5 of the 6 building hexes that are <= 4 hexes from 47CC6."

Let's pick the nits first: all of the "British" in this scenario are Gurkhas. Why not call them Gurkhas? A common complaint, but whatever. Slightly weirder: all of the eligible building hexes are within 3 hexes -- why is the radius set to 4?

None of that's important, though. The important issue is that all of the buildings are huts. That means there is a significant potential for them to collapse during the course of the scenario. Indeed, with no prohibition on kindling, the Japanese could deliberately collapse all of them, or a significant number of them, before the Gurkhas can even get close enough to see them.

Collapsed huts are explicitly not buildings (although they are still huts). Neither player can gain (or lose) Control of something that doesn't exist.

If there are < 5 huts not collapsed, can the Gurkhas still win?

The best fix that I can think of is to replace "building" with "hut" in the VC. No matter what condition they're in, they're always huts, and even if they're blazing, Control can be established via the procedure in A26.161.

It just seems odd to me that this has never come up before, since it seems a fairly popular scenario; I couldn't find any prior discussion about this.
What don't you understand about building control if the other side should intentionally destroy or make the building location unable to be captured by usual mean? Perhaps a simple review of the rules for huts and building control would answer your query. As for the other qualms with regards to the SSR/VC/OB, meh, as you so elegantly pointed out.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,114
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
I think G5.51 (last sentence) kicks in in the Huts collapses:

"...Control of a Collapsed hut counts toward hut/building Control Victory Conditions [EXC: A26.16 applies if the hut is Ablaze], as will Control of its hex if it has been eliminated (5.7)."
Huh. Missed that one. Thanks.

What don't you understand about building control
Dunno. What part of "a Collapsed hut is not a building", as I stated in my post above, did you not understand? How exactly do the Building Control rules assist in the discussion of things that aren't Buildings? (The hut rules do contain the answer I sought, and it's my fault for not delving deeply enough there, but it doesn't explain your lack of understanding.) Perhaps a simple review of the English language would answer your query.
 
Top