C1.8 Bombardment and C1.81 Area (spared hexes) on "Fortenberry" boards

BattleSchool

Chris: Managing Editor
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,519
Likes
856
Points
113
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
#1
How would one determine which hexes are spared on a "Fort" board, e.g. board 7a/b?

The procedure in C1.81 is designed for boards with coordinates ≤ 10. All of these "fat" boards have coordinates ranging from A1 to Q20 on their "a" sides, and Q1 to GG20 on their "b" sides.

Should MMP issue errata?

C1.8 BOMBARDMENT: The following rules, which may be invoked only via SSR or DYO-purchase, simulate the artillery softening-up process conducted prior to a set-piece attack.
C1.81 AREA: Bombardment begins after setup [errata included] but prior to the start of play. Bombardment potentially affects all the hexes of an entire mapboard (hexrows A-GG) or two adjacent halfboards (hexrows A-Q/Q-GG) at the firer's option, including all friendly units present in that designated area. The firer makes six dr, modifying the last three dr by +6. Each of these Final dr represents a numerical grid coordinate of the Bombardment area which is immune to its effects. Should any of these Final dr result in the same number or exceed 10, the total area spared the effects of the Bombardment is correspondingly less. A Final dr of 10 also spares all hexes of the Bombardment area that have a coordinate of 0 (see A2.2). For Deluxe ASL see J2.5.
EX: The German player is entitled to a pre-game Bombardment and rolls 3, 1, 3, 4 (+6 = 10), 5 (+6 = 11), and 2 (+6 = 8). All hexes of the Bombardment area with a numerical coordinate of 0, 1, 3, 8, and 10 are spared the effects of Bombardment.
I am not aware of any scenario with the above boards that calls for C1.8. However, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions as to how provisions for them could be incorporated into C1.8.

Apologies if the mods think that this thread should be in the Scenario Designers forum.

7a copy 1200px.jpg
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,090
Likes
231
Points
63
Location
Michigan
#2
Bombardment could affect either an entire Fort board, or else half of a Fort board (coordinates 1-10 or 11-20) plus the equivalent half of an adjacent board.

When rolling for hexes spared, assume that the coordinates of any Fort hex larger than 10 are ten less. (i.e., 11 becomes 1, 15 becomes 5...).

SSR is probably sufficient, at least until the ASLRB officially recognizes Fort style maps.
 
Last edited:

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,981
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#3
Should MMP issue errata?
Is that a trick question? It's not "should they?" but "will they?"

This is not the only rule that the "Fort boards" break. Current (B21.121) is another. I'd add Drift placement (E3.75) as well, except that's always been broken for regular boards, so that's kind of old news. Undefined hex types is also a problem (where are brush-roads discussed in Chapter B?) but again those are not unique to the Fort boards.

Sadly, while the vast majority of Chapters A, C and D are now comfortably living in the 21st Century, most of Chapter B is still haunting 1985. (Chapter E of course lives in an alternate dimension where time and space have no meaning.)

Sadly, when it comes to Chapter B, MMP's attitude is pretty much "eh, it doesn't matter if the rules are vague, players will figure it out, probably". Players don't often realise just how much they take the terrain rules for granted. The classic example is that it's perfectly legal under the rules as currently written for a unit upstairs in one building to cross the gap and move directly to the same level in an adjacent but unconnected building (no doubt whistling "Walking on Sunshine" as they do so).
 
Last edited:

jrv

Vare, legiones redde!
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,612
Likes
3,454
Points
163
Location
Teutoburger Wald
#4
The classic example is that it's perfectly legal under the rules as currently written for a unit upstairs in one building to cross the gap and move directly to the same level in an adjacent but unconnected building (no doubt whistling "Walking on Sunshine" as they do so).
B23.422 "A unit may never … move directly from an upper-level Location to a different building." What they whistle is not covered.

JR
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,981
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#6
B23.422 "A unit may never … move directly from an upper-level Location to a different building." What they whistle is not covered.
Ah yes, I misremembered the loophole. Let me rephrase: it's perfectly legal under the rules as currently written for a unit upstairs in a building to cross the gap to an adjacent but unconnected upper-level Location of the same building. E.G., 45Q4 to 45R4.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
75
Likes
16
Points
8
Location
Bundanyabba, Australia
#7
While 'adjacent' and 'ADJACENT' are defined in the Index, the notion of an 'adjacent building level of the same building' is left to commonsense. So although the hexes in question are 'adjacent', only an exotic understanding of an adjacent building level would permit the view that two upper-level building Locations separated by such a gap are 'ADJACENT', and hence allow a skywalk from one to the other. At least that's how I see it.
 

bprobst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,981
Likes
660
Points
113
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Skype
bruce.w.probst
#10
While 'adjacent' and 'ADJACENT' are defined in the Index, the notion of an 'adjacent building level of the same building' is left to commonsense. So although the hexes in question are 'adjacent', only an exotic understanding of an adjacent building level would permit the view that two upper-level building Locations separated by such a gap are 'ADJACENT', and hence allow a skywalk from one to the other. At least that's how I see it.
What on earth are you blabbering on about? My point is that it's a perfectly legal move under the rules. No-one actually ever does it because everyone instinctively understands that humans can't walk on air in reality, but the rules don't describe "reality", they describe how the game works. If the game doesn't want a particular thing to be possible, the rules have to be written in such a way so that it isn't possible.

And yes, if you want to get technical, then those two upper-level Locations are "ADJACENT", because they meet all of the rules pre-requisites for same. ALL of them. It's the players, not the rules, that deny them the status.

Which all goes back to the original points: there are situations not covered by the rules that should be covered by the rules; and Chapter B has far more issues than it should have. Now, if we want to prioritise the issues, then this particular issue is considerably less important than, say, the question of how bombardments work on a Fort board, because players inherently and automatically correct the problem. Nevertheless, it remains one of those issues.
 

von Marwitz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,246
Likes
2,201
Points
163
Location
Kraut Corner
#11
Ah yes, I misremembered the loophole. Let me rephrase: it's perfectly legal under the rules as currently written for a unit upstairs in a building to cross the gap to an adjacent but unconnected upper-level Location of the same building. E.G., 45Q4 to 45R4.
And I *believe* that a unit could Search unconnected upper building locations as well.

von Marwitz
 

BattleSchool

Chris: Managing Editor
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,519
Likes
856
Points
113
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
#12
And I *believe* that a unit could Search unconnected upper building locations as well.

von Marwitz
I don't think that the rules allow that. One can only search "Accessible" hexes. For example, if the unit doing the Searching were to end its move in an upper-level building Location, it could not Search an adjacent hex if all building Locations in that hex are inaccessible from the unit's current Location. At least, that's what I gather from A12.152.

A12.152 SEARCHING: As each Good Order Infantry/Cavalry MMC, or moving stack that contains ≥ one MMC, ends its move it may attempt to reveal concealed enemy units (Minefields; 12.33) in Accessible hexes (including its own) by expending one additional MF in its present hex and making a Search dr, provided that all units making the attempt are neither Pinned nor using Assault Movement.
INDEX Accessible (an adjacent Location which a hypothetical Infantry unit could—ignoring any enemy presence—advance into under normal APh conditions)