Climbing LOS along hexsides

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Hi everybody, I am preparing a setup for DN4, Chateau de Meez, so naturally I am going to have some climbing questions.

14050

Imagine a German unit climbing up the cliff vertex shown. Level 3 is half way between the base level of HH29 (Level 2) and the base level of GG29 (Level 4).

B11.42: ... LOS may not be drawn to a Climbing unit through the cliff hexside it is Climbing unless the firer is occupying a hex formed by that cliff hexside. All fire to a Climbing unit must be traced to a vertex of the hexside being Climbed.
My beliefs:

  1. "through" includes "along", so that our climbers are out of LOS of both French units.
  2. This is true even when the climbers climb up to level 4 (the reddish level).
Agree? Disagree?
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Additional question I just thought of:

A second German unit in HH29 is climbing up the other vertex (HH29/GG29/GG30). Although you string LOS to the two German units separately, it is my understanding that they are in the same location as long as they are at the same level. So a French unit in GG29 with LOS to both would fire at both with a single IFT attack. Correct?
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Through and along are different. Both French units can see the climbing unit. A unit in FF30 could not see the climbing unit at any level since the LOS crosses the cliff hexside.

As for the second question, yes the attack would effect both climbing units.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Through and along are different.
Do you have a rules reference for that? My first instinct was similar to yours, but I didn't find anything in the RB to support that view. From a strictly geometric point of view, LOSs that pass along the cliff hexside are the only ones that pass through it, since all others only meet it at the appropriate vertex.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Some rules use the phrase "inclusive of vertices" when speaking about a hexside, but then again some other rules use "exclusive of vertices" - so I don't think there's a "default".

I think the LOS from FF31 is ok, since it's not through the hexside, its along. But I am less sure that the LOS from GG28 is clear as it can be deemed to go through the hexside at the vertex.
 

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
566
Reaction score
148
Country
llUnited States
Some rules use the phrase "inclusive of vertices" when speaking about a hexside, but then again some other rules use "exclusive of vertices" - so I don't think there's a "default".

I think the LOS from FF31 is ok, since it's not through the hexside, its along. But I am less sure that the LOS from GG28 is clear as it can be deemed to go through the hexside at the vertex.
Why doesn't 11.2 govern the GG28 case? "The serrated edge of a cliff is no more of an obstacle to LOS traced along than the elevation level it separates from the higher hill hex." Frankly, I am not quite what that sentence means but the example shows a clear LOS between to same level units along a hexside.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Why doesn't 11.2 govern the GG28 case? "The serrated edge of a cliff is no more of an obstacle to LOS traced along than the elevation level it separates from the higher hill hex." Frankly, I am not quite what that sentence means but the example shows a clear LOS between to same level units along a hexside.
Well it does govern LOS along such a hexside - but this concerns Climbing units and B11.4 ("through the cliff hexside") - so it might not be applicable. But it might be.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I sent the Perry Sez. It had approximately 1000 subquestions, because when you don't understand what the first principles could possibly be that govern this situation, it is hard to come up with a yes-no question that would provide clarity. So it might be some time.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I have had an epiphany of what the designers intended this rule to be. I suspect that the "Platonic Rule" is something like this:

"All fire to a Climbing unit must be traced to a vertex of the hexside being Climbed. In addition, LOS may not be drawn to a Climbing unit if an LOS between the firer and the center dot of the Climbing unit's hex passes through the cliff hexside it is Climbing unless the firer is occupying a hex formed by that cliff hexside."

If this is correct, then FF31 would have LOS, but GG28 would not. Even better, the whole question of whether "along" == "through" goes away. I have asked Perry for clarification.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I have had an epiphany of what the designers intended this rule to be. I suspect that the "Platonic Rule" is something like this:

"All fire to a Climbing unit must be traced to a vertex of the hexside being Climbed. In addition, LOS may not be drawn to a Climbing unit if an LOS between the firer and the center dot of the Climbing unit's hex passes through the cliff hexside it is Climbing unless the firer is occupying a hex formed by that cliff hexside."

If this is correct, then FF31 would have LOS, but GG28 would not. Even better, the whole question of whether "along" == "through" goes away. I have asked Perry for clarification.
I believe in this instance FF31 would not have a LOS to the climbing unit because the "Climb" counter is in hex HH29 and therefore FF31's LOS must lie along the HH29-GG29 cliff hexside to the vertex the climbing counter indicates. GG28 on the other hand is sighting along a cliff hexside to the same vertex but is not the cliff hexside being climbed, therefore a LOS should be open.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Now we just need to have somebody say that GG28 is blocked but FF31 open, and we'll have seen all four possible opinions to the OP!
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
GG28 is blocked because it leaves the confines of the road depiction.
FF31 is clear...as they are on different levels...?
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Neither LOS "CROSS" any Cliff depiction. Both are clear..
Check similar questions from other cliff threads.

IF there were a unit at base level in GG30 the bottom unit can see him the top cannot because of the CROSSING of the Cliff.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Neither LOS "CROSS" any Cliff depiction. Both are clear..
Check similar questions from other cliff threads.

IF there were a unit at base level in GG30 the bottom unit can see him the top cannot because of the CROSSING of the Cliff.
I agree that neither LOS "crosses" the depiction of the cliff being climbed. I will issue you the same challenge that I issued to Carl in another thread: draw me a LOS that does cross the hexside and thus would be blocked by B11.42. The example you've given (from GG30 and the others along that LOS) is the only one! I simply can't believe that if that single, solitary LOS was the only one the rule intended to block, then the rule would have been written in the way it has. Which means that this passage must have some esoteric meaning known only to @Perry. Hopefully MMP will enlighten us with some errata in the next journal.
 

Carln0130

Forum Guru
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
2,584
Location
MA
Country
llUnited States
To me both LOS shown are good. You can trace along the cliff LOS from HH28 to GG30, why not here. What you CAN'T do is trace LOS to the climbers vertex from FF30. Why? Because you go through the cliff hex on your way to the vertex AND you're not in the cliff hex.
 
Last edited:

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
  1. through" includes "along", so that our climbers are out of LOS of both French units.
  2. This is true even when the climbers climb up to level 4 (the reddish level).
Agree? Disagree?
Disagree on both counts
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Through and along are different. Both French units can see the climbing unit. A unit in FF30 could not see the climbing unit at any level since the LOS crosses the cliff hexside.

As for the second question, yes the attack would effect both climbing units.
I disagree with the attack affecting both units.
"All fire to a Climbing unit must be traced to a vertex of the hexside being Climbed. The correct Climbing vertex is designated by placing the Climb counter so that the arrow touches the vertex. "
If the counter is ambiguously placed, the opponent has his choice of which vertex to fire at. "

They are at different vertices and each has its own stacking limits.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
To me both LOS shown are good. You can trace along the cliff LOS from HH28 to GG30, why not here. What you CAN'T do is trace LOS to the climbers vertex from FF30. Why? Because you go through the cliff hex on your way to the vertex AND you're not in the cliff hex.
That's a really good way of verbalizing Klas' visually-presented theory from the other thread. I can also see how somebody who was slightly drunk might have intended to write that rule and actually wrote the rule we have today, which is a major point in it's favor. MMP errata-ing to your version shouldn't be too difficult, I think; something like "LOS may not be drawn to a Climbing unit through the higher of the two hexes forming the cliff hexside it is Climbing unless the firer is occupying a hex formed by that cliff hexside. All fire to a Climbing unit must be traced to a vertex of the hexside being Climbed."
 
Top